Richard Dawkins
British evolutionary biologist and author

Richard Dawkins

Former Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford; author of "The God Delusion" and "The Greatest Show on Earth."

 ALL POSTS

Let's Hope It's A Lasting Vogue

Athorism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Can there be a productive conversation between Valhallans and athorists? Naïve literalists apart, sophisticated thoreologians long ago ceased believing in the material substance of Thor's mighty hammer. But the spiritual essence of hammeriness remains a thunderingly enlightened relevation, and hammerological faith retains its special place in the eschatology of neo-Valhallism, while enjoying a productive conversation with the scientific theory of thunder in its non-overlapping magisterium. Militant athorists are their own worst enemy. Ignorant of the finer points of thoreology, they really should desist from their strident and intolerant strawmandering, and treat Thor-faith with the uniquely protected respect it has always received in the past. In any case, they are doomed to failure. People need Thor, and nothing will ever remove him from the culture. What are you going to put in his place?

Atheism means non-belief in the particular cult that happens to pervade the society under discussion. In America that means the cult of Yahweh, the God of the Jews commandeered by the Christians, Muslims and Mormons. Today, everyone takes it for granted that we are all atheists with respect to Thor and Wotan, Zeus and Poseidon, Mithras and Ammon Ra. If asked why you don't believe in Thor's hammer, you would probably say something like "Why is the onus on me to justify my nonbelief in Thor, given that there is not the smallest positive reason for belief?" You might go further and add that thunder, which was at one time attributed to Thor's hammer, now has a better explanation in terms of electric charges in the clouds. While technically agnostic about all those ancient gods, and about fairies and leprechauns too (you can't disprove them either), in practice we don't believe in any of them, and we feel no onus to explain why.

Today, while almost literally everybody is an athorist, nonbelief in the God of Abraham is the most reviled opinion in America. Professor Anthony M Stevens-Arroyo, one of the On Faith regular panellists, begins his answer to the current question as follows: "I never met an atheist I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly atheist, but I haven’t bumped into one yet. The atheists who have crossed my path are obnoxious . . ."

As an experiment, try substituting the word 'Jew' or 'woman' for 'atheist', and imagine whether a university professor who said those three sentences would keep his job. Yet in present day America, a professor (of "Latino Studies") can publish such odious remarks about atheists and get away with it.

Of those scientists distinguished enough to be elected to the National Academy, more than 90% do not believe in any kind of supernatural God. Needless to say, many of them are likeable, friendly and far from obnoxious, as well as being intelligent, well-educated, happy and productive citizens.

An equally high proportion of atheists has recently been disclosed among the Fellows of the Royal Society, and it is plausible that distinguished Academicians in philosophy, history, economics, literature and other disciplines, coming from the same educated and intelligent echelons of society, would yield similar data.

One must hope that a respectable proportion of the Congress is drawn from that same educational and intellectual elite, so it is a strong statistical expectation that many of them must be atheists too. Yet I believe I am correct that not a single one of the 535 members of Congress will admit to the fact. A good many have got to be lying, and who can blame them? If they came clean they would be unelectable, as polls have repeatedly confirmed. Atheists are widely assumed to have no morals or values, to have no purpose in life, and to be incapable of love, or of appreciating beauty in art or nature. Who would vote for one of those?

The premise of this week's question is that atheism is enjoying a certain vogue. I hope and believe it is not a flash in the pan. The symptoms of which I am aware are indeed encouraging. Dan Dennett's Breaking the Spelland Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation sold exhilaratingly well through 2006, and my own The God Delusionremains high in the bestseller lists into 2007.

Similar success is to be expected during 2007 for Christopher Hitchens's forthcoming God is Not Great, and Victor Stenger's God: the Failed Hypothesis. Such buoyant sales of books advocating out-and-out atheism would have been inconceivable until surprisingly recently. When, six years ago, I first proposed The God Delusion to my literary agent he was blunt: "Don't even think about it." Yet now, after six years of incipient Chrisitian theocracy . . .

On my recent book promotion tour of the USA, the standing ovations I consistently received from packed audiences around the country, (including in Kansas, and Lynchburg, Virginia as well as, more predictably, the so-called 'blue' states) owed nothing to any eloquence or writing skills of mine, and everything, I believe, to a pent-up frustration among reviled freethinkers. Time after time, in the long book- signing queues, young Americans (encouragingly young) confided to me, "Thank you, thank you, thank you for saying the things that I have wanted to say, but never felt I could" (see www.RichardDawkins.net).

Sam Harris and Dan Dennett report similar experiences from equally large audiences. There is widespread hope that we are seeing the beginnings of a long-overdue shift in the tectonic plates of our culture. Polls suggest that atheists are far more numerous in America than they themselves realize. They well outnumber the Jews, whose political lobby packs a legendarily powerful clout.

It is time for America's atheists to take courage from this, and from the books I have mentioned, come out of the closet, stand up, recognize each other, and work together to exert their rightfully proportionate influence on this great democracy. If those books are, as is often dismissively said, preaching to the choir, do not underestimate its size or ability. This is a very large and very talented choir, and the time has come for its music to be heard.


By Richard Dawkins  |  January 1, 2007; 12:23 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: There Is No Right or Wrong Way | Next: Religious Moderates Need to Speak Up

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



Posted by: fucidin | July 29, 2008 8:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: fucidin | July 29, 2008 8:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

veiq mezdqf skxzoy
http://www.tophomestay.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=96733 stress relief hypnosis

Posted by: stress relief hypnosis | July 29, 2008 6:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

sgaqd twvadu yhmlje geyuz
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2201 cefpodoxime proxetil

Posted by: cefpodoxime proxetil | July 29, 2008 1:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: erythromycin | July 28, 2008 11:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: actos | July 28, 2008 9:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: sarafem | July 28, 2008 6:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: wellbutrin sr | July 28, 2008 4:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

vmckqhl blujzk sayn senfij
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2092 clomipramine

Posted by: clomipramine | July 28, 2008 2:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

vmckqhl blujzk sayn senfij
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2092 clomipramine

Posted by: clomipramine | July 28, 2008 2:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: piroxicam | July 28, 2008 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: motrin | July 28, 2008 9:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: phenyltoloxamine | July 28, 2008 6:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: trental | July 28, 2008 4:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: trental | July 28, 2008 4:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

niqser dyebjl uosi
http://www.cosmesil.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=510 extreme thyrocin

Posted by: extreme thyrocin | July 28, 2008 2:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

niqser dyebjl uosi
http://www.cosmesil.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=510 extreme thyrocin

Posted by: extreme thyrocin | July 28, 2008 2:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: revia | July 27, 2008 11:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: revia | July 27, 2008 11:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

oxyvgpi jskzc csohmyg igep
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1893 levonorgestrel

Posted by: levonorgestrel | July 25, 2008 4:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: anastrozole | July 25, 2008 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: provera | July 25, 2008 11:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: provera | July 25, 2008 11:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: zyvox | July 25, 2008 9:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: zyvox | July 25, 2008 9:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

gtxvfhy mfdjkqt qywrc mwrhk
http://www.slpcommunity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=515 amoxicillin

Posted by: amoxicillin | July 25, 2008 7:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

gtxvfhy mfdjkqt qywrc mwrhk
http://www.slpcommunity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=515 amoxicillin

Posted by: amoxicillin | July 25, 2008 6:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: rimonabant labeling | July 25, 2008 4:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy rimonabant online | July 25, 2008 1:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

glkhq gtjq psvce klqxvzr
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1651 fda drug approvals zimulti

Posted by: fda drug approvals zimulti | July 24, 2008 9:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

glkhq gtjq psvce klqxvzr
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1651 fda drug approvals zimulti

Posted by: fda drug approvals zimulti | July 24, 2008 9:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

xcrbtm rehc fsky qikrphj
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1726 rimonabant sanofi synthelabo

Posted by: rimonabant sanofi synthelabo | July 24, 2008 4:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: urispas | July 24, 2008 2:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

yvbp dqvzrl amolz
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1703 rimonabant gewicht

Posted by: rimonabant gewicht | July 24, 2008 7:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

yvbp dqvzrl amolz
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1703 rimonabant gewicht

Posted by: rimonabant gewicht | July 24, 2008 7:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: rimonabant study | July 24, 2008 5:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: fda rimonabant | July 24, 2008 3:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: rimonabant | July 24, 2008 1:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: rimonabant | July 24, 2008 1:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: nizoral | July 23, 2008 4:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

vulywos lbhdpc icnwx stgnvhw
http://www.slpcommunity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=460 karela

Posted by: karela | July 23, 2008 10:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: miglitol | July 23, 2008 8:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: urispas | July 23, 2008 6:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: imdur | July 23, 2008 4:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: tramaden | July 23, 2008 2:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

vlzkhxw flhs lcakw zufip
http://www.slpcommunity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=354 infusium topical

Posted by: infusium topical | July 23, 2008 12:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: quibron-t | July 22, 2008 10:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: colostrum-800 | July 22, 2008 8:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: colostrum-800 | July 22, 2008 8:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

xwqf yplet pjhm lfnhm
http://www.cosmesil.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=282 anaphen hardcore

Posted by: anaphen hardcore | July 22, 2008 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

qnxvl vchseox
http://www.cosmesil.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=261 advantage carb blocker

Posted by: advantage carb blocker | July 22, 2008 4:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

qnxvl vchseox
http://www.cosmesil.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=261 advantage carb blocker

Posted by: advantage carb blocker | July 22, 2008 4:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: alli | July 22, 2008 2:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

tcoxlq lgzab yuqdj fdsxne
http://www.cosmesil.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=225 bust enhancer

Posted by: bust enhancer | July 22, 2008 11:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

favxpsj rwpea rfpu
http://www.cosmesil.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=221 women's intimacy enhancer cream

Posted by: women's intimacy enhancer cream | July 22, 2008 7:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: sarafem | July 22, 2008 3:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

wsprhk rawogd jkflsta
http://www.cosmesil.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=157 levonorgestrel

Posted by: levonorgestrel | July 22, 2008 1:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: female passion strips | July 21, 2008 11:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: zometa | July 21, 2008 10:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: nitroglycerin | July 21, 2008 9:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: nitroglycerin | July 21, 2008 9:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

hlzspi qhax qwihdpf dnifply
http://www.cosmesil.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=70 herbal testosterone

Posted by: herbal testosterone | July 7, 2008 7:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: retin-a | July 7, 2008 7:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: combivent | July 6, 2008 10:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: lukol | June 27, 2008 3:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: lukol | June 27, 2008 3:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: letrozole | June 27, 2008 12:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: letrozole | June 27, 2008 12:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: brite cream | June 27, 2008 9:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

toawc zufbh klwxuaf yidlqsk
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=936 venlafaxine

Posted by: venlafaxine | June 27, 2008 4:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: citalopram | June 27, 2008 2:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: citalopram | June 27, 2008 2:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: fluvoxamine | June 26, 2008 11:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: l-arginine | June 26, 2008 5:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

bjmnpq lwqgc snibtu
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=807 anaphen hardcore

Posted by: anaphen hardcore | June 26, 2008 3:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

bjmnpq lwqgc snibtu
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=807 anaphen hardcore

Posted by: anaphen hardcore | June 26, 2008 3:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: metabosafe | June 26, 2008 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: metabosafe | June 26, 2008 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: alli | June 26, 2008 8:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: evista | June 26, 2008 5:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

fhgql mtgj thrnjsq sjtaum
http://www.allcaboverde.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1657 ranitidine

Posted by: ranitidine | June 26, 2008 2:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

fhgql mtgj thrnjsq sjtaum
http://www.allcaboverde.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1657 ranitidine

Posted by: ranitidine | June 26, 2008 2:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: coumadin | June 25, 2008 4:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: cordarone | June 25, 2008 1:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: vytorin | June 24, 2008 10:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: lipostatin | June 24, 2008 3:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: lipostatin | June 24, 2008 3:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: breast enhancement | June 24, 2008 7:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: breast enhancement | June 24, 2008 7:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: ibuprofen | June 24, 2008 1:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: ibuprofen | June 24, 2008 1:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: naprosyn | June 23, 2008 10:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: baclofen | June 23, 2008 7:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: baclofen | June 23, 2008 7:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

drqyf emibo thvcfj xycauhb
http://www.allcaboverde.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1528 famciclovir

Posted by: famciclovir | June 23, 2008 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: loprox | June 23, 2008 2:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: ivermectin | June 23, 2008 10:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: cleocin | June 23, 2008 7:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: gyne-lotrimin | June 23, 2008 5:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: arimidex | June 23, 2008 2:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

vkbh tmdrnc enfwglz vhrpqbx
http://www.allcaboverde.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1353 vibramycin

Posted by: vibramycin | June 20, 2008 1:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

eibvakz ugbeo batl
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=495 thc marijuana strip test

Posted by: thc marijuana strip test | June 19, 2008 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

nyrvmf tkzqn kfdwy oirm
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=474 breast enlargement patch

Posted by: breast enlargement patch | June 19, 2008 7:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

amdnr dpxqnj hkiplz dgrs
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=453 professional plasma tooth whitening kit

Posted by: professional plasma tooth whitening kit | June 19, 2008 4:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: retin-a | June 19, 2008 2:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: cyproheptadine | June 18, 2008 11:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: purim | June 18, 2008 8:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: purim | June 18, 2008 8:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

drsfm moytzvq optf
http://www.allcaboverde.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1262 minoxidil solution

Posted by: minoxidil solution | June 18, 2008 5:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

vctw gsozalf kqovyt hbxzsai
http://www.allcaboverde.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1220 tranexamic acid

Posted by: tranexamic acid | June 18, 2008 12:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

vctw gsozalf kqovyt hbxzsai
http://www.allcaboverde.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1220 tranexamic acid

Posted by: tranexamic acid | June 18, 2008 12:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

whdizq yxnmrdf ohpf
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=435 hyaluronic acid

Posted by: hyaluronic acid | June 18, 2008 4:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

whdizq yxnmrdf ohpf
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=435 hyaluronic acid

Posted by: hyaluronic acid | June 18, 2008 4:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: nexium | June 18, 2008 1:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: zetia | June 17, 2008 11:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: labetalol | June 17, 2008 9:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: aceon | June 17, 2008 6:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: aceon | June 17, 2008 6:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

ustwpfo rspd gweohv jhzugc
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=307 clonidine

Posted by: clonidine | June 17, 2008 2:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

ustwpfo rspd gweohv jhzugc
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=307 clonidine

Posted by: clonidine | June 17, 2008 2:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

afiqcxz
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1602 5 panel drug test with adulteration

Posted by: 5 panel drug test with adulteration | June 17, 2008 12:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

afiqcxz
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1602 5 panel drug test with adulteration

Posted by: 5 panel drug test with adulteration | June 17, 2008 12:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

zjsavg jmyp
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21541 celebrex effects effects from side vioxx

Posted by: celebrex effects effects from side vioxx | June 17, 2008 9:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

yujt
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21475 generic celebrex in the united states

Posted by: generic celebrex in the united states | June 17, 2008 6:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Buy Pain Relief
[url=http://www.youtube.com/user/allenasum]Pain Relief Medication[/url]
http://www.youtube.com/user/allenasum

Posted by: pain relief prescription | June 17, 2008 6:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

mxdbijs avqif rlpmg
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21410 celebrex benefits side effects risks

Posted by: celebrex benefits side effects risks | June 17, 2008 4:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

mxdbijs avqif rlpmg
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21410 celebrex benefits side effects risks

Posted by: celebrex benefits side effects risks | June 17, 2008 4:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

dnjq
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21343 celebrex cancer boards shop qoclick

Posted by: celebrex cancer boards shop qoclick | June 17, 2008 1:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

xirfkp ypmhqkr urmhpqy
http://web.bsu.edu/capic/greatneighborhoods/forum8/forum_posts.asp?TID=1212 3 panel drug test thc-coc-met

Posted by: 3 panel drug test thc-coc-met | June 16, 2008 11:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

http://yooenln.1sweethost.com
Craps Casino Games
[url=http://yooenln.1sweethost.com]Craps Casino Games[/url]

Posted by: Craps Casino Games | June 16, 2008 8:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

zcxnoep aprzqfy kfdq
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20116 419 celebrex and heart attacks 603

Posted by: 419 celebrex and heart attacks 603 | June 16, 2008 8:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

dtuwsvf azegfro fwsimd
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20049 mobic as alternative to celebrex

Posted by: mobic as alternative to celebrex | June 16, 2008 6:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

dtuwsvf azegfro fwsimd
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=20049 mobic as alternative to celebrex

Posted by: mobic as alternative to celebrex | June 16, 2008 6:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

qnsdrl ltqcg bojd
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19981 allergic skin rash from celebrex

Posted by: allergic skin rash from celebrex | June 16, 2008 3:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

qnsdrl ltqcg bojd
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19981 allergic skin rash from celebrex

Posted by: allergic skin rash from celebrex | June 16, 2008 3:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

vzgbaj nhzmy ktsw syvqml
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19919 celebrex bextra boards chongqed

Posted by: celebrex bextra boards chongqed | June 16, 2008 1:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

tgcd gwnd
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19853 colorado celebrex side effects

Posted by: colorado celebrex side effects | June 16, 2008 10:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

drsxo mahpqn
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19729 celebrex lawsuit online vioxx

Posted by: celebrex lawsuit online vioxx | June 16, 2008 5:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

shzlxti vfrc
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19672 arizona celebrex side effects

Posted by: arizona celebrex side effects | June 16, 2008 3:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

shzlxti vfrc
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19672 arizona celebrex side effects

Posted by: arizona celebrex side effects | June 16, 2008 3:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

egbl uvgk jfzbn gplzws
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19606 celebrex molecular structure

Posted by: celebrex molecular structure | June 16, 2008 12:37 AM
Report Offensive Comment

yato cztygae vpanlt vtcdew
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19426 attack heart stroke celebrex

Posted by: attack heart stroke celebrex | June 15, 2008 7:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

AUTHENTIC RECORD OF GEOLOGY. SCIENTIST CAN’T CALCULATE THE AGE OF THE EARTH.

Regarding the scientific explanation of the earth’s creation, there are ways to know it by natural speculation or by a historical record. A cording to natural speculation, one meditates observe and conjectures about the creation. In a historical record, we go by what it says.
Consider this:
The earth does not have six thousand years it has billion of years.
It was created, then judge, became void, the big bang happened, finally restored.

We believe that the entire Bible is the Word of God, and every word of it is inspired. A very grievous thought in the mind of godly ones is that men have despised and opposed His Word. God's children are grieved because men do not respect God's statutes. Among the sixty-six books of the Bible, Genesis has been subjected to the most doubt. Those who oppose the Bible often try to overturn God's clear revelation with geological ages and prehistoric discoveries. The evidences in geology prove to them that the earth has been in existence for tens of thousands of years, and that the record of six thousand years of history in the Bible is untrustworthy.
In the name of science, the world hurls its attacks on the book of Genesis. Many dear brothers in the Lord are not that scholarly (the author being one of them) and become lost in this storm. Although geology does not form part of our meditation, for the benefit of all, we will study the Word of God by the Lord's grace at the commencement of our meditation and will consider how perfect is His Word, so that we can silently behold His beauty in His presence.
Genesis is God's revelation, while geology is man's invention. God knows the whole truth. As such, His revelation can never be wrong. Man only sees in part. As such, his conjectures are not accurate. When we place Genesis side by side with geology, we should follow Genesis and not geology, because it is God who stands behind Genesis. If there are any basic differences between Genesis and geology, the error must be on the side of geology. The authority of the Bible is undisputed. Everything that is contrary to the Bible is wrong. Thank God our Father that He has given us such a complete revelation. If there are any incompatibilities between God and man, we would rather give up man and accept God.
Men often laugh at the ridiculous stories of creation circulated among the Chinese, the Babylonians, and other countries. No scientist has to spend much effort to refute these myths. The reason is that there is not much weight to these traditions. This is why they have not attracted much attention.
But men's attitudes towards the Bible are very different. The very fact that they have tried their best to resist the Bible proves the power of the Bible. They cannot treat the Bible the same as the traditions of the nations because they have recognized the extraordinary nature of the Bible.
All those who have read Genesis 1 cannot fail to marvel at the beauty of its record. How ordinary it is, yet how marvelous! It is a plain record and contains no theory or arguments to prove its authenticity. The writer of the book was not bound by the book, but was transcendent above its record. The true author of the book is the One who is far above the universe it describes—God. Had the recorder of the book, Moses, written this book according to his own learning and ideas, his thoroughly Egyptian-trained intellect would surely have been influenced by the Egyptian theory of creation. Yet who can detect a trace of Egyptian philosophy in Genesis 1? Why is this? It is because God was the One who inspired Moses to do the writing. Otherwise, how could Moses know that the land came out of the water? This is, of course, a fact established by geology and is a modern discovery.
Had Moses not been inspired, it would be difficult to explain this fact. As to the development of life on earth, although the Bible does not support the theory of evolution, it does not altogether reject the fact that there was a progression.
First, there were aquatic organisms, and then there was man. Would not a scientist marvel at the record of Moses? The omniscient God must surely have given inspiration according to facts; those who were inspired by such an omniscient God cannot be in error. Yet the Bible is not a textbook of science. Its goal is to guide sinners "unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).
Nevertheless, the Bible does not contain any scientific errors. If there are any contradictions with science, it is either a misinterpretation of the Scripture or a misjudgment of science. Many of the definitive statements by geologists in the past have been overturned! Many of their assertions have been proven wrong.
Cummings said, "Geology has made mistakes in the past. It is possible that it will be wrong again. The hasty and loud assertions by those who are not too familiar with its theories may be proved inaccurate again."Since the Bible is not a science textbook, it only mentions the "what’s" of creation without mentioning the "whys." Science is interested in the "whys." Of course, in many cases it is successful in doing this. But one must not overturn the "what’s" with theoretical "whys" just because man's finite mental research has come into conflict with God's record. What God said are the facts because He knows everything. If the world wants to study what God has said and why He has said it, it must not hold on to its own ideas while rejecting God's authority. It is a good thing to have wisdom, but there is one kind of foolishness which is more blessed.
Among Christians, there is a popular theory that Genesis 1:1 is a kind of general introduction, and that the work of the six days is actually an expansion of the record of verse 1. In other words, they consider the words "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" as merely a subject of Genesis 1. They say that in the first sentence the writer wrote down a summary of what he was about to say, after which he went at length into an explanation of this sentence.
After telling us that God created the heaven and the earth, Genesis goes on to tell us the condition of the earth after creation, and how He created light, air, the land, the plants, and the animals day by day. This popular theory considers Genesis 1 as a record of the creation of the universe, and that the universe was created out of desolation.
If we study the first chapter of the Bible carefully, we will see the error in this supposition! This erroneous supposition, not the Bible itself, has put the church into a great debate with the world. This supposition gives men the excuse to say that Genesis is incompatible with geology and casts doubts in the minds of many young people concerning the accuracy of the Bible. In Hebrew, the original language, there are altogether seven words in Genesis 1:1. Each of these seven words has independent meanings. God's inspired record does not say that at the beginning of time, God molded the heavens and the earth into being, or that He made them out of some elements. It says that the heavens and the earth were created. How clear is the word created!
To create is to make something out of nothing; it is to create something out of void. It is not to make something out of some existing elements. The word create is Bara in the original language. "In the beginning , God Bara the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). The word Bara is used three other times in Genesis 1 and 2:
(1) "And God created (Bara) great whales, and every living creature that moved, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good" (v. 21).
(2) "So God created (Bara) man in his own image" (v. 27a).
(3) "In it he had rested from all his work which God created (Bara) and made" (2:3b).
To create is to make something out of nothing. The great whales and every living creature do not have an outward body only, but a life-element within them. The only way that this can be done is through God's direct work of creation. This is why it says that God created the great whales and every living creature (1:21). There is a very good reason for the Bible to say "created" instead of "made."
In the same way, although man's body was made from the dust, 2:7 tells us that man has a spirit and a soul which cannot be made from any physical material. This is why the Bible says that God created man according to His own image. In Genesis 2 there are three words for the act of creation:
(1) Bara, which means to make something out of nothing. We have covered this briefly.
(2) Asah, which means to make. This word is very different from the first. Bara is to make something out of nothing, while asah means that there is some raw material first, and then something is made out of the raw material. A carpenter can make a chair, but he cannot create a chair. In describing most of the work during the six days, this word is used.
(3) Yatsar, which means to complete, has the sense of a potter molding a piece of clay into shape. This is the word used for formed in 2:7. Isaiah 43:7 shows the relationship between these three words: "Everyone who is called by my name, whom I have created, formed, and even made for my glory." To create is to make something out of nothing, to form is to mold into shape, and to make is to work from some material.
Genesis 1:1 uses the word Bara. The phrase in the beginning is a further proof that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing. There is no need of any hypothesis. Since God has said this, man should believe. If man wants to fathom God's work in the beginning with his finite mind, he will only expose his own presumptuousness! "By faith we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God" (Heb. 11:3).
Furthermore, who can answer God's challenge to Job concerning the creation? God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning. The heaven does not refer to the heaven that surrounds our earth but rather to the heaven of the stars. This "heaven" has not changed since the creation of the universe. Although the heaven has never changed, the condition on earth has changed! If we want to understand Genesis 1, it is very important to differentiate between the earth in verse 1 and the earth in verse 2. The condition of the earth in verse 2 was not the condition at the beginning of God's creation.
In the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth, His creation was perfect. God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). Therefore, the condition of void and confusion in verse 2 was not the original condition at the time of God's creation. How could God possibly have created an earth that was void and without form?
We can answer this question by reading one verse alone.
"For thus says Jehovah, Who created the heavens. He is the God . Who formed the earth and made it; He established it; He did not create it waste, But He formed it to be inhabited: I am Jehovah and there is no one else" (Isa. 45:18).
How clear this is! The word waste in this verse is the same as the word without form in Genesis 1:2, which thou are in Hebrew. Unfortunately, translators of the Bible have not used the same word in both places. "He did not create it [the earth] without form." Why then does Genesis 1:2 say that "the earth was without form"? It is easy to find the solution.
In Genesis 1:1, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth that God created then was not void and without form. Later there was a cataclysm, and the earth became without form and void. Verse 3 does not refer to the original creation, but to a restored earth.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and then during the six days, He re-created the world. The world in Genesis 1:1 was the original world, while the world in 1:3 is our present world.
Genesis 1:2 describes the transitional condition of desolation after the initial world and prior to our present world. We do not base our explanation on Isaiah 45:18 alone (even though Isaiah 45:18 alone is sufficient as a proof). We have other evidences. According to Bible scholars, in Hebrew the first word in verse 2 is a conjunction, which should be translated as and. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth was without form, and void."The "and," according to Hebrew usage—as well as that of most other languages—proves that the first verse is not a compendium of what follows, but a statement of the first event in the record.
For if it were a mere summary, the second verse would be the actual commencement of the history, and certainly would not begin with a copulative. A good illustration of this may be found in the fifth chapter of Genesis (Gen. 5:1). There the opening words, "This is the book of the generations of Adam," are a compendium of the chapter, and, consequently, the next sentence begins without a copulative. — G.H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, 1942, reprinted 1975, p. 31.
“Therefore, what follows in Genesis 1:2 is not a detailed explanation of the record in 1:1, but an independent, distinct, and later event”. The creation of the heavens and the earth is one thing, and the earth becoming without form and void is another. Later we will explain why the earth became void and without form. About a hundred years ago, Dr. Chalmers pointed out that the word was in "the earth was without form" should be translated became. Dr. I.M. Haldeman, G.H. Pember, and others also pointed out that this word is the same as the word became used in Genesis 19:26. "And she became a pillar of salt." If the same word is translated became in 19:26, why should it not be translated the same way here? Even the word became in 2:7 is the same word as in 1:2. Therefore, it is not hypothetical to translate 1:2 the following way: "And the earth became without form." When God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was not without form and void. Later it became such. Let us read a few more verses:"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1). "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that in them is" (Exo. 20:11).
Comparing these two verses, we can see that the world in Genesis 1:1 was very different from the world in 1:3. In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, but in the six days, God made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them. There is a vast difference between create and make. One is to have something from nothing, while the other is to improve the things that are in existence. The world can make, but it cannot create, while God can both create and make. This is why Genesis says that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Later because of the cataclysm, the earth became desolate, and "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is" (Exo. 20:11).Second Peter 3:5 through 7 says the same thing. The heavens and the earth in verse 5 are the heaven and the earth in Genesis 1:1. Verse 6 speaks of the world flooded with water, which is the earth that was without form and void and that was under the water in Genesis 1:2. "The heavens and earth now" in verse 7 is the restored world after Genesis 1:3. There is a clear difference between God's work in the six days and His work of creation at the beginning. The more we read Genesis 1, the more we will see that our explanation above is the proper one.
In the first day light was called into being. Before the first day there was already land, but it was "without form and void" and was buried in the deep under the water. On the third day God did not create the land; He merely caused it to appear.
F.W. Grant said that the work of the six days merely put a new order to the earth; it did not create something out of nothing. The earth was there already. The Bible never says that the earth was created during the six days. Grant also said, "At which point did the first day begin? Some may think that it began from desolation. Yet this is not true. The `evening' on the first day indicates light had been there since the beginning. `The darkness he called Night,' yet the `evening' is a darkness that is already under the control of light."In the first day God did not create the light; He merely caused the light to appear on the darkened earth.
In the same way in the second day, He did not create the heaven. The heaven there was not the heavens, but the atmospheric "heaven" which surrounds the earth. This was not created then. Where then did the atmosphere come from? Our answer is that it was created in verse 1. Therefore, there was no need now to create; there was only the need to restore."In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." There is no detailed discussion here. We do not know if the primordial world was created in an instant or became what it was through an endless period of time. We do not know if it was completed in a few thousand years or millions of years. We do not know the shape and the size of it. All that we know is that "in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." We do not know how many years there were between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1. We do not know how long ago God created the heaven and the earth, and we do not know how many years after the creation of the primordial world did the desolation of verse 2 occur. But we believe that there was a long period of time between the perfect creation at the beginning and the later change into something that was without form and void."In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." How much later was it that "the earth became without form and void"? We cannot tell. But we know one thing: there was a long gap between the two expressions. This long gap between the first two verses of Genesis covers the whole prehistoric period.
But from verse 3 until now there are less than six thousand years. Since we have proved that there is a big gap between the first two verses of the Bible, all the years which geology demands to exist and all the geological periods associated with these years can fall within this period. We do not know how much time passed on the earth and how many changes occurred on the earth's surfaces and in the atmosphere before there was the condition of void and formlessness; the Bible does not say anything about it.
But we can say for sure that the Bible never says that our earth is only six thousand years old. The Bible only testifies that there are six thousand years of human history. If the Bible has not said something, science can conjecture all it wants. But science cannot form conjectures on what the Bible has already said. After we understand the first two verses of the Bible, we can be assured that there is no contradiction between the Bible and geology. All the attacks by geology on the Bible are beating the air.
How wonderful is the Word God has written! We are not saying this to please science. God's revelation never wavers before man. We do not give up the Bible's authority in order to accommodate man's inventions. If there are any contradictions between the Bible and science, (and we would expect there to be some, because fleshly man is always at enmity with God), we have no intention to reconcile and annul these differences. The above assertion was not proposed after some geological discoveries, in an effort to reconcile the Bible with science.
There were men in the ancient church who spoke about this. At that time, geology was not yet in existence! When men like St. Augustus interpreted Genesis, the world did not yet have the term geology! A Christian does not trust in human wisdom, but in God's Word. We need nothing other than the sure rock of the Bible. As long as we have the "it is written" (Matt. 4:6) in the Scripture, everything is solved.
Unfortunately, many apologetics have forgotten their ground; they change the words of the Scripture to accommodate man's teaching. An example is given by A.W. Pink, who noted that after the translation of a certain Assyrian tablet, the apologetics enthusiastically reported that much of the Old Testament history was verified! This turns things upside down! Does the Word of God need verification? If the record on the Assyrian tablet coincides with that of the Bible, it only shows that the Assyrian tablets have no historical error. If they do not agree, it merely proves that the tablets are in error. Worldly men and vain scientists will of course scorn at our logic. But this only goes to demonstrate God's Word which says, "But a soul’s man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he is not able to know them because they are discerned spiritually" (1 Cor. 2:14).
We must never lower ourselves to appease men. It seems like a good idea to change the Bible to suit man's taste, but doing so changes the true nature of the Bible. How wonderful is Genesis 1! It devotes only one verse to the description of the first creation! It uses only one verse to describe the desolation of the world! This is far less than the thirty or so verses that describe the restoration of the world! Who can come up with a composition that matches the record of Genesis 1?
The subject is difficult, yet the explanation is clear; the facts span a long time, yet the description is simple. It does not talk about science, yet it is scientifically accurate. Who except God can compose such writing? The reason God did not say more than this is that He only intended to show man His own relationship with man. J.N. Darby said: This revelation from God is not a history by Him of all that He has done, but what has been given to man for his profit, the truth as to what he has to say to. Its object is to communicate to man all that regards his own relationship with God...But historically the revelation is partial. It communicates what is for the conscience and spiritual affections of man...Thus no mention is made of any heavenly beings...Thus also, regards this earth, except the fact of its creation, nothing is said of it beyond what relates to the present form of it. — The Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, reprinted 1970, p. 9.
Indeed, God's revelation is not given to satisfy human curiosity, but to manifest His Godhead, the world's sinfulness, the way of salvation, and the coming glory and judgments. The present worldly knowledge is indeed dangerous. Unless God bestows grace on man, man would boast in himself and use the knowledge he acquires as a basis to oppose God. How difficult it is for an intellectual person to humble himself! Man can search for knowledge as much as he wants. But God will not supplement this with His revelation. This is why He does not say much in Genesis 1. Our present need is not more science, but deeper spiritual fellowship. Only this will reap real fruit in eternity. We have to praise God the Father because He is full of love! He not only created us, but re-created us, and made us a new creation in the Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus! How sweet is this name! God has given us His Son. What a marvelous grace this is!

THE ORIGINAL WORLD AND AFTERWORDS DESOLATION
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth perfect. Later, after an unknown period of time, the earth which was originally good became waste and empty, without any life whatsoever. God then rose up to recreate the world; He restored the desolate world in six days. Now we will consider why the world became desolate. How could God allow the work of His hands to be destroyed? Why did such a catastrophe come upon the once beautiful earth? There is probably no other reason besides sin. The question we are considering has no perfectly clear explanation in the Bible.
Nevertheless, we can find many shimmering lights in the Word of God which will enlighten us concerning this question and which will enable us to have a little more understanding concerning the former world and the cause of its desolation. Only the Word of God can guide us and our thoughts.
The understanding of His Word, regardless of the question being discussed, always brings us edification. The greatest vanity is the reasoning’s in man's mind which do not rest on the foundation of God's Word. Although in reading Genesis 3 we cannot find Satan's name, we all know that the serpent was Satan's vessel and perhaps was even the embodiment of the devil. Revelation 12:9 say, "And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan, he who deceives the whole inhabited earth."
Genesis 1 gives no record of the creation of Satan. Where did he come from? This is a problem. Furthermore, we can see many evil spirits in both the Old and New Testaments; we meet them even more frequently in the Gospels. Where did they come from? We also do not see the creation of angels in the six days of work in Genesis 1. Where, then, did the angels who are frequently mentioned in the Bible come from? These questions are all related to our subject.
Since the creation of the angels and the other supernatural beings is not recorded in Genesis 1, which covers the work of God during six days, we know that they were not created during that time. Since they were not created within these six days, when were they created?
The only explanation is that they were creatures of the former world—the original, perfect world. As the fossil remains clearly show, not only were disease and death—inseparable companions of sin—then prevalent among the living creatures of the earth, but even ferocity and slaughter.
And the fact proves that these remains have nothing to do with our world; since the Bible declares that all things made by God during the Six Days were very good, and that no evil was in them till Adam sinned...Since, then, the fossil remains are those of creatures anterior to Adam, and yet show evident tokens of disease, death, and mutual destruction, they must have belonged to another world and have a sin-stained history of their own, a history which ended in the ruin of themselves and their habitation. — G. H. Pember, Earth's Earliest Ages, 1942, reprinted 1975, pp. 34-35.
By reading Jeremiah 4:23-26, we see the reason why the earth became waste and emptiness. Verse 26 says that it was due to "His [Jehovah's] burning anger." Why was the Lord so angry? It was probably because of the sin of the creatures at that time.
Isaiah 24:1 says that "Jehovah now makes the earth desolate." Why would the Lord destroy the earth of His original creation? Judging from the history of our own world, we can answer that it was probably because of the sin of the earth's inhabitants which forced God to judge them. We have said before that when we read Genesis, we do not see the origin of Satan. As we look into the cause of earth's desolation in the beginning, our mind will naturally think "an enemy has done this" (Matt. 13:28).
Other than attributing the cause to Satan, it seems that we cannot find any other clues in the Bible. We will study a portion of the Bible which seems to tell us the origin of God's enemy and thereby we may know the condition of the former world and the cause of its becoming desolate. Let us now read Ezekiel 28:1-19. These nineteen verses are divided into two sections: (1) verses 1-10 concern the prophet's warning to the prince of Tyrus, and (2) verses 11-19 concern the prophet's lamentations upon the king of Tyrus. The first section, a word to the prince of Tyrus, is easy to understand. He was exalted with pride, considered himself God, and thought that he was wiser than Daniel. Due to his progress in commerce, he became puffed up. Therefore God punished him, causing him to be slain and destroyed by the terrible of the nations. Soon after this prophecy, Nebuchadnezzar of the Chaldeans came and destroyed Tyre. Josephus believed that the prince of Tyrus was Ithobalus, who was called Ithobaal II in the history of the Phoenicians. Since we know that this prophecy has already been fulfilled, it is not difficult for us to interpret verses 1 through 10. But when we read on from verses 11 through 19, we find many places that we do not understand. Since this portion of the Word is very much related to the subject which we are studying now, we quote the text in full:
Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord God; Thou seals up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou was created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covered; and I have set thee so: thou was upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou was perfect in thy ways from the day that thou was created, till iniquity was found in thee. By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty; thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffic; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more (Ezek. 28:11-19).
This section is indeed hard to understand, for it contains many expressions which cannot be applied to any mortal man.
If the "king of Tyrus" were only a mortal man, how could we explain the things in verses 11 through 15? How could the king of Tyrus have been in the Garden of Eden or upon the holy mountain of God? How could he have been the anointed cherub that covered the ark? None of the things mentioned here had been the experience of the king of Tyros’. We cannot explain this section simply by spiritualizing it. It is unfair if we spiritualize the interpretation of a section when we encounter difficulties in it. I believe that the first section (vv. 1-10) addressed to the prince of Tyros’ was a word spoken to King Ithobalus II, and the second section (vv. 11-19), the lamentation upon the king of Tyros’, denotes the coming Antichrist. Verse 2 of this chapter speaks of Tyro "in the midst of the seas." By reading Daniel 11:41-45, we know that when the coming Antichrist will be in Palestine, perhaps he will dwell at Tyro. That is why he was called the king of Tyro here. Moreover, Antichrist is Satan incarnate; therefore, numerous expressions in this section refer to Satan himself.
Mr. Darby said, "Verses 11-19, while continuing to speak of Tyro, go, I think, much farther, and disclose, though darkly, the fall and the ways of Satan, become through our sin the prince and god of this world." Dr. A. C. Gaebelein also said that the king of Tyro is a type of the last great sinner (Antichrist), that behind this evil king, we see another power that is Satan; Satan was the power behind the king of Tyros’ then, and he still is the god of this age now, who rules the nations of this world. If we have studied the Scriptures carefully, we will realize that the justification for merging Satan and Antichrist in this passage into one being is not contrary to the general teachings of the Scriptures. We know that, although human beings have their own will, their walk is either directed by God's operating (Phil. 2:13) or by the operating of the evil spirits (Eph. 2:2). Human beings are never totally free. Ordinarily, human beings are under the control of the evil spirits. Sometimes, in important matters, Satan himself, in addition to the working of evil spirits, will also participate in the work. Hence, we see him personally coming to tempt Christ in the wilderness. Later, in trying to hinder Christ from going to the cross, he personally used Peter. After that, in attempting to destroy Christ, he entered into Judas. Eventually, on the world stage he will be united to Antichrist. Scripture says that the works of Antichrist are "according to Satan's operation" (2 Thess. 2:9); it is Satan who "gave him his power and his throne and great authority" (Rev. 13:2). Since Antichrist is the incarnated devil, the Holy Spirit speaks of him together with Satan in this passage. In these few verses, the superhuman aspects all refer to Satan himself, and the remainder to Antichrist. Since our purpose is not to study the question of Antichrist, but to know the creatures of the former world and the cause of its desolation, we shall put aside the verses in this portion concerning the Antichrist and concentrate on Satan, who is related to our subject.
Now let us consider the words that refer to Satan. Ezekiel 28:12 says that Satan (Note: "Satan" is the name used after he had sinned; he was called the "son of the dawn" and also "Daystar" or "Lucifer" (Isa. 14:12) before his fall. "Satan," which means "adversary," is his name after the fall. For the sake of convenience, we shall call him Satan in the following paragraphs.) "Sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." This depicts his condition before he had sinned. He was superior to all the other angels. Phrases like "sealest up the sum," "full of," and "perfect" reveal that he was the greatest of all the creation. God had put him above all the creation. Being "full of wisdom" probably refers to his understanding of God's will; if this is true, he might have had the office of a prophet already.
The first part of Ezekiel 28:13 says, "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering." When we read Genesis 3, we indeed see Satan there. However, he was not being covered by "every precious stone"; he was tempting Adam and Eve. Hence, the two gardens of Eden are not of the same time. In Adam's Garden of Eden, Satan had fallen, whereas here, it clearly depicts the situation before his fall. Hence, the garden of Eden here must be earlier than the one at Adam's time. If so, then it must not have belonged to the present world but to the previous one. This Garden of Eden, like the coming New Jerusalem, had many precious stones, such as sardius, beryl, etc. The Garden of Eden where Adam lived was not like this. The Bible focuses only on the trees and does not say anything concerning their being covered with precious stones. Hence, the Garden of Eden here must be different from that of Adam and is much earlier. His being covered with the precious stones reminds us of the precious stones on the priest in Exodus. He probably had been appointed by God to be a priest. The latter half of the verse says, "The workmanship of thy tablets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee." In the Bible musical instruments are used by kings. We see how David played the harp for king Saul. When the king of Babylon was destroyed, the sound of his lutes were said to be brought down to Sheol (Isa. 14:11). And when the king of Babylon was pleased, various musical instruments were played (Dan. 3). Satan was a king at that time and these musical instruments were given to him by God. The first half of Ezekiel 28:14 says that he is "the anointed cherub that covered." Anointed indicates that he is consecrated. The work of the cherubim is to lead men to worship the Lord (Rev. 4:9-10; 5:11-14). Therefore, his work in the beginning was also to lead the creatures at that time in the worship of God. This also refers to his priesthood. The latter part of verse 14 says that he was "upon the holy mountain of God" and had "walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire." The holy mountain of God probably is the place where God's glory is manifested. As the priest of God, he would, of course, stand before Him to minister. What does it mean to walk "up and down in the midst of the stones of fire"? Ezekiel 1:26 reveals that the position of the cherubim is below the throne. Now when Moses took seventy of the elders of Israel up the mountain of Sinai, "they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness...And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount" (Exo. 24:10, 17). The paved work of sapphire stone in the appearance of devouring fire probably was "the stones of fire." This indicates that Satan enjoyed a very high place, right below the throne of God, and was very intimate with God. Verse 15 says that he was perfect in his ways from the day that he was created, but that later God found iniquity in him. All of God's creation was perfect; God is not the author of sin. Iniquity was initiated by the archangel who sinned. He was created and given a free will by God just as we were. Unfortunately God's created angel abused his freedom! And how many people are still following his footsteps! The first part of verse 16 says that by the multitude of his merchandise they have filled his midst with violence, and he has sinned. We may refer this word solely to Antichrist. During the end time commerce will be very prosperous (Rev. 18). Many sinful things will be brought in because of this.
This can be proven by history.Nevertheless; the same clause may be applied to Satan.
Mr. Pember points out that "the word translated `merchandise' may also...signify `detraction' or `slander'; and we know that the very name `Devil' means `the slanderer,' or `malignant accuser'" (Earth's Earliest Ages, p. 52).
Thus, we can find out the meaning here. We see how Satan accused Job and tried to destroy him with insidious acts. Also in Revelation 12:10 we read, "Now has come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of His Christ, for the accuser of our brothers has been cast down, who accuses them before our God day and night." The casting down here probably corresponds to the casting of Satan out of the mountain of God in Ezekiel. The reason for the casting out in Ezekiel and in Revelation is one and the same, that is, accusation (or slander). Perhaps what was recorded in Ezekiel was the conviction of Satan by God and what was written in Revelation was the sending of Michael by God for the execution of that conviction. Then why would God still allow Satan to remain in the heavens? The reasons seem to be:
(1) the time of God has not yet come, and
(2) His own children need the furnace to purge away the dross still in them. Ezekiel 28:17 reveals the cause of Satan's fall. His heart was lifted up because of his beauty, and his wisdom was corrupted by reason of his brightness. The king of Babylon as described in Isaiah 14:12-14 bears much resemblance to this verse. Many servants of God believe that the Holy Spirit is not only pointing out the king of Babylon, but in a deeper sense, the cause of the fall of Satan who was behind the king of Babylon. In my view, the record in Ezekiel reveals the cause of his pride, while in Isaiah it shows the manner in which he exhibited his pride. It is probable that after comparing himself with God's other creatures, his heart was lifted up. In the end he tried to exalt himself to be equal with God and thus suffered God's judgment.
"How you have fallen from heaven, O Daystar, son of the dawn! ...But you, you said in your heart: I will ascend to heaven; / above the stars of God I will exalt my throne. And I will sit upon the mount of assembly On the sides of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High" (Isa. 14:12-14).
Since he was so proud, God punished him. His authority in the heavens was removed and abolished by God. The remaining part of the prophecy in Ezekiel is not relevant to our subject, and we shall stop here. From the prophecy contained in this passage in Ezekiel, if our interpretation is correct, we can see how God created Satan the fairest and wisest of all His creatures in the former world and made him their leader. God placed him in the garden of Eden, which was long before the Eden of Adam. The things in the former garden, if not altogether different from those of the latter garden, were at least more numerous than the latter. They resemble the future New Jerusalem. He was a prophet there, teaching all the inhabitants of the earth with his wisdom to know how to serve God. He was also there as the priest of God, directing them in the worship and praises of God. He was also the king among the creatures, having been placed in a position that was above all the creation. He must have been in such a condition for a lengthy period of time (v. 15), but because of his sin, he became the greatest enemy of God.
So far we have covered the origin of Satan. We shall now proceed to cover Satan's angels and demons, which are under him, and to investigate how they fell and how this affected the earth, causing it to become waste and void.
From the New Testament we see that under the hand of Satan there are two living beings:
(1) angels and
(2) demons. Let us first look at the angels. Matthew 25:41 speaks of "the devil and his angels." Revelation 12:4 says that the dragon's "tail drags away the third part of the stars of heaven, and he cast them to the earth." The stars denote the angels (Rev. 1:20). Therefore 12:9 says, "And the great dragon was cast down, the ancient serpent, he who is called the Devil and Satan,...he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast down with him." These angels were probably the ones established by God in the beginning to assist Satan to rule the world. They were "the congregation of the mighty" and "the gods" in Psalm 82 (cf. John 10:35). When Satan fell, they either conspired or sympathized with him. Therefore, they fell together with him and became today's "rulers," "authorities," "world-rulers of this darkness," "the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenliest" (Eph. 6:12). Note that the numbers are plural. These angels are not disembodied demons; they have ethereal bodies. This is why the Lord promises that the children of resurrection will be like the angels in the heaven. Satan has another class of subjects, the evil spirits. Demons and the evil spirits (or filthy spirits) are the same. We can tell this by checking with the translation of the Mandarin Bible. In Matthew 8:16, it firstly mentions the demons, then the spirits. But the Bible translators, seeing that the Holy Spirit used the words "demon" and "spirit" interchangeably, translated both into "demons." In Luke 10:17 the word "demons" is in the original language, but in verse 20 the word "demons" should be "spirits." In these two verses of the Bible we see the Lord Jesus acknowledged the "demons" and the "spirits" to be the same and thus the Chinese Bible translator again translated both as "demons." Matthew 17:18 speaks of the Lord casting out a demon, yet Mark calls this demon an unclean spirit and dumb spirit (Mark 9:25). Demons and spirits are the same. These demons, or spirits, probably were the race who lived in the former world. They helped Satan in his sinning; or, perhaps after Satan sinned, they followed him rather than forsaking him and obeying God. Therefore, they were cut off by God and their bodies were removed from them. Hence, they became disembodied spirits. Although we cannot find any clear evidence in the Bible to confirm this theory, we can find some clues. In Matthew 12 we see the situation of a demon when he left the human body. He became helpless and wandered about. Besides the human body, he could not find another resting place. Therefore, he eventually returned to his original place, the human body. If they were not disembodied spirits, why did they have to enter into man's body? As we read Luke 8, we see how the legion of demons was unwilling to leave the human body. When they had no way to remain in the human body, they even entered the bodies of the swine. Presently in the world they still cling to human bodies. Even some believers are unconsciously possessed by them. They are different from Satan and his angels who do not like to enter human bodies. Satan and his angels still have a spiritual body, but the demons do not. Their character and liking seem to prove that they are the disembodied spirits. Since they are disembodied spirits, where were they when they were disembodied? We know that the spirits of all the dead are in Hades. So, where do these spirits come from? They must have come from the former world. While they were alive, their habitation was probably the former world where Satan exercised his rule. In the Bible we can find another clue that tells us that there were inhabitants in the pre-Adamic world. Isaiah 45:18 shows that the world created by God in the beginning was not waste and empty. Since this verse speaks of the original world, one expression suggests to us the existence of mankind in the previous world.
It says, "He is the God who formed the earth... He did not create it waste." This clearly refers to the original creation. Following this it says, "He formed it to be inhabited." This seems to clearly tell that the earth then was inhabited by some race. As we read the Bible further, we find clues which indicate that there is a detention place for the demons now. The legion of demons in Gadara must have known this. They were in great fear and begged the Lord that He would not "order them to depart into the abyss," (Luke 8:31) because they would be tormented there (Matt. 8:29).
Mr. Pember says that this "abyss" in the original language is abussos; and that "in some passages, such as the ninth chapter of the Apocalypse, this term is evidently applied to a fiery hollow in the centre of the earth: but it is also used for the depths of the sea, a meaning which accords well with its derivation" (Earth's Earliest Ages, p. 60). In the future Satan will be detained in a bottomless pit in the center of the earth. This is revealed in the book of Revelation. The demons are also detained in an abyss now, yet some of them still have freedom. We must wait until God's appointed time comes for them to be completely shut inside. This abyss is probably different from the one in the heart of the earth; it is in the sea. Furthermore, at the final judgment (Rev. 20:11-15) when all the prisoners will have been thrown into the lake of fire, there will be no more sea in the new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21:1). However, there may be only one abyss that is divided into two parts. There are other clues concerning the sea being the place of detention for demons. In the Septuagint Bible, the word "deep" in Genesis 1:2 is the same as "abyss" here. We have said that these demons are probably created races that lived in the first world. This corresponds to what we read in Genesis 1:2 because they originally lived on the earth. After sinning, their bodies were destroyed by God; their habitation was judged by God and became without form and void. The whole earth was covered by water and was characterized as "the deep." It follows then that the spirits of the races at that time were in this "deep"! Finally, on the third day when God restored the earth, He commanded the earth to come out from the water and called the gathering of the waters the sea. This earth was prepared for mankind in the new world. Where then have the former demons gone? We can spontaneously answer that they went into the sea. As we read Revelation 20:13, we often do not understand why the sea will give up the dead which are in it. It is understandable to say that death and Hades will deliver up the dead which are in them, but why will the sea give up the dead who are in it? The common interpretation is that the sea surrenders the bodies of those who are drowned. If so, then the earth should also give up its dead because there are more bodies buried in the earth than in the sea. Yet the earth does not give up its dead. Therefore, the sea will give up the spirits of the imprisoned ones and not the bodies of the dead. Men's spirits are in death and Hades; the Bible does not say that the spirits of man are kept in the sea. Then whose spirits will the sea give up? It will give up those who are from the other world, that is, the former world. The sequence here indicates this. "The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them." Those who lived in the former world died first. Therefore, they will be the first beings to be given up; then, we who are of this world will follow after because every man will be judged in his own order. Thus far we have seen the probable origin of Satan, his angels, and the demons. As to how man lived on the former earth, this is something beyond our knowledge. However, we can see some hints in the Bible.
Many Bible scholars, Dr. Scofield being one of them, believe that Jeremiah 4:23-26 refers to the condition of Genesis 1:2, in which the earth was without form and void. Although the context of this passage is the desolation of Judah, these few verses of the Scripture have a notably broader view, as if God caused the prophet to view the desolation of the earth in the beginning. If our belief is accurate, then we know that in the former world there was "the fruitful land" and "its cities" (v. 26). The inhabitants then dwelt in cities and some took up farming as an occupation. When they were deceived by Satan, the burning anger of Jehovah came upon them (v. 26) and the earth became "waste and emptiness" (v. 23).From these biblical clues we see the original situation of the earth, the races who dwelt on the earth, the paradise, and the princes, etc. If we are not mistaken in our meditation, we can draw a conclusion concerning the first world and the cause of its desolation as follows: In the beginning of "time" (as opposed to eternity) God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was not waste (Isa. 45:18) but very beautiful and perfect. On this earth there were inhabitants and the number of the inhabitants was great. Before God created the earth and human beings, He had created the angels (Job 38:6-7). He assigned Satan, whom He created, as the leader to be above all the angels. Satan, the most beautiful and wisest of all, the prime of all God's creation, dwelt in the Garden of Eden. God made him the ruler of the world; therefore, he was called "the ruler of the world" (John 14:30).
Many angels were under his rule, and these angels shared in ruling with him. Then, because of his position and honor, he became proud. Due to pride, he rebelled and lifted himself up to be equal with God. He was not satisfied with being a creature, but desired to be the Creator. Therefore, he slandered God before the people and accused the people before God. God found out his iniquity and condemned him. When the time comes, he will be cast to the earth. One third of the angels (Rev. 12) followed him in rebellion and, therefore, became the angels of the devil. God has prepared hell for them (Matt. 25:41), and when the time comes, Satan will be cast into it. In the former world, the inhabitants of the earth, being under Satan and his angels' rule, were also deceived and filled up with sins. (We can readily understand this when we consider our world situation today.)
Therefore, God's anger was fierce, and He completely destroyed the earth and all the races therein and locked up many spirits in the abyss in the sea. These evil spirits, angels, and Satan himself formed the kingdom of darkness. We do not know how long this period lasted. Later, the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters again, and the Triune God began His restoration work on the world. After His restoration of the world, He created Adam and his wife and asked them to guard it, so that there would be man on the earth to cooperate with Him in heaven to stop Satan's power. Perhaps God used Adam to test Satan to see whether he would repent. However, he came to tempt Adam; therefore, God cursed Satan. Because Adam fell, he could not bring the world which was under Satan's rule back to God. On the contrary, the world Adam received from God's hand was given anew to Satan. Since angels and mankind had failed, God came in the person of the Son to be a man, the last Adam. The Lord Jesus became God's prophet, priest, and king. When He was on this earth, He was God's prophet without blemish. When He was about to die, He was able to say, "The ruler of the world is coming, and in me he has nothing" (John 14:30). At His death all who are in Adam were crucified in Him. He was able to include all of the old Adamic creation in His crucifixion because He is God, and He is able to continue on as the new man. His human living had nothing to do with Satan. Through His death and resurrection, He regained the world lost by the first Adam. Every sinner, who is destined to die in the old Adam, can return to God and be saved if he rejects the first Adam through the death of the last Adam and joins himself to Christ in life. This is the meaning of believing in the death of the Lord Jesus. Therefore, whoever believes in the Lord Jesus becomes an enemy of the devil. In everything he attacks us, and in everything we resist him, his angels, and the demons. This is God's purpose in saving man, and this is a real spiritual warfare. Satan was judged once on the "holy mountain of God," and he was judged again on the hill of Golgotha. He has been convicted, yet his judgment has not yet been executed. When the time comes he will be cast down from heaven and when the Son of God returns to this earth, he will be cast into the abyss. After one thousand years he will forever suffer in the lake of fire. Now the Lord Jesus holds the authority which Satan had abused, and He will hold it until all traces of rebellion disappear. He has brought His own blood into the Holy of Holies and has cleansed the heavens; He is now a Priest of God. When He returns, it will be the time of the restoration of all things. He will be a King, ruling this world from heaven with all the overcoming saints, in the same way that Satan ruled with his angels in the former time. At that time He will teach the inhabitants of this earth to know God's will and to worship God, in the same way that Satan did in the former days. The situation in the millennium will be like the situation in the world before Satan sinned. Christ will restore all things to the condition in the "beginning" in order to accomplish God's original purpose. After this He will burn up the whole world, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth in which the righteous will dwell. Therefore, as God's children we ought to have a deeper enmity for the devil. For thousands of years God's only purpose has been for man to be joined with Him to destroy Satan's authority. Our God is a law-abiding God. He will not take back by force the world which was lost through man. Therefore, He sent His Son to become a man in order to regain what man had lost. We, men who have been saved, ought to cooperate with the unique "Man," the Lord Jesus. In our life, in our work, in our environment, in our dwelling, and in the world, we should resist the works of the devil. Our resistance is in firmness of faith (1 Pet. 5:9), and not by means of fleshly weapons (2 Cor. 10:4), which is the way of social reformers who are being utilized by the demons. Satan was wise and beautiful! But because of his pride, he ended up in complete ruin. It is dangerous for frail mortals to esteem themselves wise and beautiful! Beware, lest being lifted up with pride, you fall into the judgment of the devil (1 Tim. 3:6). Being self-exalted with pride is not a blessing to man; wisdom rests only with those who fear the most high God Jehovah.

THE EARTH RESTORED THE RECOVERY OF THE EARTH IN SIX DAYS

We have seen that in the beginning God created a perfect world. Later, because of the sins committed by Satan and those who dwelt on the earth, they and the earth were judged by God, and the earth became without form and void. Now we will see God's work of restoring the earth. In the book of Job, Job mentions the failure of Satan's rebellion in order to show that it is foolish to dispute with God. "He is wise in heart, and mighty in strength: who hath hardened himself against him, and hath prospered? which removed the mountains, and they know not; which overturned them in his anger; which shakes’ the earth out of her place, and the pillars thereof tremble; which commanded the sun, and it rises not; and sealed up the stars" (Job 9:4-7). When did God do this? When did He shake the mountains and the earth, and alter the position of the celestial bodies due to man's stubbornness towards Him? Since the time of Adam, such an act of God in the world has not been seen. This passage must be a description of God's judgment on Satan and on the earth under his dominion when he rebelled. At that time God shook the earth and overturned the mountains. The calamity came so swiftly that the mountains were overturned unnoticed. In addition to the earth, the positions of the celestial bodies were also affected. Because of God's judgment, the sun disappeared completely and the stars did not shine. The world was plunged into darkness. There was no sun and no heat was produced. Consequently, this led to the glacial epoch on this earth. Then, after a long period of time, possibly due to internal heat at the earth's core (Rev. 9:2), the ice gradually melted. However, the sun had not yet appeared and the stars were still "sealed up." When the Spirit of God began to move, there was the deep, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Job not only mentions God's judgment, but also His work of restoration. He says, "Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, / and treadeth upon the high peaks of the sea; / which maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades, / and wonders without number" (Job 9:8-10, Heb.). The phrase "spread knows? / Or who hath stretched the line upon it? / Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? / Or who laid the corner stone thereof; / when the morning stars sang together." No matter which earth is referred to here, whether the original created earth or the restored earth on the third day, one thing is definite: before the earth was formed, the stars already existed. As the earth was being formed, morning stars were there singing together, praising the work of God. In Genesis God was only rearranging the stars that were there before. After He had gathered the light into the sun and had made it the great light, He restored the stars and made them appear in the sky to meet the needs of the earth. The Holy Spirit inspired Moses to describe God's work with human words because the Bible is written for man. He did not speak of the positions and functions of the sun, moon, and stars, but only mentioned their relationship to the earth and man. Although seasons, days, and years have to do with other creatures, the use of the celestial bodies "for signs" is specifically for man, since no one besides man is able to observe the motions of the celestial bodies in order to make signs. God only speaks about the positions and functions of the sun, moon, and stars according to man's viewpoint. He does not mention other matters. In man's eyes the sun is the greatest light, the moon is the second, and the stars are still smaller lights. Is it not wonderful that God has prepared such an immense universe for men as small as we? On the fifth day, after the dry land and the celestial bodies had been restored, God prepared to create living organisms to inhabit the earth. "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (v. 20). God's commandment expressed God's purpose. "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moved, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind" (v. 21). God created these things out of nothing. We do not know what materials God used to make fish and aquatic life. As for the birds, 2:19 tells us that they are made out of the ground. Science tells us that living organisms first existed in the water, then on the ground. Aquatic organisms are the most primitive species among all the animals. Even today, the ocean is still home to the majority of the living creatures. Birds, on the other hand, are the most primitive species of all warm-blooded animals. We can see how closely science resembles the description in the Bible. Although science proves these words, faith believes without the help of science! On the sixth day God went on to create the beasts, the cattle, and the creeping things. Finally, He created man in His own image. We will discuss the creation of man in more detail in later messages. Here we will deal only briefly with the subject. Chapter one covers the creation of man in a brief way to show us man's position among the creatures, while chapter two describes the origin of man in detail to show us man's relationship with God. We should notice that man was "created" by God (v. 27). Man did not evolve from a lower class of animal. The word "creation," as we have mentioned, means the making of something out of nothing. It is a special work of God and not a natural process of evolution. The Bible does not give credence to the theory of evolution, which will forever be a vain idea! On the third day God ordered each type of vegetation, the trees, grass, and vegetables, to yield seed after its kind. Grass cannot change into a tree, neither can one tree change into another kind of tree. On the fifth day aquatic life and birds were all after their kinds. On the sixth day the beasts, cattle, and creeping things were also after their kind. Every creature is after its kind. The Bible does not tell us how these kinds were classified, yet the words "after his kind" is sufficient proof that in those days every creature was of a different kind. Since God has said that everything was "after his kind," the boundary of each kind was set by God. There is absolutely no possibility for one kind to evolve into another kind. Plants cannot change into animals; even one kind of plant cannot change into another kind of plant, neither can one kind of animal change into another kind of animal. We Christians believe in the Word of God. Anything beyond "thus saith the Lord," we will not believe. How much less should we listen to a theory that is contradictory to the Word of God? The Word of God is sufficient to solve all the problems. The world may be scornful of our logic, but we are satisfied with God's Word. Pitiful mortals do not believe in our God. As a result, they drift aimlessly and devise theories for themselves on which to base their faith! They think that it is too incredible for God to bring something out of nothing into being, and to make man out of the dust of the earth. To us, however, for a tiny embryo of one kind of animal to undergo the numerous processes of evolution to become a monkey, and then after many more steps of evolution, to change from a monkey into a man, is something that is far more incredible. Just for a monkey to evolve into a man is incredible. It is much more incredible than God creating man! I warn my readers not to believe such end-times nonsense. Not only should we not believe such talk; we should not even listen to it. We should not read magazines or books that contain these kinds of theories. We thank God that His words are clear and easy to understand. He said, each "after his kind," and all around us we see all animals and plants behaving according to this word. Formerly, evolutionists said that man's ancestors were some sort of animal many thousands of years ago. Now they tell us that after many more thousands of years, our descendents will be formless animals without fingers or toes. They are talking things that belong to many thousands of years ago or many thousands of years in the future, things which we will never see or be able to hold up for questioning! Our Bible is a book of the present. At present, all creatures multiply after their own kind. The Bible does not make irresponsible statements! As noted by many previous writers, "Elohim," one of the names for God in the original Scriptures, is plural in number. However, in Genesis 1:26 the verb used after God is singular in number. It seems incompatible to have a plural noun with a singular verb. However, this indicates that God is three-in-one and one-in-three. Since there is more than one person in the Godhead, the noun does not have a singular designation. Neither are there two persons. Hence, the designation is not dual. Rather, there are three persons. Hence, there is the plural designation "Elohim." Although there are three, there are not three Gods. For this reason, the verb is not plural, but singular. This reveals that God is triune. Although the Bible does not explicitly state that God is triune, we can find many proofs and indications of this fact in the Bible. There is no doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed a great doctrine in the Bible. Furthermore, the word "us" in verse 26 indicates the plural number in the divine Persons, while the verb "make" indicates the oneness of God's purpose. In chapter one, the words "God said" are used thirty-one times. What God said was God's Word. When we read the Gospel of John 1, we see that all things were made by the Word of God. Genesis 1 alludes to the work of the Lord Jesus in creation. In this way, the Triune God works together in creation. We have "God," "God said," and "the Spirit of God." The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all here. Before God created man, He paused and had a discussion within the Godhead, saying, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion." As we meditate on this discussion, we realize that God was very serious about this matter. This seems to indicate that our previous exposition is correct. Satan, as well as the previous inhabitants of the earth had already failed. God restored the earth and heaven, and made them fit for human habitation. All the living creatures were ready. The Godhead seemed to be taking a pause to talk among them, "Behold, We are going to create man now!" This is the spirit of this passage. Here God tells us His purpose in creating human beings, "let them have dominion." Satan had been defeated. Under God's judgment, he could no longer have dominion over the world. Although in reality he was still free, the judgment on him had already been pronounced. The earth restored by God has nothing to do with Satan; everything on this earth is the expression of a new order. Although Satan still retains his title of "the ruler of this world," the man created by God is endowed with a free will; he has autonomous power. God established man, apart from the authority of Satan, to have dominion over the newly created living creatures and plants, and over all the earth. If man had been able to carefully guard his God-given rights and power, Satan would have held "the ruler of this world" as an empty title only. God wants to annul the authority of Satan since He has already been judged. For God to have ejected Satan would have been quite easy; but for reasons unknown to us, He wants man to be His co-worker to destroy the work of the devil. Therefore, God created man and let him have dominion. This was the position Satan had once held, but lost. Unfortunately, soon afterward man failed. Man lost his right, and Satan regained his power and dominion as ruler of the world. This we will see when we come to chapter three, but let us be clear about one thing: all of God's plan and work in this world has one goal, the elimination of the power of Satan. The Lord Jesus called him the enemy (Matt. 13). Therefore, we believers, as God's chosen people, should constantly bear this purpose of God in mind—the destroying of the power of the devil. In everything we do, we should not ask whether something is good or bad, but how it would benefit God and destroy Satan. If our efforts cannot affect the kingdom of darkness and cause the devil to suffer loss, then we should not do it. In all our work for God, we should not look for superficial results. Rather, we should consider who will profit and who will suffer in the spiritual realm. This is a spiritual warfare and not a struggling in flesh and blood. One day, our judgment before the judgment seat will be measured by this standard. Whether our work will remain or be consumed by fire depends on how much it helps to accomplish God's purpose. The best way to fight against the power of darkness is, on the one hand, to resist in our spirit the work of Satan, not agreeing with his winning, and on the other hand, to use prayer as our weapon by asking God to destroy Satan's work and scheme. At the same time, we should obey God's will practically. Each time we obey God's will, Satan suffers defeat. Man was made firstly in God's image, and secondly after His likeness. This does not refer only to man's physical body. "In God's image" means that man represents God on earth. "After His likeness" means that man is after God's kind; in other words, His race (Acts 17:28). Morally and intellectually, there are similarities between God and man, so that man can know God and fellowship with Him. Unfortunately, man has sinned and lost God's image and likeness. Now man's ignorance in matters concerning God is beyond imagination. Therefore, unless a man is born again from above, he does not know how to fellowship with God. Paul told us that man is "God's image and glory" (1 Cor. 11:7); God made man to express His own glory. God wants to display His glory to Satan in the air. However, the first man failed. Yet the second Man did not fail. He was the express image of God's person (Heb. 1:3, KJV), and He was able to fully express God."And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,...and every tree, in the which is the fruit...to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast...every fowl...and to every thing that creepeth...I have given every green herb for meat" (Gen. 1:29-30). In the world before sin came, there was no eating of flesh. Eating flesh is a thing of the sinful world. In the coming new heaven and the new earth there is no mention of any eating of flesh; the only thing worthy of eating will be the fruit of the tree of life. In the present order of things, God's opinion is that "every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified through the word of God and intercession" (1 Tim. 4:4-5). In a world that is full of sin, if we try to abstain from meat (4:3), we are denying the fact that the present world is under a curse!"God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). God did not make anything that was not good. Bad things came as a result of sin; they were not creations of God. In this sinful world, we should not murmur against God, because in Him there is no evil, and what He made is all good. God has treated us mortals graciously. He first created various forms of vegetation on the third day and then prepared them as food for the animals. After this He created the fowls on the fourth day, land animals on the fifth day, and man on the sixth day. He set up the whole environment in a good order before He put man in it. If we truly believe this fact, what a consolation it will be to us! God always makes preparations for His creatures this way. For the growth of grass, He first prepared the land; for the support of animal life, He first prepared vegetable life. But because we often fail to see this fact with our naked eyes, we become worried. Blessed are those who have faith to see God and His work! Nothing will shake such a heart! The first three verses of chapter two should belong to chapter one. On the seventh day God did not do any work. He rested on this day. One thing we should notice is that this rest is God's rest and not man's. The Bible tells us that this was God's Sabbath. God worked for six days and then He rested. This rest is not a physical rest, because with God there is no fatigue. "Do you not know, / Or have you not heard, / That the eternal God, Jehovah, / The Creator of the ends of the earth, / Does not faint and does not become weary" (Isa. 40:28). What is the meaning of this rest? This is not a physical but a spiritual rest. God was satisfied. He saw everything that He had made was very good, and He was satisfied. Every careful reader of the Bible will see that this is the meaning of God's rest. God did not ordain the Sabbath here for man to observe. Man had not done any work, so he did not need any rest. It was only after Adam fell that he had to work (Gen. 3:19). At this point, Adam had not sinned. Therefore he did not need to rest on the seventh day. For this reason, we should not consider this Sabbath as something of Jewish law (which we do not need to keep), but rather as the Sabbath in God's creation. We should remember that God did not give the Sabbath to man as just a day to keep. For the period of two thousand five hundred years after that day, there is not one mention of the word "Sabbath" in the Scripture! We should notice one more thing. After the first six days, the phrase "and the evening and the morning'' is included. However, after the seventh day, the Sabbath, there is not such a phrase! After God worked, He rested in the eternal brightness of the night less day! This day of rest is a type of the coming day of rest for God's people mentioned in Hebrews 3 and 4, when the co-workers of God will rest for eternity with Him in a night less day. When we think of that day, does our heart not rejoice?
eth out the heavens" indicates God's work on the second day. God divided the waters with a firmament in their midst and this firmament was called Heaven. So the "high peaks of the sea" probably indicates the waters above the firmament. The phrase "maketh Arcturus, Orion, and Pleiades" indicates God's work on the fourth day. The word "maketh" does not mean creates but fashions. God did not create stars at this time, but He fashioned anew the existing stars. In Job 9:7 it says, "Sealed up the stars." This shows that the stars already existed. Genesis 1:16 says, "He made the stars also." This was a restoration to their condition before they were sealed. Having read Job's word, we are more convinced that our exposition is correct. In Genesis God began His work of restoration. He called out for light because the face of the deep was dark, and this light divided the light from the darkness. There was light before, and now light came back. Some mockers have said, "How could there be light without the sun?" However, science no longer laughs at this kind of record in the Bible, and recently science has proven Moses' words to be correct. The record here is "non-science"; it is not "anti-science." The book of God is not intended as a science textbook, yet the word of God is not erroneous according to science. Man now understands that besides the sun there are other sources of light. Light is an energy from an unknown source that produces vibrations of the ether around the universe. This vibration is beyond human imagination. (Of course, the light that we now see relates to the burning of the sun as well as other sources of light.) But scientists cannot tell us about the sources of this energy. Concerning this point, they are fully in darkness; but faith knows. "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light" (Gen. 1:3). It is most pitiful that while there is God, who is the source of all positive things, and in whom everyone should believe, people still reject Him and prefer to grope in the dark, considering it unscientific and superstitious to believe in God's Word! But we are so happy that we not only have God, but that He is also our Father. It does not say that light was created or brought into being by God on the first day. Light has not existed for merely six thousand years. Before light came, darkness was confined to one place, the face of the deep (i.e., the whole earth). Darkness was confined to this one assigned place. When light appeared, it appeared in the same dark place, the whole earth. When God said, "Let there be light" (v. 3), the whole universe was not in darkness. God was merely commanding the light to appear on the surface of this earth. In Moses' time, science did not know of other sources of light besides the sun (such as the Aurora Borealis, the northern lights). But Moses still recorded that God called out the light first, and then made the sun to appear. If this was not a revelation of the Holy Spirit, how could he have made such a statement? Thank God that He is not limited by the ignorance of people. The more the scientists understand the natural laws established by God, the more they realize that the Word of God is worthy of all acceptance."And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day" (v. 5). God did not create the light here because it had existed for a long time; He just called out the light. When did the first day start? Someone said it was from the time when the earth was "without form and void" (v. 2); however, that is not the meaning here. "And the evening and the morning were the first day" (v. 5). "Morning" was the time when the light of the first day appeared. If there were no light before the first day, then the "evening" mentioned here does not make sense. The "evening" came first, and then "the morning." If the morning indicates the time when the daylight first appeared, and if there was no light before the first day, then the evening would indicate the darkness before the light, which would be the prolonged darkness mentioned in verse 2. If that were the case, would not the first evening have been too long? If the evening of the first day was the darkness in verse 2, then the first day would have started from the darkness of the formlessness and void. But Genesis clearly does not consider the formlessness and void as the first day. Hence, before the "evening" of the first day, there was light already. However, this light was not shining on the earth. God called the darkness Night, but "the evening," being different from the night, was darkness under control of the light. For this reason, light existed before "the evening" of the first day; otherwise, how could we differentiate between the evening and the morning? Furthermore, the Bible does not say that God created light on the first day; He just commanded light to appear. Where was the light from? If it was not from the earth which was without form and void and in entire darkness, it must surely have been from the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth. This is a further proof that the world we are in now is a restored world. We should know that each of the six days is a twenty-four hour day. In the Bible a day is often used to represent a period of time, such as "the day of the Lord," etc. But the six days are not six periods. No reader without preconceived opinions would consider these as periods of time. Whenever the Bible uses "day" to stand for a period, there is no numerical indication associated with it. If there is a number before the day, it must indicate the time of one revolution of the earth. Furthermore, it clearly states "the evening and the morning were the first day" (v. 5). Combining evening and morning as the first day is an indication of a twenty-four hour day. Moreover, God later established a Sabbath, according to His own rest on the seventh day. The Sabbath in Exodus 20 is a twenty-four hour day. If the seventh day is a twenty-four hour day, then the six preceding days must also be twenty-four hour days. Again, if we consider these six days as six geological periods, then what corresponds to the "evenings" of these geological periods, and what corresponds to the "mornings" of these periods? Furthermore, if these six days correspond to six geological periods, there would have been no grass or trees on the earth before the third period, and there would have been no animal fossils on the earth before the sixth period. But this is not the case, because there is no separation between animals and plants in the geological strata below the surface of the earth. If the six days were six long periods, then Adam, who was created in the sixth period, would have had to live a long time in paradise before he could have committed sin. Moses, who wrote the book of Genesis, had no thought of using days to represent periods. We must not twist the Word of God to fit our own concept or to lessen people's attack. If we explain the Bible according to our own idea, we will be blamed by others and also put the Holy Scripture in jeopardy. With these proofs we must conclude that these six days were just six days and not six periods. Our God is almighty; one day is sufficient for Him to restore. There is no need for six periods. But since it pleased Him to restore the world in six days, we need to humbly observe God's work and praise His greatness. Why should we adapt ourselves to the opinion of unregenerate people? We know that if geology is correct, the period between verse 1 and verse 2 is long enough to produce all the geological formations of the earth. On the second day God commanded again. God put air in the firmament to divide the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. God separated the waters on the earth from the moisture of the atmosphere. Again, the scientists ought to praise this beautiful record. This is just the phenomenon of the expansion of the air, separating the water in the atmosphere from the water below; and yet the boundary is not immovable. The atmosphere above us can be filled with moisture as recorded in the Bible. This atmosphere is not a solid reservoir to reserve water in the heaven, because verse 20 mentions "fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." This open firmament is a region or sphere in which fowl could fly around."And God called the firmament Heaven" (v. 8). This "heaven" is different from the "heaven" in verse 1. "Heaven" in verse 1 denotes the whole universe with all its contents. The "heaven" in verse 8 is the "heaven" of this earth. The "heaven" in verse 1 did not deteriorate; only our earth and its celestial position were changed from its original condition due to God's judgment. God saw His works and considered that they were good on five of the six days. After the second day, the words "and God saw that it was good" were not mentioned. Does the Word of God overlook this day? No, the words which God omits are just as meaningful as the words He speaks. Every word and every phrase of the Bible is inspired by God. This omission has something to do with Satan. He is the ruler of the authority of the air (Eph. 2:2). The demons under him are the "spiritual forces of evil in the heavenliest" (Eph. 6:12). God probably saw the air as the dwelling place of Satan and his demons. That is why He did not say that it was good. Some may ask, "How could the evil spirits (Eph. 2:2) ascend to the air?" We have said that their prison was the deep sea which was the "deep" that covered the whole earth. While God was separating the waters, they probably took the chance to escape out of their prison by attaching themselves to the upper waters, and thus they migrated to the heaven where their ruler stayed. This is why we have records in the New Testament of evil spirits existing in heaven and working on earth. Although they are fugitives, God has temporarily allowed them to stay there until the time for them to be thrown into the abyss. Since the air is the headquarters of the kingdom of darkness, most of Satan's work starts from the air. Therefore, when we come together to meet or pray, we should ask God to cleanse the atmosphere with the precious blood of the Lord, in order that we may not be oppressed by Satan. On the third day, although the water was separated, there was still water covering the whole earth and there was no dry land. God commanded again, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear" (Gen. 1:9). What is spoken of here matches what we have already explained. God commanded, "Let the dry land appear," so there was land buried beneath the water for a long time which did not reappear until then. God did not say "Let the dry land come out of nothing." He simply commanded the waters to withdraw, allowing the land which was originally created by Him to reappear. This further proves that the six-day work of God was one of restoration rather than creation. Psalm 104:5-9 speaks about how God created the earth in the beginning, how He then judged the earth, and how He finally rebuked the flood (the third day's work in Genesis) to restore the earth. Jehovah “laid the foundations of the earth, / that it should not be removed for ever" (v. 5). This was God's original creation. "Thou coverers’ it with the deep as with a garment: / the waters stood above the mountains" (v. 6). This was the condition after God's judgment over the various creatures then on the earth; this was the water that covered the earth in Genesis 1:2 (compare with 1:9). "At thy rebuke they fled; / at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away. / They go up by the mountains; / they go down by the valleys / unto the place which thou hast founded for them. / Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; / that they turn not again to cover the earth" (Psa. 104:7-9). This was God's work on the first half of the third day. "Rebuke" and "thunder" corresponds to God's command in Genesis 1:9. "Fled" and "hasted away" describes how the waters were "gathered together unto one place." "They go up by the mountains, / and they go down by the valleys" does not refer to the creation of mountains and valleys because the mountains were present in Genesis 1:6 already. Rather, it refers to the reappearance of the preexisting but submerged mountains and valleys, after the withdrawal of the waters. It is a description of the mountains and the valleys when "the dry land" appeared after the waters subsided. "Unto the place which thou hast founded for them.
/ Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; / that they turn not again to cover the earth" (Psa. 104:8-9). These few verses explicitly tell us how the waters under the heaven were gathered together into one place to let the dry land appear. Thus we firmly believe that the world we are now in is the result of God's restoration work. The earth coming out of water has also been proven by science. Geologists believe that all geological formations were formed under water. Many people are not clear about the foundations of the earth, as mentioned in Psalm 104:5. We can find out the meaning of the foundations from Genesis 1:10 which says that "God called the dry land Earth." The foundations of the earth refer to the dry lands of the earth, and not to the whole globe. On the third day God had still more work. The land had emerged out of the water, but there was no vegetation. So God came in to adorn it. On the fourth day the restoration of the dry land was complete, so God came in to restore the celestial bodies. Since He had called out the light on the first day, He now made luminaries in the firmament of the heaven and put light into them. The light of the first day had divided the day from the night (vv. 4-5). Now the luminaries also divided the days from the nights; in some respects, the "light" on the first day is similar to the "luminaries." Probably the light of the first day shone on one side of the earth for half a day and then on the other side for half a day. In this way there was day and night on the first day. On the fourth day, God made the luminaries and put the light of the first day into them. As the earth and luminaries rotate around one another, they not only divide the days from the nights, but also become "for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" (v. 14).The greater light that God made was the sun. Genesis 1:16 does not say that God created the sun because the sun was created in the beginning. God was only doing a work of restoration. The sun was probably a luminary in the pre-Admit world, but after Satan's rebellion, it was also affected and lost all its light, being enveloped by darkness. In spite of this, earth was probably still rotating around it. On the fourth day when God restored the sun, He caused it to receive and emit light again and thus became a luminary once more. Scientists tell us that the moon is a dead and desolate wilderness. If that is the case, it is quite conceivable that after Satan's revolt, the sun, the moon, and the stars were all affected. After God made the two great lights, He also made the stars. We should again note that the stars were not created then, because they existed long before. Job provides evidence. In Job 38:4-7 Jehovah said, "Where waste thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? /...Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knows? / Or who hath stretched the line upon it? / Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? / or who laid the corner stone thereof; / when the morning stars sang together." No matter which earth is referred to here, whether the original created earth or the restored earth on the third day, one thing is definite: before the earth was formed, the stars already existed. As the earth was being formed, morning stars were there singing together, praising the work of God. In Genesis God was only rearranging the stars that were there before. After He had gathered the light into the sun and had made it the great light, He restored the stars and made them appear in the sky to meet the needs of the earth. The Holy Spirit inspired Moses to describe God's work with human words because the Bible is written for man. He did not speak of the positions and functions of the sun, moon, and stars, but only mentioned their relationship to the earth and man. Although seasons, days, and years have to do with other creatures, the use of the celestial bodies "for signs" is specifically for man, since no one besides man is able to observe the motions of the celestial bodies in order to make signs. God only speaks about the positions and functions of the sun, moon, and stars according to man's viewpoint. He does not mention other matters. In man's eyes the sun is the greatest light, the moon is the second, and the stars are still smaller lights. Is it not wonderful that God has prepared such an immense universe for men as small as we? On the fifth day, after the dry land and the celestial bodies had been restored, God prepared to create living organisms to inhabit the earth. "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (v. 20). God's commandment expressed God's purpose. "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moved, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind" (v. 21). God created these things out of nothing. We do not know what materials God used to make fish and aquatic life. As for the birds, 2:19 tells us that they are made out of the ground. Science tells us that living organisms first existed in the water, then on the ground. Aquatic organisms are the most primitive species among all the animals. Even today, the ocean is still home to the majority of the living creatures. Birds, on the other hand, are the most primitive species of all warm-blooded animals. We can see how closely science resembles the description in the Bible. Although science proves these words, faith believes without the help of science! On the sixth day God went on to create the beasts, the cattle, and the creeping things. Finally, He created man in His own image. We will discuss the creation of man in more detail in later messages. Here we will deal only briefly with the subject. Chapter one covers the creation of man in a brief way to show us man's position among the creatures, while chapter two describes the origin of man in detail to show us man's relationship with God. We should notice that man was "created" by God (v. 27). Man did not evolve from a lower class of animal. The word "creation," as we have mentioned, means the making of something out of nothing. It is a special work of God and not a natural process of evolution. The Bible does not give credence to the theory of evolution, which will forever be a vain idea! On the third day God ordered each type of vegetation, the trees, grass, and vegetables, to yield seed after its kind. Grass cannot change into a tree, neither can one tree change into another kind of tree. On the fifth day aquatic life and birds were all after their kinds. On the sixth day the beasts, cattle, and creeping things were also after their kind. Every creature is after its kind. The Bible does not tell us how these kinds were classified, yet the words "after his kind" is sufficient proof that in those days every creature was of a different kind. Since God has said that everything was "after his kind," the boundary of each kind was set by God. There is absolutely no possibility for one kind to evolve into another kind. Plants cannot change into animals; even one kind of plant cannot change into another kind of plant, neither can one kind of animal change into another kind of animal. We Christians believe in the Word of God. Anything beyond "thus saith the Lord," we will not believe. How much less should we listen to a theory that is contradictory to the Word of God? The Word of God is sufficient to solve all the problems. The world may be scornful of our logic, but we are satisfied with God's Word. Pitiful mortals do not believe in our God. As a result, they drift aimlessly and devise theories for themselves on which to base their faith! They think that it is too incredible for God to bring something out of nothing into being, and to make man out of the dust of the earth. To us, however, for a tiny embryo of one kind of animal to undergo the numerous processes of evolution to become a monkey, and then after many more steps of evolution, to change from a monkey into a man, is something that is far more incredible. Just for a monkey to evolve into a man is incredible. It is much more incredible than God creating man! I warn my readers not to believe such end-times nonsense. Not only should we not believe such talk; we should not even listen to it. We should not read magazines or books that contain these kinds of theories. We thank God that His words are clear and easy to understand. He said, each "after his kind," and all around us we see all animals and plants behaving according to this word. Formerly, evolutionists said that man's ancestors were some sort of animal many thousands of years ago. Now they tell us that after many more thousands of years, our descendents will be formless animals without fingers or toes. They are talking things that belong to many thousands of years ago or many thousands of years in the future, things which we will never see or be able to hold up for questioning! Our Bible is a book of the present. At present, all creatures multiply after their own kind. The Bible does not make irresponsible statements! As noted by many previous writers, "Elohim," one of the names for God in the original Scriptures, is plural in number. However, in Genesis 1:26 the verb used after God is singular in number. It seems incompatible to have a plural noun with a singular verb. However, this indicates that God is three-in-one and one-in-three. Since there is more than one person in the Godhead, the noun does not have a singular designation. Neither are there two persons. Hence, the designation is not dual. Rather, there are three persons. Hence, there is the plural designation "Elohim." Although there are three, there are not three Gods. For this reason, the verb is not plural, but singular. This reveals that God is triune. Although the Bible does not explicitly state that God is triune, we can find many proofs and indications of this fact in the Bible. There is no doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed a great doctrine in the Bible. Furthermore, the word "us" in verse 26 indicates the plural number in the divine Persons, while the verb "make" indicates the oneness of God's purpose. In chapter one, the words "God said" are used thirty-one times. What God said was God's Word. When we read the Gospel of John 1, we see that all things were made by the Word of God. Genesis 1 alludes to the work of the Lord Jesus in creation. In this way, the Triune God works together in creation. We have "God," "God said," and "the Spirit of God." The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all here. Before God created man, He paused and had a discussion within the Godhead, saying, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion." As we meditate on this discussion, we realize that God was very serious about this matter. This seems to indicate that our previous exposition is correct. Satan, as well as the previous inhabitants of the earth had already failed. God restored the earth and heaven, and made them fit for human habitation. All the living creatures were ready. The Godhead seemed to be taking a pause to talk among them, "Behold, We are going to create man now!" This is the spirit of this passage. Here God tells us His purpose in creating human beings, "let them have dominion." Satan had been defeated. Under God's judgment, he could no longer have dominion over the world. Although in reality he was still free, the judgment on him had already been pronounced. The earth restored by God has nothing to do with Satan; everything on this earth is the expression of a new order. Although Satan still retains his title of "the ruler of this world," the man created by God is endowed with a free will; he has autonomous power. God established man, apart from the authority of Satan, to have dominion over the newly created living creatures and plants, and over all the earth. If man had been able to carefully guard his God-given rights and power, Satan would have held "the ruler of this world" as an empty title only. God wants to annul the authority of Satan since He has already been judged. For God to have ejected Satan would have been quite easy; but for reasons unknown to us, He wants man to be His co-worker to destroy the work of the devil. Therefore, God created man and let him have dominion. This was the position Satan had once held, but lost. Unfortunately, soon afterward man failed. Man lost his right, and Satan regained his power and dominion as ruler of the world. This we will see when we come to chapter three, but let us be clear about one thing: all of God's plan and work in this world has one goal, the elimination of the power of Satan. The Lord Jesus called him the enemy (Matt. 13). Therefore, we believers, as God's chosen people, should constantly bear this purpose of God in mind—the destroying of the power of the devil. In everything we do, we should not ask whether something is good or bad, but how it would benefit God and destroy Satan. If our efforts cannot affect the kingdom of darkness and cause the devil to suffer loss, then we should not do it. In all our work for God, we should not look for superficial results. Rather, we should consider who will profit and who will suffer in the spiritual realm. This is a spiritual warfare and not a struggling in flesh and blood. One day, our judgment before the judgment seat will be measured by this standard. Whether our work will remain or be consumed by fire depends on how much it helps to accomplish God's purpose. The best way to fight against the power of darkness is, on the one hand, to resist in our spirit the work of Satan, not agreeing with his winning, and on the other hand, to use prayer as our weapon by asking God to destroy Satan's work and scheme. At the same time, we should obey God's will practically. Each time we obey God's will, Satan suffers defeat. Man was made firstly in God's image, and secondly after His likeness. This does not refer only to man's physical body. "In God's image" means that man represents God on earth. "After His likeness" means that man is after God's kind; in other words, His race (Acts 17:28). Morally and intellectually, there are similarities between God and man, so that man can know God and fellowship with Him. Unfortunately, man has sinned and lost God's image and likeness. Now man's ignorance in matters concerning God is beyond imagination. Therefore, unless a man is born again from above, he does not know how to fellowship with God. Paul told us that man is "God's image and glory" (1 Cor. 11:7); God made man to express His own glory. God wants to display His glory to Satan in the air. However, the first man failed. Yet the second Man did not fail. He was the express image of God's person (Heb. 1:3, KJV), and He was able to fully express God."And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed,...and every tree, in the which is the fruit...to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast...every fowl...and to every thing that crept...I have given every green herb for meat" (Gen. 1:29-30). In the world before sin came, there was no eating of flesh. Eating flesh is a thing of the sinful world. In the coming new heaven and the new earth there is no mention of any eating of flesh; the only thing worthy of eating will be the fruit of the tree of life. In the present order of things, God's opinion is that "every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified through the word of God and intercession" (1 Tim. 4:4-5). In a world that is full of sin, if we try to abstain from meat (4:3), we are denying the fact that the present world is under a curse!"God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). God did not make anything that was not good. Bad things came as a result of sin; they were not creations of God. In this sinful world, we should not murmur against God, because in Him there is no evil, and what He made is all good. God has treated us mortals graciously. He first created various forms of vegetation on the third day and then prepared them as food for the animals. After this He created the fowls on the fourth day, land animals on the fifth day, and man on the sixth day. He set up the whole environment in a good order before He put man in it. If we truly believe this fact, what a consolation it will be to us! God always makes preparations for His creatures this way. For the growth of grass, He first prepared the land; for the support of animal life, He first prepared vegetable life. But because we often fail to see this fact with our naked eyes, we become worried. Blessed are those who have faith to see God and His work! Nothing will shake such a heart! The first three verses of chapter two should belong to chapter one. On the seventh day God did not do any work. He rested on this day. One thing we should notice is that this rest is God's rest and not man's. The Bible tells us that this was God's Sabbath. God worked for six days and then He rested. This rest is not a physical rest, because with God there is no fatigue. "Do you not know, / Or have you not heard, / That the eternal God, Jehovah, / The Creator of the ends of the earth, / Does not faint and does not become weary" (Isa. 40:28). What is the meaning of this rest? This is not a physical but a spiritual rest. God was satisfied. He saw everything that He had made was very good, and He was satisfied. Every careful reader of the Bible will see that this is the meaning of God's rest. God did not ordain the Sabbath here for man to observe. Man had not done any work, so he did not need any rest. It was only after Adam fell that he had to work (Gen. 3:19). At this point, Adam had not sinned. Therefore he did not need to rest on the seventh day. For this reason, we should not consider this Sabbath as something of Jewish law (which we do not need to keep), but rather as the Sabbath in God's creation. We should remember that God did not give the Sabbath to man as just a day to keep. For the period of two thousand five hundred years after that day, there is not one mention of the word "Sabbath" in the Scripture! We should notice one more thing. After the first six days, the phrase "and the evening and the morning'' is included. However, after the seventh day, the Sabbath, there is not such a phrase! After God worked, He rested in the eternal brightness of the night less day! This day of rest is a type of the coming day of rest for God's people mentioned in Hebrews 3 and 4, when the co-workers of God will rest for eternity with Him in a night less day. When we think of that day, does our heart not rejoice?

Posted by: rafael | June 15, 2008 7:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

dgxsa hkqjf wdiox jbnkfe
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18882 celebrex weight gain

Posted by: celebrex weight gain | June 13, 2008 2:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Buy Pain Relief
[url=http://www.youtube.com/user/allenasum]Pain Relief Medication[/url]
http://www.youtube.com/user/allenasum

Posted by: pain medication | June 13, 2008 12:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: celebrex canker sores | June 13, 2008 11:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: celebrex sulfonamides | June 13, 2008 9:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: celebrex sulfonamides | June 13, 2008 9:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: breast cancer celebrex | June 13, 2008 6:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: breast cancer celebrex | June 13, 2008 6:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: celebrex message board | June 13, 2008 4:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: celebrex and hemorroids | June 13, 2008 2:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: celebrex wrongful death | June 12, 2008 11:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: celebrex medikament 2004 | June 12, 2008 9:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: celebrex medikament 2004 | June 12, 2008 9:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: celebrex vioxx replacement | June 12, 2008 2:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

qfrunkt iuve stve
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=18197 recent advisory on celebrex

Posted by: recent advisory on celebrex | June 12, 2008 11:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: betamethasone | June 12, 2008 9:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: karela | June 12, 2008 6:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Casino management macau
[url="http://groups.google.de/group/mpkc-casino-club-1/web/casino-management-macau"]Casino management macau[/url]
http://groups.google.de/group/mpkc-casino-club-1/web/casino-management-macau - Casino management macau

Posted by: Suncruz casino cape canaveral | June 12, 2008 4:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: endep | June 12, 2008 3:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: endep | June 12, 2008 3:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Casino management macau
[url="http://groups.google.de/group/mpkc-casino-club-1/web/casino-management-macau"]Casino management macau[/url]
http://groups.google.de/group/mpkc-casino-club-1/web/casino-management-macau - Casino management macau

Posted by: Suncruz casino cape canaveral | June 12, 2008 3:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Casino management macau
[url="http://groups.google.de/group/mpkc-casino-club-1/web/casino-management-macau"]Casino management macau[/url]
http://groups.google.de/group/mpkc-casino-club-1/web/casino-management-macau - Casino management macau

Posted by: Suncruz casino cape canaveral | June 12, 2008 2:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: ethambutol | June 11, 2008 9:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: ethambutol | June 11, 2008 9:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: keflex | June 11, 2008 7:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: keflex | June 11, 2008 7:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: minocycline | June 11, 2008 4:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: mobic | June 11, 2008 1:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: flurbiprofen | June 11, 2008 11:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: flurbiprofen | June 11, 2008 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: ismo | June 11, 2008 10:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: acetaminophen | June 11, 2008 8:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: acetaminophen | June 11, 2008 8:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: etodolac | June 11, 2008 6:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: risperidone | June 11, 2008 3:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: risperidone | June 11, 2008 3:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: endep | June 11, 2008 12:52 AM
Report Offensive Comment

zykua wndlr brsdyk rlnesdb
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17614 male nipple enhancement

Posted by: male nipple enhancement | June 10, 2008 5:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

zykua wndlr brsdyk rlnesdb
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17614 male nipple enhancement

Posted by: male nipple enhancement | June 10, 2008 5:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: cetirizine | June 10, 2008 3:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: cetirizine | June 10, 2008 3:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: gaba (hgh booster) | June 9, 2008 10:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

vpje nukjxav qlxapj hgbo
http://www.allcaboverde.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1033 corticyn trimplex

Posted by: corticyn trimplex | June 9, 2008 5:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: conjugated estrogens | June 4, 2008 12:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: nymphomax | June 4, 2008 9:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: terazosin | June 3, 2008 11:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

esxfbcir scagi cufro rmaqt bxhcnv nehik oqwils http://www.cmik.yaio.com

Posted by: seyc mfkpd | May 30, 2008 3:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

zqimgaf djuzetrc tgbck lpew jfkrg pyhudjc ksilnz

Posted by: geqhsr zgxi | May 30, 2008 3:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/
Buy Sildenafil
[url=http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/">sildenafil prescription[/url]

Posted by: Buy Sildenafil | May 28, 2008 6:38 AM
Report Offensive Comment

http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/
Buy Sildenafil
[url=http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/">sildenafil prescription[/url]

Posted by: Buy Sildenafil | May 28, 2008 6:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/
Buy Sildenafil
[url=http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/">sildenafil prescription[/url]

Posted by: Buy Sildenafil | May 28, 2008 6:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/
Buy Sildenafil
[url=http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/">sildenafil prescription[/url]

Posted by: Buy Sildenafil | May 28, 2008 5:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/
Buy Sildenafil
[url=http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/">sildenafil prescription[/url]

Posted by: Buy Sildenafil | May 28, 2008 5:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/
Buy Sildenafil
[url=http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/">sildenafil prescription[/url]

Posted by: Buy Sildenafil | May 28, 2008 5:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/
Buy Sildenafil
[url=http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/">sildenafil prescription[/url]

Posted by: Buy Sildenafil | May 28, 2008 5:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/
Buy Sildenafil
[url=http://www.propeller.com/member/shanellshav/">sildenafil prescription[/url]

Posted by: Buy Sildenafil | May 28, 2008 4:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Wow, cool man, big thanks! http://tvsrqsderprv.com

Posted by: fqvhaxwvpf | May 16, 2008 2:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment

c879t

Posted by: ma456zda | May 9, 2008 12:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Please, folks , don't overlook the other atheist books. Check out the lists on atheists ones @ Amazon by Jonathon Harrison, Michael Martin, Graham Oppy, Kai Nieslen, George Smith, Jordan Howard Sobel, Robert LePoidevin, and ever newer ones.
I am a naturalist as I objurate both the supernatural and the paranormal . I am a rationalist/agnostic who appeals to reason. I am a naturalist who sees natural cause and explantions not only as efficient but also as necessary,primary and sufficient. I am an ignostic who sees God as a nebuous term.
I am a humanist.

Posted by: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth[skeptic griggsy] | February 3, 2008 6:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Please, folks , don't overlook the other atheist books. Check out the lists on atheists ones @ Amazon by Jonathon Harrison, Micheal Martin, Graham Oppy, Kai Nieslen, George Smith, Jordan Howard, Sobel, Robert LePoidevin, and ever newer ones.
I am a naturalist as I objurate both the supernatural and the paranormal . I am a rationalist/agnostic who appeals to reason. I am a naturalist who sees natural cause and explantions not only as efficient but also as necessary,primary and sufficient. I am an ignostic who sees God as a nebuous term.
I am a humanist.

Posted by: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth[skeptic griggsy] | February 3, 2008 6:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Please, folks , don't overlook the other atheist books. Check out the lists on atheists ones @ Amazon by Jonathon Harrison, Micheal Martin, Graham Oppy, Kai Nieslen, George Smith, Jordan Howard, Sobel, Robert LePoidevin, and ever newer ones.
I am a naturalist as I objurate both the supernatural and the paranormal . I am a rationalist/agnostic who appeals to reason. I am a naturalist who sees natural cause and explantions not only as efficient but also as necessary,primary and sufficient. I am an ignostic who sees God as a nebuous term.
I am a humanist.

Posted by: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth | February 3, 2008 6:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

THE ATHEIST MENTAL DISORDER

http://scientistcanotcalculateearth.blogspot.com/


We will look at the theories of evolution in their two main foundations: the expansion of the universe, and the quantum or microorganism. To understand it with reason, thee first subject we are confronted with is God. Let us read a few verses from the Bible. Psalm 14:1 of the Old Testament says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." This sentence may also be translated as "The fool does not want God in his heart." The result of saying this can be found in the second sentence of the same verse: "They are corrupt; they do abominable deeds."Let us also take a passage from the New Testament. Hebrews 11:6 says, "For he who comes forward to God must believe that He is.

"THREE KINDS OF PEOPLE “

Whether you claim too be a Christian, a non-believer, or a seeker after truth, we will start by examining the subject of God. In this respect the world is divided into three camps. The first is that of the atheists who do not believe in a God. The second consists of the agnostics. They have no sure knowledge about the deity. On the one hand, they dare not say there is no God, but on the other hand, they are not clear if God does exist. We belong to the third category of those who believe in God.

PROSECUTION

Is there a God? I will not try to say yes or no to this question. Rather, I will make this place a law court. I will ask you to be the judge, and I will be the prosecutor. The work of a judge is to make decisions, to approve or disapprove the truth of statements; the work of a prosecutor is to present all the evidence and arguments that he can possibly gather. Before we proceed, we have to be clear about one fact: all prosecutors are not eyewitnesses of crimes. They are not policemen. A policeman may personally witness an event, whereas a prosecutor obtains his information only indirectly. He places all the charges, evidence, and arguments collected before the judge. In the same way, I shall present before you everything that I can possibly find. If you ask whether I have seen God or not, I would say "no." I am reading or demonstrating what I have gathered. My job is to search for facts and to call for witnesses. You are to arrive at a conclusion yourself.

QUALIFICATIONS

Many people assert that there is no God. As a prosecutor I ask you first to check the qualification of these people. Are they qualified to make such claims? Are those who assert that there is no God moral or immoral? Do not just listen to their arguments. Even robbers and swindlers have their arguments. Of course, the arguments support them as robbers and swindlers. The subject of their arguments may be very noble; they may talk about the state of the nations and the welfare of society, but their opinions cannot be seriously considered. They are not worthy of passing such judgments. If a man is upright in his conduct and moral judgment, we can give credibility to his words, but if not, his words lose their credibility. This is especially true when it relates to the question of deity. It is interesting to note that the moral standards of men are directly related to their concept about God. Those who admit their own ignorance have a passable standard, while insistent atheists invariably have a low level of moral responsibility. I do not claim to know all atheists, but of the several thousand that I know, none of them possess a notably commendable morality. You may tell me that there was once a moral atheist, but if there was one, he is dead. Or you may tell me that there will be a moral atheist, but whoever he may be, he is not here yet. At least we can say that for now, we do not know a moral atheist.

NO ATHEIST IS MORAL

Recently in a College at Uk, the geologist, who is a defender of evolution therefore an atheist confess he is arrogant, the atheist said “there is nothing wrong in being arrogant, I’m right, so there is nothing wrong”. He was debating with a Christian professor who never change his good attitude even though he was being ridicule and mocked. Regarding the behavior of the Atheist it was sad to see a defender of science behaving as a child, he do not have moral standards, man who do not have a sense for Gods law, he will not respect anyone , regarding respecting other he is immoral. There were many students on the campus who did not believe in God. They were greatly offended by these words. This atheist offended the Christian professor again and again; the atheist said to him I like to interrupt you. He kept offending the Christian professor saying “you want to believe in God because you are insecure; the proof is that you have the psychological need of God, your God and you are false and have a mental disorder”. This is completely unethical using the right words immoral. Even the body language of this old man of Uk tells, something wrong with him, he cross his arms in a defensive way , he did look the audience , look to the floor and even when he smile was sad. He looks nervous and evasive; his body language showed that something was wrong with him. He made funny gestures and faces at the Christian professor. How can anyone with moral decency shuffle his speaking to do gestures and call to the other professor false in his believes and say that he has a mental disorder.

No atheist has helped you become better? Has he made your thoughts cleaner or your heart purer? Or did it make you just the opposite?"

"Regarding to what they speak”

This atheist use scientific methods of questioning, and this are endless, their speaking for sure is has not good intention. How come they will ask: Why Jews and Muslims who believe in God, hate each other and kill each other because their religion.

Muslims attacked Americans in 9/11 because they hate Americans and do not tolerated Americans way of living.

What are the intentions of these questions? Most of people know that Jews and Muslims have been fighting over their land for thousands of years; it is not for the God in which they believe it has been always the land. And that is their problem is up to then how they deal with it. The atheist confuse them as well others and said they kill each other because their God. Mr. Atheist can you put into your head that is because the land. Or what is what you are really after. Sure you have a bad tongue.

And why do you ask them about 9/11 actually you Atheist went to the Middle East and told them. You hate Americans because they allow prostitutes on the street. Of course they will say they do not like their respectfull woman to be in the street as prostitutes. But you Godless

Man understand, that their government is theocratic, meaning their believe in God is their Law and constitution, they live in a Theocratic society and as humans that is their right.

Why did you bring 9/11 up? USA is democracy. Do you want me to believe that my country USA attacks the Middle East because they want to establish Democracy in the theocratic Middle East? Even if that is truth, if I’m ask I will obey to my president and go to Middle East

And kill or get kill, soldiers obey orders and thousands of young people have died in this war, that is the way that my country is, do you know how many Middle East civilians have died there? Hundred of thousands, those who are dead are better off of those who are among the living ones, their suffering is not a joke and for USA soldiers is a pain in our soul, so who are you to bring up an issue that USA soldiers will never question.

China which is the domicile of more than half the world’s population is communist. Atheist should go there to recruit people. You atheist are in your line of question totally immoral.

I do whish that my president George W. Bush wont let you come to America and I will tell him about your videos The God of delusion and the atheist debate, because in those videos you make fun of my president. Do not think that because our presidents did not claim the rights to the back bone of the net years ago, they will never claim it back.

Now you ask: why believers hate, homosexuals? Isn’t good to see two male’s holdings hands on the streets, and to girls kissing on the train? Maybe, because evolution is not only about natural selection, but about sexual selection. Are evolutionists teaching the children of America about sexual selection, “Sexual selection is a special case of natural selection Sexual selection acts in an organisms’ ability to obtain by any means necessary to successfully copulate with their mate or in groups” Sexual selection simple means I can chose anyone male female is ok. Can you see that your teaching has contaminated humanity?

Do you Atheist hold at what you believe?

Of course not Richard Dawkins has called himself, a cultural Christian. If he is against Christians how he dares to call himself a Christian of any kind, I do believe in God I will always say that I do love God as my Father. But your stamen’s shows that you are not firm in your believe rather, you are liar therefore immoral.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm

Their line of question is groundless or they are carrying out and agenda. I think for old man as they are, it is normal to question everything as well senile to think they know everything. They think of themselves as modern scientist question everything even if they don’t know the subject. Because they live in the twenty first century they know better than those who live thousands of years ago. And why they are confused using the word religion as if it means the same as believer. According to the lexicon Webster dictionary “religion is a way to trying to reach or seek God” “a believer in God have already found Him and knows Him”. Why atheists don’t know the dictionary? Do they know Greek or at the least Hebrew languages what about Aramaic or Latin. In the bible there are tree different words in Greek to designated the word “life”

1. Bios referring to the biological life our body

2. Psycho referring to the soul logical means study. The word Psychology means the study of the soul, emotions, mind and will.

3. There is another word for life that is Zoe the highest life. Whenever the bible speaks of eternal life speak of Zoe. In a Greek dictionary you will find the distinction. I wonder what an atheist that only knows the bible superficially how will they explain that in the bible there is a word Zoe that was transliterated from Hebrew to Greek as Zoe.

They should not speak about the bible, because their knowledge is superficial, have they read the bible fifty times? have they read 4000 others books? What about the evolution of species how many times they read it.

For this reason, their whole argument is not worthy of consideration. The question is, "Are you qualified to claim that there is no God?" If your hope is merely hear something that isn’t knew, you have lost your ground already.

IS MAN THE GREATEST?

One day a young man came to me and said, "I do not believe in a so-called God. Man is the greatest. He is the noblest among all creatures. There is no God in this universe; man is everything." We were sitting opposite each other. After hearing what he said, I stood up, went to one side of the room, stooped down, and gazed at him intently. I said, "Do you know that in the past many Americans missionaries went abroad USA specially to China, they came with not support from their churches, during the boxer rebellion many of them died, but sow a seed of life “Zoe” that made of the idolaters Chinese genuine believers, when the communist took over China many were put on jail because of their believe in God, thousands of them died, the bible was taken away, a communist reform took place, everyone have to listen to Mao because communist in China as well Stalinism are base in the cult or worship of the personality of their leader. So believers were whipped out. Because they wont exult Mao over God , but today in china there are 200 millions of genuine believers, how this happen, God did it, can atheist recruit in America or in the world 200 million like them, of course not , so why you say that there is not God and you are greater than Him.

HOW VAST IS THE UNIVERSE?

I then said to the young man, "And here you are! You have not even walked through the whole earth, and yet you consider yourself greater than the whole universe. Let me ask you, do you know how vast the universe is? Take light for example. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. Try to calculate how far light travels in one minute, or one hour, or a day, or a year. There are some stars whose light takes three thousand years to reach us. Go and work out how far they are from us! And you think you are so great! I would therefore advise all atheists and young men alike to admit the incompetency of man not only morally, but intellectually and academically as well.

"CAN MAN EXTEND BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF TIME AND SPACE?

Another time when I was in Kaifeng, I met another one of those young, stout atheists. I walked up to him and patted him on the shoulder, saying, "I saw God today!" He stared at me in curiosity and demanded a further word. I replied, "You are God! If you know that there is no God, then you have to be God." He asked for an explanation. I said, "Since you are convinced that there is no God, you must have traveled over the whole earth. If God is not in Shanghai, He may still be in Nanking. You must have been to both places. That is not all. If God is not in Nanking, He may be in Tientsin. You must also have been to Tientsin. But you cannot draw this conclusion simply by being in China; God may be in another country. So you must have been to every country on this earth. If God is not in one place, He may be in another. Therefore, you must have traveled throughout the world. One never knows if God is hiding at the North Pole or the South Pole or in the woods or wilderness somewhere. So you must have combed through all those regions as well. If God is not found on earth, He may be found on the moon. You therefore must have been to the moon. God may also be on other planets or in outer space. This means that you have traveled through space and all the other galaxies as well. If you can say that there is no God, it must mean that you have traveled throughout the whole universe. If this is the case, you must be God yourself."This is not all. Even though you know that God does not exist in Shanghai today, how about yesterday? Perhaps God will come tomorrow. You say that you know there is no God today, but what about last year? And how do you know that God will not come next year? You say that there is no God this year, but what about a thousand years ago? Very well, you must be an everlasting one who knows everything about the past and future. You have to be a being beyond time and space. You must be in Tientsin and in another country at the same time; you must be omnipresent from the east to the west, from the North Pole to the South Pole. Who else but you can be the very God? If you are not God, you can never be qualified to say that there is no God.

"THE EVIDENCE”

Some will immediately step back and say, "I have never said that I know there is no God. One can never tell whether there is a God or not." Well, if you cannot give a conclusion, I will ask witnesses whom I consider trustworthy to present arguments to you and prove the existence of God. Again let me say this, you are the judge, and I am the prosecutor. I am presenting only the evidence before you. Decide for yourself if there is a God.

THE UNIVERSE

First, looks at nature, the world that is before our eyes and every phenomenon in it. We all know that scientific knowledge is the rational explanation of natural phenomena. For example, there is an observed drop in the temperature of a patient. The drop in temperature is a phenomenon, and the explanation for it is scientific knowledge. When an apple falls from the tree, it is a phenomenon. Why does an apple not fly into the air? The explanation for this phenomenon constitutes knowledge. A man with knowledge is a man who has the proper explanations.

ONLY TWO EXPLANATIONS

The universe displays countless phenomena of diverse forms, colors, shapes, and nature. We cannot fail to notice these phenomena before our eyes. The explanation for all these phenomena is known as knowledge. All thoughtful persons have only two explanations as far as the origin of the universe is concerned; there is no third explanation. You have to take one or the other of them. What are these two explanations? The first says that the universe came into being through natural evolution and self-interaction; the second attributes its origin to a personified being with intellect and purpose. These are the only two explanations presented by all philosophers of the world. There is not a third one. Where did the universe come from? Did it come into existence by itself or through chance? Or was it designed by the One from whom we derive the concept of God? You have to think and then make a decision about it. Everything that is by chance has certain characteristics. I would suggest you list all of these in a detailed way, the more the better, and then compare all the phenomena of the universe with your list. Alongside of this make another list of the characteristics which, in your opinion, would be prominent if the universe was created by an intelligent Being. Now by a simple comparison of nature with your two lists, it will be easy to draw a reasonable conclusion.

CHANCE EVENTS

What are the characteristics of things that come about by chance? First, we know that they are unorganized. At the most they can be partially integrated. They can never be totally organized. One can achieve a specified goal by chance once, but he can never achieve a specified goal by chance all the time. Anything that comes together by chance can only be integrated partially, never totally. For example, if I throw this chair to the other side of the room, by chance it may come to rest at a perfect angle. If I do the same with a second chair, it may also lie neatly beside the first one. But this will not keep on happening with the third and the fourth and so on. Chance can only provide partial organization. It does not guarantee total integration. Furthermore, all random interactions are aimless, disorganized, and purposeless. They are without order and structure; they are loose, formless, disorderly, and not directed toward any meaningful purpose. Briefly, we can say that the characteristics of chance events are disharmony, irregularity, inconsistency, purposelessness, and insignificance. We will write down these four characteristics on our list.

CONSISTENCY AND ORGANIZATION

Now let us compare the things in the universe with these characteristics. Take, for example, the human being. He is carried in his mother's womb for nine months and delivered; he grows up and eventually dies. This cycle is repeated for every single individual. Consistency can be observed. It is not a wild game of chance. Again, look at the sun above your head. It does not exist purposelessly. Rather, it has its purpose and significance. Look at the moon, the stars, and the myriads of galaxies through your telescope. Some stars have their own planets. They all follow definite tracks and patterns. They are all organized. Their manner of motion can be calculated and predicted. The calendar in your hand is derived from them. Even next year's calendar can be printed before this year is past. All these show that the universe is organized, consistent, and purposeful.

MICROORGANISMS

Let us turn to the micro-world. Take a thin slice of wood. Put it under a microscope and observe its grain and structure, all meticulously regular and rhythmic. Even a blade of grass and the petal of a flower are finely fashioned. Nothing is unorganized or confused. Everything is disciplined and functional. All these things witness one fact to you: the universe, with its macro and micro aspects, is purposeful and meaningful. Can you say that all these came into existence by chance? Surely you cannot.

IS IT OCCUPIED?

Once I was preaching the gospel with a co-worker of mine in a village. On the way back we were extremely thirsty. There was neither a teahouse nor stream for us to get water. In fact the whole area was uninhabited. After walking for a while we came across a thatched hut. We went to the door quickly and knocked. For a long time there was no answer. We thought that no one lived there. When we opened the door and went in, we found that the floor was swept clean. In one of the rooms was a bed with nicely folded sheets. There was a teapot on the table, and the tea in it was still warm. I said, "Surely someone must be living here. All the arrangements indicate beyond doubt that this place is occupied by someone. We should not drink this tea. We must get out quickly or else people will think we are thieves." We walked out and waited for the owner to return. By observing the arrangements of the house, we concluded that someone was living there, without having seen the occupant. In the same way, we know that God is there by the arrangement of everything in the universe, although we cannot see Him. Every single phenomenon of nature is so balanced, organized, meaningful, and functional. You may say that they come by chance, but it is impossible for me to believe that chance is its sole originator. The Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Only foolish people can say in their hearts that there is no God.

CHANCE OR DESIGN

The universe has to be created by someone with profound wisdom, vast knowledge, and intricate design. If you cannot accept the concept of random formation of the universe, you have to admit that it was created by such a God. There cannot be a third explanation. The choice is left to you. You have to decide if the universe came by chance or whether it was created by God.

A DEMAND AND ITS OBJECT

One witness may not be enough. I will call in another. This time we will consider man's heart. Before doing so, we should also observe one fact: wherever there is a desire, there must first be an object for that desire. For example, an orphan who has never seen his father naturally has a desire for a kind of paternal love. I have asked many people who were orphans, and they all have felt this irrepressible yearning. By this we can see that every desire of the heart arises out of an object in the world. As human beings we have a need for social belonging. We need companionship and mutuality. If you put a boy on a deserted island and he grows up alone, he still has the yearning for companions, for beings like himself, even though he has never seen a human being. This yearning or desire is the very proof that somewhere in the world there is something known as "man." At a certain age, man begins to think about posterity; he starts desiring children and grandchildren. This is not a mere fantasy. This desire stems out of the existence and possibility of offspring. Hence, where there is desire, there is an object for that desire.

THERE IS GOD IN THE HEART

Do we have any desires other than social identity and self-propagation? What other cravings do we have? Deep in everyone there is a craving for God. Whether they are highly civilized races, such as those among the Caucasians, or the ancient civilizations, such as the Chinese civilizations, or the African natives and uncultured aborigines, they all have a common craving --God. As long as they are men, they have a yearning for God, no matter what race or nationality. This is a fact. You cannot argue against it. Everyone is seeking after God. Everywhere man is craving for God. This is very clear. By applying the principle that we just mentioned, we can see that since our heart feels the need for a God, there must necessarily be a God in the universe. Since there is a need for God in the heart, there must be the existence of God in the universe. If no God exists, we would never have such a craving in our heart. We all have an appetite for food. In the same way, we all have an appetite for God. It would be impossible to live if there was only an appetite for food but no food. Likewise, it would be impossible to live if there was a capacity for God but no God.

NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT GOD?

Once an atheist rudely rebuked me in a loud voice: "You said that a man has the psychological need for a God. But there is no such thing, and I do not believe in it." I said, "Well, do you mean to say that you never think about God? In fact, even while you were talking, you were thinking about Him. This indicates that you do have a capacity for God. There is no one who has never thought about God. He may try not to think much about Him. Since this thought is in you, there must be such an object outside of you.

"THE WORDS AND THE HEART”

A young man once came to me to argue about God. He was vehemently against the existence of God. He gave me one reason after another for saying that there is no God. As he was enumerating the various reasons why God should not exist, I listened to him quietly without saying a word. Then I said, "Although you insist that there is no God and support yourself with so many arguments, you have lost your case already." He said, "What do you mean?" I went on to explain: "Your mouth can say as much as you want about there not being a God, but your heart is on my side." He had to agree with me. Although one can give all sorts of reasons in the head, there is a belief in the heart that no argument can defeat. A stubborn person may give a thousand and one reasons, but you can have the boldness to tell him, "You know better in your heart that there is a God. Why bother to look for evidence outside?"Now what would you say? After looking at nature and the universe, after checking with your inner feeling, it is up to you to decide whether or not there is a God. But you should not be irresponsible; your attitude must be sober because everyone has to meet God soon. One day you will all stand before Him. Everything concerning you will be laid bare. On that day you will know God. But now is the time for you to be prepared. We should all be prepared to meet our God

CONSIDER THIS

I shall begin by assuming that the issue of God's existence is settled. We all believe that there is a God. As those who desire to know the truth, we must go one step further to find out what kind of God He is. God is the greatest Unknown. We must spend some time to find out about this unknown One. The next step now is to know what kind of a God He is.


THE BIBLE
In the past few thousand years’ man has been inquiring about the nature of God. Is He kind or is He righteous? Is He indifferent towards us, or is He extremely interested in human affairs? These types of questions are the direct cause of all human religions. What is religion? Religion is man's inquiry about God and his explanation of Him. Through these explanations, different men have arrived at different concepts about God. What kind of God is He? This is a big question. It is also a very serious question. We have all given our thought to this subject at one time or another. The question might even have occurred to our little mind when we were five years old. All men, educated or ignorant, have been intrigued by this question. It comes naturally after some contemplation and observation.

But a person trying to speculate about God is like an ant attempting to understand a human being. It is extremely difficult for the little creature to try to realize our life, nature, and mind. In the same way it is impossible for us to try to comprehend God. For this reason, in the past few thousand years, all kinds of people, theologians and philosophers alike, have done much thinking about Him. What has God been doing all this time? Has He been indifferent to us or has He tried to reveal Himself to us? What is God's attitude? Do you think He would say, "I am God and have nothing to do with human beings. I do not care what you think about me. I shall stay in heaven as God. Let the mortals be ignorant!" Or do you think He has a desire to reveal Himself to man and visit him?
When I was in India, I saw some people lying naked on beds studded with nails. Some walked with bare feet on burning coals. These people devoted a great deal of energy to seeking after God. What has God done to them? Did He hide Himself and take no notice of them at all? Has He not kept Himself as a perpetual mystery? This is a great question. We have to consider it scientifically and objectively in order to find out what God is like.

A few years ago I spoke on a similar subject to some medical students in an auditorium in Cheloo University. I said that man is an organism with a life. God also is a life. Man's life is higher than that of the lower animals, and God's life is even higher than that of man. I asked the students, "Since we realize that all living organisms have some common laws and express some common traits, can you name them?" Different ones then started to bring up different points. At the end we summed up the discussion in this way: all living organisms contain two common characteristics. You can call these characteristics their common expressions or their common laws. First, every life wants to preserve itself. It tends to reproduce itself. There is the ability to produce posterity, to continue its own life. Second, every life wants to have fellowship with other lives. It cannot stand being by itself. When a man cannot find fellowship with another human being, he goes to dogs, cats, fish, or birds and makes friends with animals. All living creatures desire fellowship.
Based on these two characteristics of life, namely, the preservation of itself and fellowship with others, laws of human government are instituted. For example, the death penalty reflects a convict's desire to preserve his own life; punishment comes in the form of taking away and terminating such a life. This is the way to inflict suffering on a life. Imprisonment, as a less serious punishment, cuts him off from having fellowship with others. This reversal of the life principle becomes then a suffering for him. From this we see that punishment is applied according to the principles of life.
With these two chief characteristics in mind, let us turn to the life of God. God is an organism of a higher order than human beings. He is naturally governed by this law of life. We can know God by the characteristics and distinctive features of His life. From this we can deduce whether or not God wants to have fellowship with man.


There are two kinds of religion: religion based on natural concepts and religion based on revelation. Natural religion starts with man as the center. He is the one that is seeking after God and studying about Him. What then is revelation religion? Revelation religion comes directly from God. He is the One who comes to reveal things to us. Man's thoughts are often useless fancies. God's revelation alone is trustworthy. Christianity is different from all other natural religions in that it is a religion that comes from revelation. Christianity begins from God. It is God who comes to seek out man, rather than man who seeks after God.
I will not try to persuade you to believe in Christianity or to read the Bible. I will only make a few suppositions. We will treat the subject in the same way as if we were solving a problem in geometry. We will start from the suppositions and then deduce our arguments step by step. We will examine our reasoning’s to see if they are sound and if our conclusions are logical. As in mathematics, with some problems we work forwards, while with others we work backwards. At any rate, in the end we should be able to tell whether or not a supposition is justified.

We have to make a few suppositions. The first one is that God exists. This in fact has been covered by us already. We have agreed that there is a God. He is a Being who has a purpose.
Second, we assume that God has a desire to reveal Himself to man. If God wants to reveal Himself to man and if He wants us to know Him, how does He do it? In what manner can He be made known to us? If He speaks to us through thunder or writes to us through lightning, we will not be able to comprehend His message. How then does God make Himself known to us?

If He is to reveal Himself and if He wants us to know Him, He necessarily must do it through human means. What then are the common ways that men communicate with one another? First, they do it through speaking and second through writing. All means of communication, whether telegraph, telephone, sign, or symbols, are all included in these two categories. If God is to manifest Himself, these are the only two means for Him to do so. For the present we set aside the aspect of speaking; we will see how God communicates with us through writing.
If God reveals Himself through writing, of all the volumes written by different people throughout the centuries, there must be one book which is divinely inspired. This is a very crucial test. If such a book exists, it proves not only the existence of God, but it contains His written revelation to us as well. Is there then such a divinely written book?
In the search for such a book, let us first mention a few basic principles. Suppose I want to order a book from a publisher. If I can tell him the name and author of the book, there will be no trouble getting it. If, however, I forget the name and author of the book, I can describe the characteristics of it to the publisher, such as the contents, size, color, binding, etc. The publisher will then search through all his books and locates the volume I want. God has one book in this universe. How do we find it? We have to know its characteristics first. If there is any book that has been written by God, it must meet certain conditions or have certain qualifications before one can say that it is from God.


Let me put forth a few propositions. If there is a book written by God, it must first of all mention God. It must tell you that it is from God and that its author is God. This is the first qualification. Second, it must carry a moral tone that is higher than what we commonly know. If it is a fabrication, it can at the most be on the same level as man. Third, if there is such a divine book, it must tell us about the past and the future of this world. Only God knows clearly what occurred in the past and what will happen in the future. Only by telling us these matters will we know Him as God. Fourth, this book must be simple and available so that all may be able to secure and understand it. If there were only one such book in the world, then only a very few people would be able to see it. It would not pass the test unless it is a book accessible to everyone. In the United States there is a group of people who claim to have a book from God. It is engraved in gold and contains only twelve pages. Such a book then would not be accessible to the Chinese. God would never write to us a book at which we could not look.
Now the matter is simplified. Let us repeat these four conditions once more. (1) If such a book exists, it must tell us explicitly that its author is God. (2) It must carry a high tone of morality. (3) It must give a detailed description of the past and the future of the universe. (4) It must be available. Let us pick out some of the more important writings throughout human civilization and check them against these qualifications to see if any meets our requirements.

We will start from books that are generally considered to be good. Let us take the Chinese classics of Confucius. They are immediately disqualified under the first requirement, for none of them claims to be written by God. They do have a high tone of morality, but they fail to give the origin and destiny of the world, the universe, and man. This does not mean that they are worthless books; it means that they do not contain the qualifications we want. They are not what we are looking for.
Let us go to the classics of other cultures. There are numerous volumes of famous writings, but none of them passes the first test. They are all clearly written by man. They may be masterpieces in philosophy or morality, but they are not written by God, nor are they divinely inspired. We have to set them aside.
There is a book in India called the Rig-Veda. It once dominated Hinduism. However, it does not claim to be written by God.
Another book called the Avesta, written by a Persian named Zoroaster, is also extremely influential in the Middle East. It does not claim to be from God either. Moreover, its moral tone is not especially commendable.
Let us come to the Koran of Mohammedanism. This is the closest one we can find. It tells us that it comes from God; it meets the first requirement. However, it does not fulfill the second requirement, for its moral tone is too low. The heaven it describes is full of lusts and flesh. God could never write a book with such licentiousness and immorality. Hence, this book does not pass the test of morality.


After searching through all the books, you have to come finally to the Bible. If God desires to communicate with man, and if He does so through writing, then this is the only book that can pass the four tests. Hence, this must be the book God has for man.
What does this book say? In the books of the law in the Old Testament, it says, "Thus said the Lord," at least five hundred times. Other books in the Old Testament repeat the phrase about seven hundred times. In addition to the references in the New Testament to the speaking of God, the Bible has more than two thousand claims of divine origin. If God has no intention of communicating with man, we can forget about this book. But if He does communicate with man through writing, then this book has to be of immense value. Can you find another book where God is claimed as its author that many times?
We have to see if the Bible meets the second qualification. Let us take a look at its moral tone. Everyone who has studied this book confesses that it carries the highest moral standard. Even the sins of the noblest persons are recorded and condemned without mercy. Once a strong opposer of the Bible was asked by his son, "Why are you so strong against the Bible?" He answered, "If I do not condemn it, it will condemn me." This book does not let us get by easily. The human concept is that all sexual acts outside marriage are considered as fornication. The Bible, however, says that even an evil thought is fornication. Human morality condemns an act of killing as murder, but the Bible condemns a slight hatred in the heart as murder.
We consider a man who lets his enemy get by without paying vengeance as forgiving. But the Bible charges man to love his enemy. How high is its moral tone and how low we are before its standards! You cannot help but admit that it presents the best ethical code for humanity.

Furthermore, this book describes in detail the past and future of the universe. Once a friend told me that he could believe in everything the Bible says except the parts in Genesis and Revelation where it talks about the origin and destiny of the heavens and earth. I told him that if this is indeed a book from God, it must, of necessity, contain these matters. If the Bible did not contain Genesis and Revelation, it would be the same as any other book, and we would have to look for another book; it would not be the one we want. But the past condition of the world and its future destiny are recorded here. Hence, the third qualification is also met.


What is the circulation of such a book? Last year (1935), more than two hundred million copies were sold. Can you name another book that has such a high circulation rate? This statistic, moreover, is not limited to just last year; every year the number has remained approximately the same. In one sense this book is very popular. In another sense it is like a thorn in your hand; it pierces you. This book gives you a headache. It creates an unspeakable uneasiness within man. It even causes man to oppose it. In spite of this, its annual sales are still over two hundred million.
Furthermore, this book is translated into more than seven hundred twenty languages. In every country and among every race, there is a translation of this unique book. It is extremely easy for anyone to obtain a Bible anywhere in the world. If the Rig-Veda were God's book, then more than half of the world would perish due to a failure in obtaining it. Even if you put the Rig-Veda in my hand, I would still be unable to understand it. If only the educated ones can contact God, then I am destined to go to hell. If only the Indians have the opportunity, we Chinese, as well as other races, are out of hope. If God speaks through the Rig-Veda, then where can we find that book? Maybe we can only find the original copy in the London Museum. And even that may not contain the original meaning of God's revelation to man.

This is not all. The Bible contains sixty-six books and it is divided into the Old and New Testaments. It was written by no less than thirty people. The span from the time the first book was written to the time when the last book was finished is more than sixteen hundred years. The places where they were written are also different. Some were written in Babylon, some in Italy, some at one end of Asia Minor, others at the other end of the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the writers themselves differed in their backgrounds. Some were lawyers; some were fishermen. There were princes, and there were shepherds. All these writings by men of different backgrounds, languages, environments, and periods are put together. The amazing thing is that it is still a complete book.
All those who have had some experience of editing know that in order to put together a few articles written by different authors, it is necessary for the authors to be of comparable level of academic achievements and viewpoints. Even when the academic standard and viewpoints are similar, there will still be conflicts and contradictions when you put five or six articles together. But the Bible, though complex in contents, contains history, poetry, laws, prophecies, biographies, and doctrines and was written by so many different ones at different times and under different circumstances, yet when you put them together, they surprisingly run as one continuous volume. There is no conflict or contradiction. They are written in one breath.


If you read this book carefully, you have to admit that God's hand is behind all the writings. More than thirty people of varied backgrounds and ideas in different times and places wrote these sixty-six books. When you group them up, they link together as if they were written by one individual. Genesis was written about fifteen hundred years before Christ, and Revelation was written ninety-five years after Christ. There is a time span of sixteen hundred years. One talks about the beginning while the other projects the end of the world. Yet whatever begins in Genesis is concluded in Revelation. This amazing feature cannot be explained in human terms. Every word of it has to be written by God through man. God is the motivating One behind the whole composition.

There is another remarkable thing about this book. In itself it is a book that gives life. Yet countless numbers of people have lost their lives for its sake. There was a time when anyone who held this book in his hand would immediately be put to death. The most powerful empire in history was the Roman Empire. There was a time when this empire summoned all its forces to destroy this book. Everyone who possessed it would be inhumanly persecuted and later killed or burned. They wiped out thousands of people and burned countless copies of the Bible. They even set up a monument at a place where they killed Christians. On it was the inscription: "Christianity is buried here." They thought that when they had burned all the Bibles and removed all the Christians, they would see Christianity lying there beneath their feet. But it was not long after that when the Bible came back again. Even in a country like England, which has already accepted Christianity as its state religion, you can still find tombs of martyrs for Christ if you visit different places there. Here and there you can find places where the Bible was once burned. Or you may come across a tombstone that tells you that such and such a person tried so hard and wrote so many books in his life to oppose the Bible. One place may tell you that the Bible was once burned there, and another place may tell you that Christians were once killed there. One signpost may point you to a statue of martyrdom, and another may point to a site of Bible burning.
Why is it that so many people have tried so hard to oppose this book? Why is it that men would pass by other books, but would either oppose this book with every fiber of their being or would put their whole life to the stake for it? There must be something extraordinary here. Even if you do not believe that this is God's word, you have to admit that there is something unusual about this book.


This book seems to be very simple and easy. If you consider it from the historical point of view, it tells the origin of the universe, the earth, the plants, human beings, how they established their kingdoms, and how they will eventually end. This is all. There is nothing special about it. Yet it has been handed from generation to generation for centuries. Today it is still with us. Moreover, if you do not confess that it is truth, you have to conclude that it is false. You can disregard many books, but you cannot ignore this book. Nor will it ignore you. It will not let you go. It demands a verdict from you. It will not pass you by.

Another remarkable thing about this book is that almost half of it is prophecy. Among the prophecies, almost half of them are fulfilled. The other half is for the future and await fulfillment. For example, it predicted the fate of the nations of Moab and Ammon and of the cities of Tyre and Sidon. Today when people talk about big cities, they mention London and Shanghai. Then it was Tyre and Sidon. They were two chief cities of the ancient world. The prophecies concerning these two cities were all fulfilled. Once I was in the Middle East. For some reason I did not visit those two places. However, I bought two pictures of those cities. It amazed me when I looked at those pictures. I could not help but believe in the Bible. It was prophesied that if these two metropolitan cities did not repent, they would be destroyed and devastated. Their land would become hills of rocks and pebbles where fishermen would come to dry their nets. In the pictures that I bought, there was nothing but fishing boats and open nets on the shore. This is only one small fact that proves the reliability of biblical prophecy.
If you compare past events with the prophecies in the Bible, you will find that they all correspond one with another. For another example, take the birth of Christ. Isaiah prophesied concerning a virgin with child a few hundred years before Christ actually came. Later, He was born indeed of the Virgin Mary. The prophecy was accurately fulfilled. As the prophecies concerning the past have been fulfilled, so the prophecies concerning the future must also be fulfilled.

If God desires to communicate with man, He must do so through common human channels of communication. He must use the human language or human writings. In other words, there must be a book in the world that is a direct revelation from God. If such a book does exist, it must contain the four criteria we mentioned. Now we can say that such a book is found. This book tells us that God desires to have fellowship with us. He speaks to us through this book. Through it God is no longer an unknown Being. We can now know Him. This book is the Bible. I hope all of you will read it .

THIS IS A SERIOUS MATER, IS HE CRAZY? A LUNATIC? A LIAR? PLEASE YOU’RE VERIDICT

God desires to reveal Himself to us. He does so through means that are comprehensible to man. These are namely written and spoken language. We have seen how God reveals Himself through writing. Now we want to take a look at His revelation through speaking.
Suppose that you have had correspondence with a person for many years; however, you have never seen him. Naturally, you would want to know him more by having some direct acquaintance with him. Full understanding of someone cannot be achieved merely through writing. Direct contact gives a better chance. It seems as if communication through speech is of a more intimate and thorough nature than writing. When spoken language is added to written language, communication becomes enhanced. If you take away either of the two, you have a gap. Of course, if you take away both, communication is completely voided. Effective communication is always carried out by these two means.
If God's intention is to reveal Him to us, He must of necessity do so through speaking. But how does God speak? Does He trumpet from the heavens? If so, we would all be frightened to death. We would all run away. No one would dare to listen. There is a chasm between Him and us. He, being so high and great, would drive us away from His holiness. How then does He speak?
THE WINTER ON THE MOUNTAIN
let me relate to you a story. One winter I was staying on the mountain Lu-shan, recovering from an illness. It was immediately after the war, and there was practically no one living on the mountain. In the vicinity of my dwelling, one could hardly see anyone all day long. I am a quiet person by nature. This kind of environment was very appealing to me. Not only was it quiet there, but the weather was cold as well. From morning till dusk, all I saw was a boy who came three times to deliver my meals. At the beginning I was quite at ease. But after a while, even a person like me began to feel lonely.
One day after lunch I went to take a nap. There was a balcony outside my bedroom window. When I woke up I saw some little creatures gathering around the balcony. Bits of my meal had been dropped there, and the birds were busily chirping around them. As they hopped around, they chirped and made many cheerful noises. I said to myself, "All right. Since I cannot find any human beings, I will try to make friends with these little birds."
I rose up and went out to greet them. But in an instant they all flew away. An idea came to me. I took some of the leftover rice and began to arrange it in rows, with only a few grains in the first row and gradually increased them towards the entrance of the doorway. I hid behind the door and watched them coming. Soon they gathered around again. I said to me, "This is my chance." I walked out and began to make friends with them. But the minute they saw me, they all scattered. Some perched on the branches of the tree across the balcony and stared at me, as if trying to determine what my intention was. Every time I approached them, they flew away, and every time I walked away, they came back. This went on a number of times.
I wanted to preach to the birds. I wanted to tell them, "Little birds, I have no special intention in doing this. This is winter on the mountain, and food is scarce. I have enough food with me, and I just want to share it with you. Please be at peace and come down. I only ask that as you eat, I can sit among you. I want to listen to your songs and watch you playing. Come. Let us be friends..." But the birds would not come. They did not understand me. I had to give up.
Later I had a certain realization within. I began to preach to myself. I said, "This body of mine is too big. If I could shrink from five feet eleven inches to the size of a bird, and even change myself into a bird, they would not be alarmed by my presence. I could then tell them my heart's intention, and we could spend the winter on the mountain Lu-shan together."

We have a similar problem today. If God remained God, we could never understand Him. If He talked to us in His language, we would be altogether lost. If God wants to reveal Himself through speaking and have fellowship with man, He must shrink Himself to such a degree that He and we are the same. Only then would He be able to speak to us and tell us of Himself and of the mysteries of the universe. Only then would we be able to understand Him.
Has God become a man to reveal Himself through His speaking? Let us again use the method of supposition. What if God revealed Himself through the human language? What if He became a man and fellowshipped with man? The implication is tremendous here! It would mean that in this world, among all the human beings throughout history, one person was not merely a man, but God as well! If it is granted that God became a man, there must be a mortal who was also divine. We need to find out about this One.

This is a thorny task. But we will employ the effective method we have adopted—namely, setting down a few principles. Then we will search according to these qualifications and directions. We want to base our evaluation on what manner of life a person should possess and what qualifications he must have if he is God.
The first condition that this person must fulfill is that he must claim to be God while he is on earth. He cannot be apologetic about it. He must declare boldly that he is God. Only then can we know who he is. Without this declaration, we have no way to guess his identity. Hence, a declaration is our first qualification.
Second, the way this person came into the world must be different from ours. If I said that I am God and yet was born in the same manner as every other mortal, my words would carry no force. If on the other hand, I dropped down from heaven; my assertion would be taken seriously. The way this person comes into being must be extraordinary. He must come in an absolutely different fashion; otherwise, his words will not carry the necessary weight.
Third, this man must bear a moral standard that is far above that of all other human beings. He must have God's holiness, and his life must bear the mark of God's righteousness. For example, if I became a bird and lived in exactly the same way as other birds, without showing them anything extraordinary, I could not convince them that I was actually a man. If God is to become a man, His moral behavior must be of the highest quality. This is the only way that we could identify Him as God.
Furthermore, if a person is God, he must necessarily be able to perform things which no mortal can do. If he can achieve what we cannot achieve and know what we do not know, we can say that he is truly God.
Lastly, this person must be able to tell us the divine purpose concerning man. What was God's purpose in creating the universe and man? How does He take care of human pains and sorrows? What is the origin and ultimate solution of everything in the universe? What should our attitude towards God be? All these he must reveal to us. Unless this one shows us what we do not see, we cannot say that he has shown us any revelation.
We will set down these five conditions and put the whole of humanity to the test. Let us find out if someone meets the five requirements. Such a person would surely be qualified to be God.
The first person to put to the test should be you. Of course, you are not God, because you have never claimed to be God. Nor have I ever claimed to be. So that rules out you and me. Very well, now we will introduce Confucius. If you read his books, you will find that he did conduct a very moral and proper life. But he never claimed to be God either. Hence, he fails in the first step.
What about Sakya Muni, the founder of Buddhism? Not only was there an absence of the claim of divinity, but his philosophy itself is void of deity. He did not believe in the existence of God. Since he had no God, he cannot be God either.
Next, go to Mohammed. He believed in God. But he never claimed to be God. He called God Allah and himself the prophet of Allah. If you go through every person in history, you will discover that no one ever claimed to be God except One. That One was Jesus of Nazareth. He claimed to be the living God. No other person put forward such a claim.

How can Jesus of Nazareth claim to be God? Before going on, we have to pause for a moment to seriously consider the matter. It is not a light thing to claim to be God. A person who makes such a claim falls into one of three categories. He must belong to one of these three categories; he cannot belong to all three. First, if he claims to be God and yet in fact is not, he has to be a madman or a lunatic. Second, if he is neither God nor a lunatic, he has to be a liar, deceiving others by his lie. Third, if he is neither of these, he must be God. You can only choose one of the three possibilities. If you do not believe that he is God, you have to consider him a madman. If you cannot take him for either of the two, you have to take him for a liar. There is no need for us to prove if Jesus of Nazareth is God or not. All we have to do is find out if He is a lunatic or a liar. If He is neither, He must be the Son of God. These are our three choices. There is no fourth.
What did Jesus of Nazareth say about Himself? In John 10:30 He said, "I and the Father are one." We need some explanation here. In the Bible the invisible God is called the Father. The Son manifests and expresses the Father. What is hidden is the Father, and what is expressed is the Son. The Son is the One who can be seen and touched. Behind, you have the Father. In front, you have the Son. The two are actually one. They are the two sides of the same reality. When we talk about two, we refer to the fact that one is hidden while the other is revealed. When we talk about one, we say that the revealed One is just the hidden One in manifestation. This is the biblical interpretation of the Father and the Son.
Therefore, when Jesus of Nazareth one day said, "I and the Father are one," it was a statement that no one else could make. This man was saying in reality that He and the invisible God are one entity. He is God and God is He. God is the invisible Father, and He is the manifested Son. The Father and the Son are one! Who can this One be that made such a claim? Is He a madman? Is He out to deceive us?
After Jesus spoke such a word, what reaction do we see? "The Jews again took up stones that they might stone Him. Jesus answered them, I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these works are you stoning me? The Jews answered Him, We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, are making Yourself God" (vv. 31-33). The Jews understood very well that Jesus' words meant that He claimed to be God. After hearing these words they wanted to stone Him to death. A claim was made by Jesus, and an accusation was charged by the Jews, both of which concerned His divinity. Was Jesus insane? Did He speak pure nonsense just to cause people to kill Him? Or was He a swindler setting up some kind of a scheme? If so, what was He trying to gain? Was He trying to gain death?

Perhaps we will go back a little bit to the earlier parts in the Gospel of John and see what it says there. John 1:18 says, "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." Why has no one seen God? It is because God is invisible. Jesus said that He was the only Begotten of the Father; He expressed the invisible Father. When you see the only Begotten, you see the Father.
Again He spoke concerning Himself, "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven" (3:13). Have you ever heard anyone say such words? I cannot say, "No one has been to Shanghai, but he who comes from Shanghai to Tientsin, even I, Watchman Nee, who is in Shanghai." If I say so, I would be gibbering nonsense. But Jesus was speaking a heavenly language. He said that He came out of heaven and is still in heaven. What can a person be if he can be in two places simultaneously? Either he is God or he is a lunatic or he is a liar. If you have not yet believed in Christ, please give a verdict to this issue. Who is this man?
Let us read John 3:31-32: "He who comes from above is above all; he who is from the earth is of the earth and speaks out of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. What He has seen and heard, of this He testifies, and no one receives His testimony." He said that He came out of heaven and was above all. After a while He said the same thing again. Let us see what the purpose behind these words is. He came to preach the things of heaven, but no one received His words. He mentioned words like "heaven," "above all," "out of heaven," etc. What kind of man was He? Confucius never said this. Neither did Sakya Muni or Mohammed. Was Jesus of Nazareth a madman, a liar, or the Son of God?
John 5:17 says, "But Jesus answered them, My Father is working until now, and I also am working." He always put Himself in the same place as the Father. Verse 18 says, "Because of this therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." When we read His words now, we may consider them to be ordinary remarks. But the Jews knew what He was saying. They knew that He was making Himself equal with God. The words in fact meant that God is His Father and He came to express God. The invisible One is God, and the visible One is He. Therefore, the Jews sought to kill Him. What should we do about such an unusual person?

John 6:46 says, "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except Him who is from God, He has seen the Father." Here the word is clearer. He said that no one other than Himself has ever seen God. Only He knew what the Father is like. I can only say with soberness and reverence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. Read John 8:18. What did He say? "I am one who testifies concerning me, and the Father who sent me testifies concerning me." The question in verse 19 is most interesting: "They said then to Him, Where is Your Father? Jesus answered, you know neither me nor My Father; if you knew me, and you would know My Father also." Have you seen what He was saying? They had seen Him, yet did not know Him. Of course they would not know the Father either, whom they had not seen. If men knew Him, they knew God. Who is He then? If knowing Him equals knowing God, is that not the same as saying that He is God and God is He?
Read John 8:23: "And He said to them, You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world." The preposition "from" in this verse is ek in Greek. It means "out of." That is how it should be translated. He said, "You are out of this world, but I am not out of this world." This man claimed to be from above; He did not come out of this world. Who can He be?
The Jews were confused. They were totally bewildered. Who was this man? The ancestor of the Jews is Abraham. They boasted of being the descendants of Abraham in the same way the Chinese boast of being the offspring of Hwang-it. The name Abraham was highly venerated among the Jews. Now they brought out Abraham. Please read John 8:53: "Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too. Who are you making yourself?" How did Jesus answer them? Was He greater or smaller than Abraham? In verse 56 Jesus said, "Your father Abraham exulted that he would see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced." What is this? Even Abraham had to look forward to Jesus! Hence, verse 57: "The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Now please pay your attention to Jesus' answer in verse 58: "Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am." Tell me who this man is. If I told you that before Hwang-it was, I, Watchman Nee am there, you would immediately write me off as a lunatic. Some of you would say that I am a liar. The words Jesus spoke made Him a madman, a liar, or God. There can be no fourth alternative.

We have to read on. In John 10:37-38 Jesus said, "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works so that you may come to know and continue to know..." Know what? The clause following is very crucial. It is a big statement: "...that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." Who then is this man? He said that He was in God and God was in Him.
Passages like the above are numerous in the Bible. I shall mention one more. Read carefully John 14:6-7: "Jesus said to him, I am the way and the reality and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known My Father also; and henceforth you know Him and have seen Him." It says clearly that if you know Jesus of Nazareth, you have known the invisible God. Why is this so? It is because He is God.

One of the disciples was confused. John 14:8 says, "Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us." Philip was asking to be shown the Father who had been mentioned again and again by Jesus. Verse 9 says, "Jesus said to him, have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father?" Here Jesus made it very plain that to see Him is to see God. He made no apology about it. He is God. There is no need to see the Father anymore. If you see Him, you see God!
Who is Jesus of Nazareth? What would you say? Is He merely the founder of the Christian religion? Is He merely an example of self-sacrifice and humanitarianism? Is He a social reformer? Is He an advocate for universal love, peace, and freedom? Listen to what He said about Himself. He said that He is God. What is your conclusion? Is He a lunatic or a liar? Is He a hoax, or is He God? This is a vital question.
Can He be a madman? If you read His biographies in the Gospels and observe His life and manner, you will realize that not only was He sane and sound, He was very sober and firm. If there is a perfectly sound person in this world, He has to be the One. His mind was clear, and His mentality was alert. If you study His deeds and words carefully, you have to confess that His thoughts are very logical and consistent, and His manners are most comely and appropriate. To opposing ones He only needed to reply a few sentences, and their arguments against Him were defeated. He did not have a trace of madness in Him. A madman could never have done what He did.
Then is He a liar? A liar always lies for a profit. If there is no profit to be gained, what is the purpose of lying? Why was Jesus crucified? For no other reason than that He claimed to be God. At the last judgment, the hour when His release or crucifixion was to be deliberated, He was examined as to who He was. What was His answer? He said that the Son of Man would be seen sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high, descending on the clouds in glory (Matt. 26:64). Even then He claimed to be God. As a result, He was crucified on the cross. Is there a liar who would sacrifice his life for his lie?

Once I met a person who wanted to talk with me about our faith. He read some books about Jesus and admitted that Jesus had a high standard of morality. He could consider Jesus as a perfect man, a model for humanity. But he could not believe that Jesus is God. I said, "If you admit that He has a high standard of morality, then He at least is not a liar. If you agree that He is not a liar, then you have to accept His claim of divinity as truth. He repeatedly asserted that He is God. If you admire His morality, you have to recognize His divinity as well. Jesus of Nazareth is God!"

Please read John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Verse 14 says, "And the Word became flesh and tabernacle among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality." What is the "Word" mentioned in verses 1 and 14? Verse 1 speaks of the relationship the Word has with God. In reference to when, the Word was there from the beginning. In reference to where, the Word was with God. In reference to what, the Word was God. Today the Word has become flesh; He has taken on a human body and dwelt among men. As to how He dwells, it says that He is "full of grace and reality," and "we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father." Who is this One? He is Jesus of Nazareth.
Here we have only seen one of the five qualifications mentioned earlier. Only Jesus of Nazareth meets this first condition. This proves that He is God. We shall go on to see the four other conditions or qualifications. Jesus of Nazareth must meet all the other four qualifications before we can conclude that He is God.

GOD COME INTO THE WORLD

If God is to be a man, He must come into the world in a way that is very different from all other mortals. We come into the world through our parents and are conceived by our mothers. To ascertain whether Jesus of Nazareth is an ordinary person or the incarnated God, we need to examine His birth. If His birth was no different from ours, we have to conclude that He is nothing but a man. Not only does He have to pass the first qualification, but He needs to pass the second one. Do not hastily believe in a person simply because he claims to be God; we have to test him by our second criterion. If he is indeed God, he must be born in an extraordinary manner.
If we study the birth of Jesus, we will find that it was very different from ours. He was born of a virgin. Both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament tell us this fact. Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary.

Before we go on, we have to realize that there are two ways to know God: by natural speculation or by revelation. According to natural speculation, one meditates and conjectures about God. In revelation, God speaks to man. We want to look at the revelation of God. We want to know what God says.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke show us that Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary. This important fact enables us to conclude that He is no ordinary person, and it justifies our being a Christian.
The natural mentality cannot readily accept this fact. Some years ago, a big debate was conducted in England. On one side were prominent leaders of modernistic schools of theology. On the other side was a famous Presbyterian pastor-theologian. Four major topics were raised. Twice a day, for four consecutive days, each side took turns delivering a long speech for a total of eight messages. One of the topics was related to our subject—the virgin birth. The modernistic theologians asserted that one reason alone was enough to disprove the virgin birth—the event was biologically impossible. According to the law of biology, it is impossible to have the virgin birth.
On the same day, their opponent gave the rebuttal. Let me briefly mention a few of his arguments. He said, "Our friends have denied the possibility of such an event on the ground of biological law. I am here to ask whether such an event happened. They asked, 'Can this happen?' They referred you to academic principles. I am asking, 'Has this happened?' I point to a historical occurrence. It is one thing to be academically justified. It is another thing to be historically recorded."
As he was speaking, he drew out a newspaper from his pocket. In the paper was an article about an accident that had happened a few days earlier. A man was driving on a winding mountain road. Due to carelessness, the car slid and tumbled down a deep gorge. The car was totally wrecked. Not even a square foot of the vehicle was left untouched. It was thoroughly damaged. But the man on the ground was absolutely unhurt. Later, he rose up and walked away. The theologian read the passage aloud and said, "This car tumbled down a thousand feet into ruin. You cannot even find a square foot of whole metal, and yet the man was unharmed. My friends would ask, 'Could this man live?' But my question is, 'Is this man alive?' He is alive! If you consider the possibility, there is none. But if you consider the fact, there it is!"
What we have is a historical fact. If we try to study the virgin birth from a scientific point of view, we may conclude that this is an impossible event. But my question is whether or not such an event occurred. The Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus was born of a virgin. So does the Gospel of Luke. At least you have to say that these records have said such a thing and that such an event was recorded in history. At least you have to believe that there is a historical event.
I am not asserting that Matthew and Luke were inspired by the Holy Spirit when they wrote their books. Whether these books were divinely inspired or not, we will set aside for a moment. We are saying that there were a few people who followed Jesus. They wrote His biography. Both Matthew and Luke were contemporaries of Jesus. Matthew followed Him for more than three years. Luke was not as close, but he "carefully investigated all things" (Luke 1:3). I believe that when he wrote his gospel, the mother of Jesus was still alive. What did they say about the birth of Jesus? They all testified that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. His birth was absolutely different from ours. Today, after almost two thousand years, some who never saw Jesus, never talked to Mary His mother, and never met Joseph His father; conclude that He was not born of a virgin. How can you say that He was not born in this manner? Are you ruling out the possibility of such an event and concluding that it did not happen because of some arguments you proposed in your study room or some theories you fashioned in the laboratory?

Perhaps we should read the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. There are forty-two generations in the genealogy. Beginning from the first generation, it repeatedly says, "So-and-so begot So-and-so." This phrase is used through verse 15, which says, "And Eliud begot Eleazar, and Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob." Verse 16 continues, "And Jacob begot Joseph." The surprising thing is that the next part of the sentence does not continue with "Joseph begot Jesus." Rather, it says, "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." When the line reaches Joseph, the pattern is dropped. This is because Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. His way of birth was very different from ours.

We have seen that His method of coming into the world was an unusual one. Now we want to look at His way of departing from the world. As we shall see, this was also contrary to our ordinary deaths. No one can ever predict the place, time, and manner he or she is going to die. A hundred years from now, all of us here will be dead. But no one knows how we are going to die. Jesus of Nazareth, however, foresaw His own death. He knew exactly when, where, and how it was to happen.

Once when someone told Him that He was going to be killed, He answered that it was not acceptable for a prophet to perish outside of Jerusalem (Luke 13:33). He knew that He was going to die in Jerusalem. One day, He told His disciples that the hour had come. Not only did He sense the imminence of His death; He told others that His death hour had come. He knew also how He would die. A number of times He mentioned that He would be crucified. This was recorded at least three times in Matthew. Not only was this man different in His way of entering into the world, but His manner of departure was no less extraordinary. Both His birth and His death were very unusual. Is this the Son of God? Let us consider the third qualification. What kind of morality did Jesus of Nazareth have? Was He the same as we are? Did He ever sin?
I like the sentence Jesus spoke in John 8. Many were opposing Him at that time. They surrounded and cross-examined Him. In return He asked, "Which of you convicts me of sin?" (v. 46). This was a tremendous challenge! Which one of us would dare to stand before everyone and challenge to be convicted of sin? Whoever dared do such a thing would be put to shame the minute his wife stood up to testify against him. Perhaps, in less than five minutes, seven or eight people would immediately rise up to expose his lies and unfaithfulness. But when Jesus made such a statement, no one was able to convict Him of sin. There have been a countless number of saints and sages throughout the ages, but none was bold enough to claim to be perfect and sinless. Why is it that Jesus alone dared to make such a claim?
All I can say is that this man is either arrogant to the extreme or holy to the uttermost. A proud person may talk in an outlandish manner because he does not know himself; he has no realization of what kind of person he is. But when Jesus challenged, "Which of you convicts me," there was no way He could be humble or polite about it. He is without sin, and He is holy to the uttermost.
Jesus of Nazareth is not like Confucius, who said that given some more time, he would be rid of big, moral flaws. Jesus is sinless. When He made such a statement, He made it before His enemies. If there had been a slight misconduct on His part, the Jews would have caught it right away. The Jews are not prolific writers; they have not produced many books other than the Holy Scripture. But after Jesus, many books were written by the Jews to contradict Him. All these books deny His divinity, but none touch His morality. Of all the opposing writings, none can prove that Jesus ever sinned.
Every philosopher or founder of religion, at one time or another, has said, "I repent," or "I regret such and such a matter. I will do better from now on." But Jesus of Nazareth never repented. A sinner must of necessity repent. But what does a sinless man have to repent of? Jesus never apologized to anyone; He never did anyone any wrong.
When I was in England, some British friends asked for my opinion concerning their people. I said, "Among you, once ever so often, I hear, 'Excuse me' and 'I beg your pardon.'" To the English, anyone who does not know how to make these two remarks has to be an extremely base person, for he knows not his own mistakes. Anyone can make a mistake, but when one refuses to admit his mistakes, he makes himself vulgar. For this reason we have to say, "Excuse me" and "I beg your pardon" all the time.
The amazing thing is that Jesus of Nazareth never said "sorry" to anyone. He never apologized. Could He be so evil as to ignore His conscience completely? Was He oblivious to His own errors? Or is He really sinless? If so, He cannot say, "sorry." It is not a matter of humility or politeness to Him, but a matter of maintaining His standing.

I love the story about Jesus once walking down a road. Many people were gathered around Him, hoping to see the resurrection of a dead person. It was so crowded that the people pressed upon each other. One woman, who suffered from an issue of blood for years, thought that Jesus would surely be able to heal her since He had performed all kinds of miracles. She did not come to the Lord directly. All that she did was touch the fringe of His garment, and the sickness was immediately healed (Mark 5:25-29).
Jesus felt something, turned around, and asked, "Who touched me?" How did the disciples respond? They said, "You see the crowd pressing upon you and you say, who touched me?" (v. 31). He should have asked, "Who pressed me?" instead of "Who touched me?" If I were Jesus, I would have said in a gentlemanly fashion, "Excuse me." But Jesus did not need to say that. When He said that it was a touch, He meant that it was a touch and not a pressing against. The disciples only knew that many thronged around Him. But He knew that someone "touched" Him. He knew what He was doing. There was no need for apology. He knows no sin because He is without sin.
Let me mention another story about Jesus. One day He came to the synagogue in His hometown. Someone handed Him the Scripture, and He started to read from a passage about Himself. The people there, however, despised Him. He remarked that a prophet is always despised in His own place. For this reason, God would not choose them but would rather go to someone else. After they heard this, they were very indignant. They carried Him outside and tried to throw Him down a cliff. I like very much what Jesus did then. He passed through their midst (Luke 4:16-30). If someone tried to push us over a cliff, we would struggle to escape. But He was no ordinary person. He simply passed through the persecutors' midst. They could do nothing except let Him pass by! He is without sin.
Again, you see the same Jesus preaching to a ruler at midnight in a house (John 3:2), while choosing to converse with a woman beside a well at midday (4:5-7). Everything He did was very proper. No one can say anything against Him. You cannot find fault in Him.

Another time some opposes came to tempt Him. They asked whether or not it was lawful to pay tax to Caesar. The Jewish nation, as you know, no longer existed then, and Caesar of Rome was their king. If Jesus said "no" to the question, He would have been involved in a political issue, and the opposes would have had an excuse to condemn Him. If He said "yes," all the Jews would have counted Him as siding with the Romans and hated Him. The result, of course, would have favored the opposes. This was a question that could not be answered "yes" or "no."
How did Jesus reply? He said, "Show Me the coin for the tribute" (Matt. 22:19). He was wise. He even had the opposing ones draw out the money from their own pockets. Then He asked, "Whose is this image and inscription?" (v. 20). They had to admit that it was Caesar's. Jesus gave an excellent reply: "Render then the things that are Caesar's to Caesar and the things that are God's to God" (v. 21). With that He dismissed the whole case. This is where His majesty lies. He never made a mistake. You cannot get a case out of Him.

I cannot enumerate all His deeds. Everything He did bears such a mark of nobility that there is absolutely no flaw in His behavior. I will briefly mention His betrayal as a final example. It was very late in the night, and men armed with torches, spears, and swords came to arrest this empty-handed Jesus. He asked them, "Whom do you seek?" They said, "Jesus the Nazarene" (John 18:7). He replied, "I told you that I am" (v. 8). At that very word, the band of rogues whose minds were set on capturing Him fell back to the ground. If Jesus had not voluntarily given Himself over to them, they would never have been able to seize Him. Such calmness and majesty can only be seen in Him!
As to the traitor, Jesus knew from the first day of his intention. Yet He allowed the same to follow Him and even let him be the keeper of the money. All the time Jesus knew that money was being stolen by him. Who can demonstrate such forbearance and uprightness? Here is a man who is absolutely different from all others. In every respect, He has been proven to be the Son of God.
The fourth qualification we mentioned is that one who claims to be God incarnated must be able to perform what an ordinary person cannot. Has Jesus of Nazareth performed any supernatural acts? We are not His contemporaries; it was almost two thousand years ago that He walked on earth. Naturally, we cannot be His witnesses. But one thing is sure: the apostles who followed Jesus recorded, preached, and testified the things concerning Him. The four Gospels were all completed within thirty years after His departure. Most of the Jews who were then alive had seen Jesus. If the apostles' records were false, they would have been repudiated long ago. However, the Jews only argued that Jesus is not the Son of God. They never denied His deeds, for the deeds were all facts.
Today, when we read the four Gospels, we have no apprehension about their authenticity. If there had been a slight error when they were written, there would have been grave problems because many of the contemporaries had actually seen and heard Jesus. There was no chance for any fabrication. Hence, these books cannot be a hoax. If the Jews could not attack these books, there is even less of a basis for an attack today.

Let us examine some of the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth. Matthew 11:2 and 3 say, "Now when John heard in the prison of the works of the Christ, he sent word through his disciples and said to Him, Are You the Coming One, or should we expect another?" John wanted to make sure that Jesus was the Christ sent from God. If He was not, John would wait for another.
Verses 4 and 5 say, "And Jesus answered and said to them, go, report to John the things that you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; and the dead are raised and the poor have the gospel announced to them." Jesus answered neither "yes" nor "no." He only asked the messenger to tell John of the things heard and seen. He wanted John to think about them and decide for himself if Jesus was the Christ. Jesus proved His divinity by the miracles He performed. Here is a man who accomplished things that are impossible for human beings. You cannot help but confess that He is God.
John 7:31 says, "But many out of the crowd believed into Him and said, Will the Christ, when He comes, do more signs than this man has done?" Many people testified that He performed all kinds of miracles which no man could do.

John 10:24 says, "The Jews therefore surrounded Him and said to Him, How long will you hold our soul in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." On the one hand, the Jews hardened their hearts and refused to acknowledge His divinity, and on the other hand, they were puzzled by the many supernatural miracles that He performed. They gathered around Him and pressed for an answer. There is one thing in which Jesus never gave in: His claim to divinity. He performed what mortals could not. These acts testify to His divinity. He told the people clearly, "The works which I do in My Father's name, these testify concerning me" (v. 25). On the one hand, He made His claim, and on the other hand, He performed miracles to justify His claim.
In John 14:11 He said to His disciples, "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me." This is the same as saying that He is the invisible Father. "But if not, believe because of the works themselves." If He had not done anything impossible, this word would have had no value at all. If He had not performed any extraordinary acts, they would have asked back, "What works have you done? We do not know what you are talking about." But the disciples knew of the acts He did. All these acts prove that He is the Son of God.

We have to check Jesus of Nazareth against a fifth qualification. If He is God, He has to show us what He is. Is He kind, or is He severe? Is He gentle, or is He fierce? What kind of a God do we have? As a matter of fact, Jesus did show us what God is.
This is a most wonderful thing. The eternal, invisible God is now seen by us. There is no need to conjure up an untouchable and far transcendent God or imagine what He is like; He has revealed Himself to us. He has dwelt in our midst and walked among us. Jesus of Nazareth is the very God dwelling among and with man. He has manifested God's nature and attributes to us. There is no need to search for God anymore because He has revealed Himself. Our mentality is too limited. Our hands are too short, and our viewpoint too narrow. If we were left to ourselves to study and search for God, we could only conclude that He is the unknown One. Now we know that God desires to reveal Himself. In fact, He has revealed Himself to us already.

We have said that the two means whereby God communicates with us are the written and spoken language. For this reason, the Bible and Jesus of Nazareth are the two indispensable factors in our faith. When you take away either one, God becomes the gravest problem in the world. Hebrews 1:1 says, "God, having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets." These speaking constitute the Bible. "Has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son" (v. 2). This is Jesus of Nazareth. Whoever is in Christ now may know Him. To have heard the words of Jesus of Nazareth is to have heard the words of God.
Dear reader, what is your attitude towards Jesus of Nazareth? Thomas confessed, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). Peter proclaimed, "You are...the Son of the living God!" (Matt. 16:16). Martha said, "I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of God" (John 11:27). Even a Roman centurion exclaimed at the sight of Jesus hanging on the cross, "Truly this was the Son of God" (Matt. 27:54b). I hope you will make the same confession

Our Christian faith is based upon the revelation of God. It is different from all other religions which are attained through meditation, conjecture, and searching. We believe that the Bible is God's revelation to us. In other words, it is His spoken word to us. We also believe that God has become a man, who is the very Jesus of Nazareth. God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ constitute the basis of our faith.

Let us begin by looking at the position that Christ occupies in our faith, or we may say, in Christianity. However, Christianity has been altered and is not what it ought to be. At the present we will not mention what Christianity ought to be. Rather, we will only draw a comparison between Christianity and other religions in order to see the distinctiveness of our faith. We will not try purposely to exalt Christianity and debase other religions. We will only draw an objective comparison between them.
First, let us consider Confucianism. Actually, followers of Confucius never formally assert that theirs is a religion. Confucianism merely exercises great influence on Chinese culture, education, ethics, and philosophy. One thing, however, is certain: the teachings and doctrines of Confucius are of foremost importance, while the person Confucius is not as crucial. I do not mean that Confucianism has no concern for Confucius. The man indeed was an extraordinary person. However, in order to be a part of Confucianism, one only need to understand the doctrines of Confucius, abide by his teachings, and be thoroughly acquainted with his books. It does not matter whether one understands the man Confucius or not. The principles, doctrines, and teachings of Confucius are the essence of the religion.

Next let us consider Buddhism. The founder of Buddhism was Sakya Muni. Once he preached to his disciples about evil persons being reincarnated through the Wheel of Rebirth after death. This is something that attracts man's attention. But in all of Buddhism, the point of emphasis is doctrines and theories. Concerning the man Sakya Muni, although he has a history and biography, they are something parenthetical. They do not form the crux of Buddhism. The center of the religion is not the man Sakya Muni. Whether there was such a person is unimportant to today's Buddhism. All that is needed are the doctrines and teachings.
Other religions such as Taoism and Mohammedanism are all of the same principle. After each founder set up a religion and left his teachings, doctrines, and regulations as the content of his religion, the founder himself was disassociated from the religion and had little to do with it.
But our faith is entirely different. From its outset, Christianity is built on the man Christ. It is not built on the doctrines and teachings of Christ. It is amazing that when you open the Bible, you will not find too many chapters of doctrines. Passages where pure doctrinal issues are expounded are rare and of less concern to people. What concerns one the most is the man Himself and what kind of person He is? All who have read the Bible know that the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are not outstandingly voluminous. His person draws our attention. He alone is the foundation of our faith.
The word Christ came from Greek, meaning the Anointed One. According to the Chinese, when a man takes up a task, he is given a letter of employment. The Jewish equivalent of this is anointing. When God summons a person for a work, He pours oil on the person as a seal of commission. Christ is the very God who was set apart to come to earth to be a man for the manifestation of God, in order that man may know God. Christ is the Anointed One. He is commissioned to such a task.

Due to this basic distinction, Christ is different from the founders of other religions. Once He asked His disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" Over and over again He demanded that His disciples believe in Him. He said that he who believes in the Son has eternal life. Again He said, "He who loves father or mother above me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter above me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:37). Unless a man loves in this way, he is not worthy to be His disciple. Words such as these have been uttered only by Him. No other religious leader ever said anything like that. Confucius never said to Yen-weh or Tze-lu, "Believe in me," nor did he ever say, "Love me." Neither did any of the other leaders, such as Sakya Muni or Mohammed, demand of their disciple’s faith in them. All it takes to be their disciples is to believe in their doctrines.

Hence, the true Christian faith is based on a person. It is built on Christ and not on some doctrines. The crux of the true Christian faith is a question of who Jesus is! Is He merely a Jew? Is He only a prophet? Or is Jesus the Son of the living God? The whole matter hinges upon who Jesus of Nazareth is. The difference between a genuine Christian and a false one lies not in the knowledge of the doctrines of Christ. Rather, it lies in the knowledge of who Jesus is!
Who is this man from Nazareth? Since this is a crucial question related to our basic faith, we have to find the answer in the Bible. We will pay more attention to the Gospel of John and discover that only Christ Himself is the center of the Bible and the focus of the whole of Christianity.
Before taking up the Gospel of John, we have to take a look at the background of the book. Prior to the coming of Christ, a forerunner was sent by God to prepare a way for Christ that men might be ready to acknowledge Christ. The forerunner was John the Baptist. Because of his powerful preaching, many people were convicted. As a result, many thought that he was the Christ who was supposed to come.
But John 1:8 says, "He was not the light, but came that he might testify concerning the light." The light means Christ. He is called the light because light reveals and manifests. John was not the Christ. He was only bearing witness to Christ.
Concerning this light, verse 9 says, "This was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." In this dark world, if a person has Christ, he will know all about God. When this light shines forth, man will say, "Here is God." They will recognize the light as God.
Up to verse 9, we still do not know who this light is. Read on from verse 10 to verse 15: "He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, yet those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name, who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and tabernacle among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality. John testified concerning Him and cried out, saying, this was He of whom I said, He who is coming after me has become ahead of me, because He was before me." Have you realized, after reading the above verses, that all that is recorded here are actual facts, rather than many doctrines?

What did John the Baptist say about Christ? He said, "He...is...after me." And yet He who was after John would be before him. This is because Christ was before him in the first place. This is the beginning of the testimony of John the Baptist.
John 1:27: "He who is coming after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." The preaching of John is the beginning of our faith. He came just to tell others who Jesus of Nazareth is. Not only was Christ before John, He was so much greater than John that he was not worthy to untie the thong of His sandal and be His slave.
John 1:29: "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world?"
Verse 30: "This is He of whom I said, a man is coming after me who has become ahead of me, because He was before me." When John introduced Jesus, he said, "This is He"! (v. 30). The Gospel begins by showing us who Jesus is!
This is the word of the forerunner. But what about Christ? What did He say? We admit that in the Bible there are a few basic doctrines. For example, regeneration is one of the basic truths. Buddhism and Mohammedanism also talk about regeneration. In their teachings they teach that whatever is past is considered as dead yesterday, and whatever is hereafter is considered as born today. But what did Jesus say about regeneration? Let us look at the record of John 3.
"There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This one came to Him by night" (vv. 1-2a).
Nicodemus was a ruler. He was also a learned and aged person. He came to Jesus to discuss some problems with Him, and Jesus brought up the matter of regeneration.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (v. 3).
Jesus showed Nicodemus the matter of regeneration, telling him that he needed to be born again. After Nicodemus heard this, he was confounded. He wondered how an old man could be born again. Did that mean that he had to go into his mother's womb and come out again? Jesus told him that this is not a birth of the flesh, but a birth of the spirit. If a man is not born of the Spirit, even if he could go into his mother's womb again, the flesh would still beget flesh. Only the Spirit begets spirit. Here you can see that even in such a basic and fundamental matter, Jesus did not expound much doctrine. He only mentioned a very simple fact—the need to be born again.

No wonder Nicodemus asked, "How can these things be?" Jesus told him that this is not an earthly matter. It is something heavenly. That is why he could not believe. How can a man be born again? "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that every one who believes into Him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that every one who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes into Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of God" (vv. 13-18). Have you seen this? This is regeneration!
Jesus was saying that regeneration is not a doctrine. It believes into Him. To be born again is to believe into Him. If a man does not believe into Him, he cannot be regenerated. After saying so much, it all comes back to "Him."
What is our concept of regeneration? We think that if one was a thief yesterday and returns his booty to the owner today, that this is regeneration. Or, if one thought of having a mistress yesterday, but gives up that idea today, that this is regeneration. We think that as long as we quit doing whatever was bad in the past, considering it as dead, and strive to do well hereafter, we are born again. But this is man's concept. This is not the regeneration that Christ gives.
The way of Jesus depends on whether you believe into Him or not. He who believes into Him has eternal life! God gave His only begotten Son that every one who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life. He who believes is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned. This is not a doctrine. It is a matter of the person. It is a relationship between Him and man.
Besides regeneration, there is another crucial matter, which we call Christian satisfaction. A genuine Christian feels that his hopes are fulfilled, his aspirations attained; he has no want; he is absolutely satisfied. But this satisfaction is very different from the contentment that people commonly talk about. Contentment is to see things in an optimistic way, to let things come and go by as they are without insisting on anything. There may not be much wealth or position. There may not be much honor or renown. But as long as one can live in peace and be left unbothered, that is good enough! This is contentment. But this is not satisfaction. When a person is satisfied, he feels that he has what he wants and that he has no more desires.

There is an excellent record in John 4. What did Jesus say to a Samaritan woman there? "Everyone who drinks of this water shall thirst again" (v. 13). If you desire worldly glory, renown, wealth, position, etc., you will never be satisfied. When you have ten thousand dollars, you will want a hundred thousand, and when you have acquired a hundred thousand, you will start dreaming about a million. There will never be satisfaction. He who drinks of this water will thirst again.
How do you quench this thirst? The Lord Jesus said, "But whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall by no means thirst forever" (v. 14). An amazing fact is that neither Confucius nor any other religious leader ever said such a thing. The teachings of Confucius and Mencius only tell you to be content and to abide in your poverty. The person Confucius or Mencius has nothing to do with your contentment. However, the person Jesus has a great deal to do with your thirst-quenching.
Naturally the woman desired to drink of this thirst-quenching water. When she asked Jesus for this living water, "Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the gift of God and who it is who says to you, Give Me a drink, you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water" (v. 10).
Was Jesus preaching a doctrine? No. There was no doctrine. The only thing He did was point to Him, as if to say, "Well, if you know who He is, you will ask of Him at once, and He will give you living water, that you may never thirst again." Have you seen this? The whole question is who Jesus of Nazareth is.
The Samaritan woman was not a decent woman. The fact that she had had six husbands showed what kind of woman she was. She must have been dissatisfied with this one and that one. One husband could not make her happy; another could not make her satisfied. As a result, she changed from one husband to another, and then to a third and a fourth, until she came to the sixth. One day she came out to draw water, a symbol of her being one that drinks and is still thirsty. The remarkable thing is that on that day, her life was changed. She became satisfied! What did she do? She did not do anything! On that day she realized who Jesus of Nazareth is and she was saved. Let us look again at the process through which she came to know Jesus.


"The woman said to Him, Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet" (v. 19). Because Christ told her everything that she ever did, she perceived that this was no ordinary man. He must be a prophet. Jesus said something more to show her that He was not merely a prophet: "Believe Me" (v. 21). The woman said, "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when He comes, He will declare all things to us" (v. 25). What did Jesus answer her? He said, "I, who speak to you, am He" (v. 26). The first thing that a sinner needs to do is not to repent and change his behavior, but to realize who Jesus is. All will be well if he realizes who Jesus is. Later the woman returned to the city and told the people, "Come, and see a man who told me all that I have done. Is this not the Christ?" (v. 29). I do not like the words, "Is this not." Since she knew that this man was the Christ, why did she say, "Is this not"? At any rate, she believed and went to tell others that Christ had come. You can see clearly that the whole issue is not about doctrine but about a person! Our basic concern is not doctrines. Rather, it is seeing who Jesus is! Once we have the Lord Jesus, we will have real satisfaction; we will be filled with the sense of having acquired everything. We will see a little more from John 5. It seems that in chapter five the Lord Jesus spoke some doctrines. But actually not much was expounded. It was once again an invitation to receive the knowledge of who Jesus of Nazareth is. He spoke some words, but they were to lead us to believe into Him. The Lord Jesus said that the Jews searched the Scriptures. But the Scriptures, the Lord pointed out, are a witness to Him. What is written there concerns Him. It is important to know the Scriptures. But more important than that is the knowledge of who Jesus of Nazareth is. The question is not what kind of teaching He teaches, but what kind of a person He is when we come to John 6, the matter is brought out in an even clearer way. "Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall by no means hunger, and he who believes into me shall by no means ever thirst" (v. 35). He did not preach any doctrine. He just said, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall by no means hunger." Have you seen the implication here? If I say that I am your bread of life and that he who eats me shall never hunger, you will surely say that Mr. Nee is a madman from Shanghai. Religious leaders can only give doctrines to others. They cannot give themselves to others. But Jesus is different. He is the bread of life. He is also the thirst-quenching water. The problem is in the people's unbelief in Him. When anyone believes in Him, everything will be all right."I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven that anyone may eat of it and not die" (vv. 48-50). These are words that no other can speak. Only Jesus can say this. He is neither a madman nor a liar. And whatever He says always points back to Him. This man is the bread of life. He who eats of Him shall not die! Hence, our Christian faith is based on the issue of who Jesus of Nazareth is. We are not spending time merely to study His teachings. We are only asked to answer one question: who is He? What Christ proclaimed persistently on the earth was not His doctrines but Himself. The focus is not on the doctrines but on the person. As far as doctrines go, the books of Confucius and Mencius are filled with philosophies, ethics, and morality; they far exceed those in the Bible. But there is only one issue: who is Jesus of Nazareth? Do you know? Who is this Jesus of Nazareth? Let us read on. John 6:51: "I am the living bread which came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread which I will give is My flesh, given for the life of the world."Here His words become more and more peculiar. It is strange enough to say that He is the bread of life which came down out of heaven. Now He says that he, who eats Him, not only will not die, but will live forever. This is extraordinary. Even more intriguing are the words that say that the bread He gives is His very flesh. No wonder the Jews at that time said that it was a hard saying. Who can take this? It is right! We never heard such words before. We never heard them from Confucius, from Mencius, from Lao-tze, from Chuan-tze, or from any other sages. We never heard them in China or in any other country. No man has ever spoken such words. After Christ spoke such words, verse 52 says, "The Jews then contended with one another, saying, how can this man give us His flesh to eat?" What doctrine did Jesus preach? None. All that He said was to eat His flesh. Verses 55 and 56 say, "For My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and me in him." You can see that He is only emphasizing Himself. This is not a set of doctrines. Rather, it is the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood. Those who eat and drink will live forever. When we come to John 7, we see the last day of a great feast. Jesus spoke some words in front of those who were attending the feast. "On the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, if anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. He who believes into me, as the Scripture said, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water" (vv. 37-38). Just imagine: on one of our busy festive holidays, I, Watchman Nee, stand up in the midst of a crowd and shout, "If you are thirsty, come to me and drink. He who believes in me, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water." What would you say? You would surely say that I am a senseless fool from Shanghai who is talking nonsense. But that was exactly what Jesus did and said. There was really no doctrine; there was just the person Christ. On that day when Jesus spoke those words, a dispute arose among the Jews. Some said that this truly had to be the Christ. Others reasoned how Christ could come out of Galilee. In trying to answer who this man was, an argument arose among the Jews. The argument centered around one thing: who was this Jesus of Nazareth? A genuine Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the Christ. Further on in John 8:12, Jesus told the crowd, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me shall by no means walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." You can see that again His words are not doctrinal. The emphasis here is the "light" and the "I." It is not the practice of His teachings that makes a Christian. Rather, it is a relationship with Christ that qualifies us as one. Only by believing into Him will we receive the light of life. Only by receiving Him will we not walk in darkness. John 8:21-22 says, "He said therefore again to them, I am going away, and you will seek me and will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come. The Jews then said, He is not going to kill Himself, is He, for He says, where I am going, you cannot come?" The Jews were confused again. Where is the place He is going that we cannot go? They thought that perhaps He was going to commit suicide. Actually if that place could be reached by committing suicide, the Jews could still get to it by killing themselves. How could the Lord go to a place to which they could not go? Verse 23 says, "And He said to them, you are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world." It is because of this that where the Lord was going they could not go. Furthermore, they did not die in their sins because they were murderers and adulterers. Verse 24 is crucial, especially the latter half: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." The King James Version added the word "he" after "I am." Let us quote the words of the original text. The Lord said, "You will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." The question is whether or not you believe that He is. What does this mean? It means that of the millions of people in humanity, you can pick out one and say, "This is He! This is God!" We want to examine Jesus of Nazareth to see if He indeed is! If we believe that He is, we will not die in our sins. Many believe in a distorted Christianity, but we want to believe according to what Christianity really is. The first question we must ask is whether or not Jesus of Nazareth is. Once again the Jews retorted by asking, "Who are you?" (v. 25). Jesus' answer seemed to say, "This is not the first time that I tell you who I am. Concerning this matter I have never given in. I told you that I am; I am the One." Time after time He proved to others that He is; He is the Son of God. If we read the Gospel of John through, we will find that every passage concerns this one point: Jesus is the Christ. In John 10 the Jews surrounded Him and said, "How long will you hold our soul in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly" (v. 24). The question still hung on this one point. How did Jesus answer? He said, "I told you, and you do not believe...You do not believe, because you are not of my sheep" (vv. 25-26). All who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He is God incarnated as a man, is not Christians. Those who do not recognize Him as the Son of God do not have the life of Christ in them; they are not His sheep. Upon this issue stands the whole basis of the Christian faith. In John 11 Jesus said again, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes into me, even if he should die, shall live" (v. 25). Can a common mortal utter such words? In John 12 Jesus cried out aloud, "He who believes into me does not believe into me, but into Him who sent me; and he who beholds me beholds Him who sent me. I have come as a light into the world, which every one who believes into me would not remain in darkness" (vv. 44-46). You can see that the One who sent Him hinges on Him. To believe into Him is to believe into the One who sent Him. To see Him is to see the One who sent Him. The light also hinges on Him. To be in the light is to believe into Him. Everything hinges on Him. Then in John 14 the Lord said, "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe into God, believe also into me" (v. 1). He wants us to believe into Him in the same way that we believe into God. The one thing He always insists upon is the demand to believe in Him. John 15 speaks of some who hate the Lord. He said, "He who hates me hates My Father also" (v. 23). Once again He reveals that He and the Father are one. In John 16, the Lord said that one day the Holy Spirit would come and convict the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. Why concerning sin? The explanation is in verse 9: "Concerning sin, because they do not believe into me," because they do not believe that He is the Son of God. This is a sin, a very serious sin. When the Holy Spirit comes, He will convict men, and they will realize how serious a sin it is not to believe in Jesus being the Son of God. One further passage in the Gospel of John will suffice. 17:3: "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Him whom you have sent, Jesus Christ." Here we are shown what eternal life is. The Lord's definition of eternal life is to know God. Believing in the eternal God and believing in His sent One—Jesus Christ—is eternal life. Eternal life hinges upon this person. I hope that we would all realize who Jesus of Nazareth is. Our faith does not have any empty doctrines. It is based on the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. To receive Jesus Christ is to receive God.

THE DIFERENCE BETWEEN A PERSON AND TEACHING

We have said that Christianity does not emphasize doctrines. Rather, it emphasizes the person Christ. Even when some doctrines are mentioned, they are few in number, and when you go about expounding them, they always point back to a person. If you turn to the four Gospels you will be amazed to find that everything recorded is just a description of Jesus of Nazareth. There must first be the knowledge of who He is; doctrines come afterwards. We have ascertained the person of Jesus Christ. Now we want to take a look at the doctrines of our faith.

You cannot find many doctrines in the four Gospels. Neither are there many doctrines in the Acts of the Apostles. One finds doctrines only after coming to Romans. This is exactly what we have said before; that you have to know who Jesus Christ is before you can understand what His doctrines are all about.
Concerning doctrines, there is also a vast difference between those in Christianity and those in other religions. I would like to mention again that the fact that I am a Christian does not mean that you have to feel and see things as I do. I will not take such a presumptuous attitude. I will only present the facts again, showing the difference between Christianity and other religions. I will not decide what is good or bad. You are asked only to examine the facts. If you think that this is right, then believe in it. Otherwise, take your choice. Emotional words are unnecessary here. I will, therefore, make no plea or invitation.
Observing all the religions that are before us, you will see that all of them emphasize doctrines, not a person. Whether Confucius or Lao-tze, who they are and what they teach are two different things. They are two separate entities. Their doctrines do not have much to do with their person. You can take the person away from the religion, and it will not make much difference. The person only preached the doctrines, but he became disassociated from that which he preached.
This is not the case with our faith. When did Christian doctrines come into existence? It was after the death, resurrection, and departure from the world of the person Christ that the doctrines began. All doctrines came later. Moreover, all these doctrines are centered upon Christ. The doctrines and Christ are inseparable. First you have Him, and then you have His doctrines.

For example, there is a doctrine in Christianity that speaks of the union of God and man. It is a very important doctrine. If you open the Bible to see how this can be, you will see that the source of such a doctrine is the fact that God became a man—Jesus. He is God mingled with man.
The Bible does not present a doctrine of God becoming one with man. Rather, it shows Jesus of Nazareth, who is a sample of God being one with man. Originally, God and man were separate; there was a wide gulf between them. There was no possibility of union. But the Nazarene came. He was God coming to be a man. He was the bridge between man and God, joining the two into one. This is not a doctrine that teaches people to be one with God. Here is the fact: henceforth, when a man is in Christ, he can be one with God.

THE SOLUTION
Another very important doctrine in the Bible concerns death. The Bible depicts man as being totally corrupted, without any possibility of being reformed. The only solution is death. A man is like a piece of worm-infested wood with no chance of being carved or shaped. The only destiny for him is the fire. Death is the solution. Only dead people will not be proud if you praise them a thousand times. Only dead people will not be angry if you rebuke them repeatedly. Only dead people will not be tempted by sin and will not sin. Death solves all problems concerning sin.
But how can we die? How can such a death occur? A religion will exhort you to die. Be dead! If you are dead, sin will no longer have an object to work on! But how can one die? By committing suicide? By throwing oneself into the sea? Or as the old Chinese scholars have said, by considering everything that is past as dead yesterday? No! All these are methods of common religions. They are not the Christian teaching.

EXPERIENCES BASED ON A PERSON


The doctrine of death is absolutely related to Christ. His person determines His doctrines. Jesus died. What does the Bible say about this? It says that the world died with Him (2 Cor. 5:14). His death was to sin; hence, the whole world is dead to sin. Originally, the whole world was in sin, being dead in it. Only Jesus was not affected by death. He did not die of sin; He died to sin (Rom. 6:10). If we are one with Him, we are also dead to sin by His death (v. 11). Sin will not have an object to work on. All the problems of sin in us will be solved.
This is the doctrine of Christianity. It is a fact that is absolutely tied to the person Christ. It is not an exhortation for people to conduct a moral life and repent from their wrongs. These are not Christian doctrines at all. Since Christ has died, whoever is in Him is also dead, thoroughly dead, to sin. Sin has no more grips on us. If Christ had not died, there would not have been any doctrine. All experiences and doctrines are based upon this person Jesus Christ.

Another fact we have is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He died and was resurrected. Hence, on our side, we are not only dead to sin, disassociated from it; we are regenerated and a new creation in the resurrection of Christ. All these are bound to the person Jesus Christ. No accomplishment is by us. Everything depends on Him.

The Bible is not completely void of teachings. However, all the teachings rest on the person Christ Jesus. Only when He has a certain experience can there be a certain doctrine or teaching. Every single doctrine or teaching is bound to His personal experience. His incarnation is the basis of the union of God with man. His death is the basis of our dying to sin and self and the foundation of a life of holiness. His resurrection is the basis for receiving our new life. Everything we have obtained is based on what He has attained. The doctrines are absolutely based upon the person and bound to the person. This is genuine Christianity. This makes our faith different from all other religions.

MAJOR RELIGIONS DEMAND TO BE HONEST
Once when Christ Jesus was about to leave the world, He spoke of a very amazing doctrine. Of course, this doctrine is again closely related to Him. He said, "I am the way and the reality and the life" (John 14:6). Perhaps you have heard others quote this passage. He said that He is the way. He is the way to overcome sin. He is the way to overcome the temptations of the world. He is His own teaching! All the ways to victory are Him.
He also said that He is the reality. We have often heard people say that there is reality in So-and-so's words. Sometimes when someone puts forth a theory, we call it reality. In geometry, when we have proved that this equals that, we say that we found a truth. But the reality that Christ Jesus speaks of is He. He is the reality.
Moreover, He is the life. He does not merely preach a doctrine and ask you to work it out yourself; He is the very life-power to perform what He preaches. Religion tells you to be honest and not to lie. Maybe someone has come and told you, "Exercise yourself not to lie. Every time you lie just bite your tongue once." I think that if we were able to recognize every lie we told, our tongue would be in two pieces before the day was over! Since our life is a human life, there is no possibility for us to not lie or sin. The life of man is absolutely impotent in this respect. Merely to give you some nice, lofty doctrines, while leaving it up to you to work them out, is not the way of Christ.
The Bible says that He makes you able. That ability is of Christ. As long as you are in Him, He is your life. He can make you not lie, no matter what kind of a person you are!

No other founder of a religion is great enough to uphold these three items: the way, the reality, and the life. All of man's experiences are included in these three things. Whenever you do something, you always have to decide whether or not it is worth doing. This consideration is a weighing of the reality. After the decision is made, you have to find a way. And after the way, you must have the power. Whenever you set out to accomplish something, you always have to pass through these three steps: the way, the reality, and the life.
All three are inseparable. You are not given reality first, then the way, and then left to yourself to find the life. Every one of these three items is found in one person. When you have Him, every problem will be solved. This is Jesus. This is our faith. As long as there is a way to Him, everything will follow.
TEACHING USSELES WHITHOUT HIM
when we look at a few passages in the Bible, we easily discover that when the Bible mentions a doctrine, it always says that it is "in Christ." The words "in Christ" are constantly mentioned. Some passages say, "By Christ." But "by Christ" is not the best translation. It is better in those instances to translate them as "through Christ." God does not give things to us directly; they have to go "through Christ." In addition, there are phrases like "with Christ" and "together with Christ." They show the position Christ occupies in the Bible. Everything has to be through Him. Receiving Him is receiving His doctrines. Without Him it is useless to have any of His doctrines.

NO RELATIONSHIP IN THEIR CREEDS

The above cannot apply to all other religions. You can be a devotee of other religions, abiding by their every creed, without having anything to do with the founders themselves.
In arithmetic, there is a table called the multiplication table. You can find the product of any two numbers from one to nine from the table. Everything is arranged neatly. Do you know who formulated this table? I am afraid that millions who use this table never know who made it. But you can use this table without knowing the person who made it. All common religions are like this: you need not have anything to do with their founders, but you can apply their doctrines. The doctrines and those who preached them have no relationship with each other.
In Kaifeng I met a foreign missionary. He had heard my preaching. I discovered that he was related to the doctrines of Christ but not to Christ Himself. He told one of my former classmates, who is also now my co-worker, how to practice the teachings of Christ and expound the theologies in the Bible. My co-worker asked him, "Can you touch people by these? Has anybody repented, forsaken his sins, and had his life changed by your preaching? Do you have such power?" He was dumbfounded by my co-worker's words.
RELATIONSHIP
The source of our faith is Christ. If we have no relationship with Christ, we have no power. The doctrines of Christ are absolutely joined to Christ. The gem of the doctrines lies in Christ. It is useless to merely infer and discuss in an outward way.
Let us now look at the book of Romans in the New Testament. I will not give many explanations. Rather, I will merely present the facts to you. We want to see what the Bible says.
Romans 3:22, 24: "Even the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ to all those who believe, for there is no distinction; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." These verses say that a man receives forgiveness of sins and justification before God by the redemption of Christ Jesus. They are based on a relationship with Christ. Without redemption, the sins of man cannot be forgiven.
ALL IS RECIEVED
Romans 5:1: "Therefore having been justified out of faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Verse 2: "Through whom also we have obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand and boast because of the hope of the glory of God."
Verse 10: "For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled."
Verse 11: "And not only so, but also boasting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation."
Everything that we have received, such as justification, reconciliation, standing in grace, salvation, joy in God, etc., is received through Jesus Christ. Simply by going through Him, we inherit all these.

THE GIFT
Romans 5:15: "But it is not that as the offense was, so also the gracious gift is; for if by the offense of the one the many died, much more the grace of God and the free gift in grace of the one man Jesus Christ have abounded to the many."
Verse 17: "For if by the offense of the one death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will rein in life through the One, Jesus Christ."
Because of Jesus Christ, the grace and gift of God can be bestowed upon all men. We can also reign in life due to Him. Verse 21 says, "In order that just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." The receiving of eternal life is through Him. It does not depend on the good behavior of man.
THE PERSON
Romans 6:6: "Knowing this, that our old man has been crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin as slaves."
Verse 17: "But thanks are to God that though you were slaves of sin, you have obeyed from the heart the form of teaching into which you were delivered."
This is a vital doctrine in our belief: that by faith, we are crucified with Christ, and the old man is annulled. I do not crucify myself. When Christ was crucified, I was crucified with Him. By this I am set free from sin, being no longer a slave to it. In this way I can reckon myself dead to sin and alive to God in Christ. This is a big doctrine that hinges on the person Christ.
LIBERATED
Romans 7:24-25: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death? Thanks are to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then with the mind I I serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin."
Here is a man who was constantly defeated by his own fleshly lusts. When he was at the end of his hopes, crying for deliverance, he saw the way of salvation: liberation by the Lord Jesus Christ. The power of liberation is also in the Lord.

Romans 8:1: "There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus." There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. "Condemnation" does not refer to any ordinary kind of condemnation. According to some recently discovered old manuscripts of the Bible found in Egypt, this word has two meanings. The first is a legal term; the second is a common daily expression. In the legal context it means condemnation as a verdict. But in its ordinary usage it means impotent, powerless, bound, etc. For this reason I will translate this portion as, "There is now then no impotence..." There is no more weakness and inability.
Verse 2: "For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death." Here are two laws. Originally, we were all bound by the law of sin and of death. Now the law of the Spirit of life has freed us; we are no longer under the control of the law of sin and of death. The law of the Spirit of life is in Christ Jesus. Have you seen this? Once again, our relationship with Him sets us free.
Verse 10: "But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness." Since Christ is in me, I can live.
MORE THAN CONQUERORS IN HIM
Romans 8:35, 37: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or anguish or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword? But in all these things we more than conquer through Him who loved us." Although there is so much trouble outwardly, we are still more than conquerors. Strength is obtained by going through Him. Not that we are able in ourselves. It is all by Him and through Him.
In the same manner, verses 38 and 39 say, "For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Why can nothing separate us from His love? It is not because of our virtues, but because this love is "in Christ Jesus our Lord"! Love is tied to the person Christ. When we are in Christ, we are in this inseparable love.

Posted by: rafael | January 1, 2008 4:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

THE ATHEIST MENTAL DISORDER

http://scientistcanotcalculateearth.blogspot.com/


We will look at the theories of evolution in their two main foundations: the expansion of the universe, and the quantum or microorganism. To understand it with reason, thee first subject we are confronted with is God. Let us read a few verses from the Bible. Psalm 14:1 of the Old Testament says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." This sentence may also be translated as "The fool does not want God in his heart." The result of saying this can be found in the second sentence of the same verse: "They are corrupt; they do abominable deeds."Let us also take a passage from the New Testament. Hebrews 11:6 says, "For he who comes forward to God must believe that He is.

"THREE KINDS OF PEOPLE “

Whether you claim too be a Christian, a non-believer, or a seeker after truth, we will start by examining the subject of God. In this respect the world is divided into three camps. The first is that of the atheists who do not believe in a God. The second consists of the agnostics. They have no sure knowledge about the deity. On the one hand, they dare not say there is no God, but on the other hand, they are not clear if God does exist. We belong to the third category of those who believe in God.

PROSECUTION

Is there a God? I will not try to say yes or no to this question. Rather, I will make this place a law court. I will ask you to be the judge, and I will be the prosecutor. The work of a judge is to make decisions, to approve or disapprove the truth of statements; the work of a prosecutor is to present all the evidence and arguments that he can possibly gather. Before we proceed, we have to be clear about one fact: all prosecutors are not eyewitnesses of crimes. They are not policemen. A policeman may personally witness an event, whereas a prosecutor obtains his information only indirectly. He places all the charges, evidence, and arguments collected before the judge. In the same way, I shall present before you everything that I can possibly find. If you ask whether I have seen God or not, I would say "no." I am reading or demonstrating what I have gathered. My job is to search for facts and to call for witnesses. You are to arrive at a conclusion yourself.

QUALIFICATIONS

Many people assert that there is no God. As a prosecutor I ask you first to check the qualification of these people. Are they qualified to make such claims? Are those who assert that there is no God moral or immoral? Do not just listen to their arguments. Even robbers and swindlers have their arguments. Of course, the arguments support them as robbers and swindlers. The subject of their arguments may be very noble; they may talk about the state of the nations and the welfare of society, but their opinions cannot be seriously considered. They are not worthy of passing such judgments. If a man is upright in his conduct and moral judgment, we can give credibility to his words, but if not, his words lose their credibility. This is especially true when it relates to the question of deity. It is interesting to note that the moral standards of men are directly related to their concept about God. Those who admit their own ignorance have a passable standard, while insistent atheists invariably have a low level of moral responsibility. I do not claim to know all atheists, but of the several thousand that I know, none of them possess a notably commendable morality. You may tell me that there was once a moral atheist, but if there was one, he is dead. Or you may tell me that there will be a moral atheist, but whoever he may be, he is not here yet. At least we can say that for now, we do not know a moral atheist.

NO ATHEIST IS MORAL

Recently in a College at Uk, the geologist, who is a defender of evolution therefore an atheist confess he is arrogant, the atheist said “there is nothing wrong in being arrogant, I’m right, so there is nothing wrong”. He was debating with a Christian professor who never change his good attitude even though he was being ridicule and mocked. Regarding the behavior of the Atheist it was sad to see a defender of science behaving as a child, he do not have moral standards, man who do not have a sense for Gods law, he will not respect anyone , regarding respecting other he is immoral. There were many students on the campus who did not believe in God. They were greatly offended by these words. This atheist offended the Christian professor again and again; the atheist said to him I like to interrupt you. He kept offending the Christian professor saying “you want to believe in God because you are insecure; the proof is that you have the psychological need of God, your God and you are false and have a mental disorder”. This is completely unethical using the right words immoral. Even the body language of this old man of Uk tells, something wrong with him, he cross his arms in a defensive way , he did look the audience , look to the floor and even when he smile was sad. He looks nervous and evasive; his body language showed that something was wrong with him. He made funny gestures and faces at the Christian professor. How can anyone with moral decency shuffle his speaking to do gestures and call to the other professor false in his believes and say that he has a mental disorder.

No atheist has helped you become better? Has he made your thoughts cleaner or your heart purer? Or did it make you just the opposite?"

"Regarding to what they speak”

This atheist use scientific methods of questioning, and this are endless, their speaking for sure is has not good intention. How come they will ask: Why Jews and Muslims who believe in God, hate each other and kill each other because their religion.

Muslims attacked Americans in 9/11 because they hate Americans and do not tolerated Americans way of living.

What are the intentions of these questions? Most of people know that Jews and Muslims have been fighting over their land for thousands of years; it is not for the God in which they believe it has been always the land. And that is their problem is up to then how they deal with it. The atheist confuse them as well others and said they kill each other because their God. Mr. Atheist can you put into your head that is because the land. Or what is what you are really after. Sure you have a bad tongue.

And why do you ask them about 9/11 actually you Atheist went to the Middle East and told them. You hate Americans because they allow prostitutes on the street. Of course they will say they do not like their respectfull woman to be in the street as prostitutes. But you Godless

Man understand, that their government is theocratic, meaning their believe in God is their Law and constitution, they live in a Theocratic society and as humans that is their right.

Why did you bring 9/11 up? USA is democracy. Do you want me to believe that my country USA attacks the Middle East because they want to establish Democracy in the theocratic Middle East? Even if that is truth, if I’m ask I will obey to my president and go to Middle East

And kill or get kill, soldiers obey orders and thousands of young people have died in this war, that is the way that my country is, do you know how many Middle East civilians have died there? Hundred of thousands, those who are dead are better off of those who are among the living ones, their suffering is not a joke and for USA soldiers is a pain in our soul, so who are you to bring up an issue that USA soldiers will never question.

China which is the domicile of more than half the world’s population is communist. Atheist should go there to recruit people. You atheist are in your line of question totally immoral.

I do whish that my president George W. Bush wont let you come to America and I will tell him about your videos The God of delusion and the atheist debate, because in those videos you make fun of my president. Do not think that because our presidents did not claim the rights to the back bone of the net years ago, they will never claim it back.

Now you ask: why believers hate, homosexuals? Isn’t good to see two male’s holdings hands on the streets, and to girls kissing on the train? Maybe, because evolution is not only about natural selection, but about sexual selection. Are evolutionists teaching the children of America about sexual selection, “Sexual selection is a special case of natural selection Sexual selection acts in an organisms’ ability to obtain by any means necessary to successfully copulate with their mate or in groups” Sexual selection simple means I can chose anyone male female is ok. Can you see that your teaching has contaminated humanity?

Do you Atheist hold at what you believe?

Of course not Richard Dawkins has called himself, a cultural Christian. If he is against Christians how he dares to call himself a Christian of any kind, I do believe in God I will always say that I do love God as my Father. But your stamen’s shows that you are not firm in your believe rather, you are liar therefore immoral.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm

Their line of question is groundless or they are carrying out and agenda. I think for old man as they are, it is normal to question everything as well senile to think they know everything. They think of themselves as modern scientist question everything even if they don’t know the subject. Because they live in the twenty first century they know better than those who live thousands of years ago. And why they are confused using the word religion as if it means the same as believer. According to the lexicon Webster dictionary “religion is a way to trying to reach or seek God” “a believer in God have already found Him and knows Him”. Why atheists don’t know the dictionary? Do they know Greek or at the least Hebrew languages what about Aramaic or Latin. In the bible there are tree different words in Greek to designated the word “life”

1. Bios referring to the biological life our body

2. Psycho referring to the soul logical means study. The word Psychology means the study of the soul, emotions, mind and will.

3. There is another word for life that is Zoe the highest life. Whenever the bible speaks of eternal life speak of Zoe. In a Greek dictionary you will find the distinction. I wonder what an atheist that only knows the bible superficially how will they explain that in the bible there is a word Zoe that was transliterated from Hebrew to Greek as Zoe.

They should not speak about the bible, because their knowledge is superficial, have they read the bible fifty times? have they read 4000 others books? What about the evolution of species how many times they read it.

For this reason, their whole argument is not worthy of consideration. The question is, "Are you qualified to claim that there is no God?" If your hope is merely hear something that isn’t knew, you have lost your ground already.

IS MAN THE GREATEST?

One day a young man came to me and said, "I do not believe in a so-called God. Man is the greatest. He is the noblest among all creatures. There is no God in this universe; man is everything." We were sitting opposite each other. After hearing what he said, I stood up, went to one side of the room, stooped down, and gazed at him intently. I said, "Do you know that in the past many Americans missionaries went abroad USA specially to China, they came with not support from their churches, during the boxer rebellion many of them died, but sow a seed of life “Zoe” that made of the idolaters Chinese genuine believers, when the communist took over China many were put on jail because of their believe in God, thousands of them died, the bible was taken away, a communist reform took place, everyone have to listen to Mao because communist in China as well Stalinism are base in the cult or worship of the personality of their leader. So believers were whipped out. Because they wont exult Mao over God , but today in china there are 200 millions of genuine believers, how this happen, God did it, can atheist recruit in America or in the world 200 million like them, of course not , so why you say that there is not God and you are greater than Him.

HOW VAST IS THE UNIVERSE?

I then said to the young man, "And here you are! You have not even walked through the whole earth, and yet you consider yourself greater than the whole universe. Let me ask you, do you know how vast the universe is? Take light for example. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. Try to calculate how far light travels in one minute, or one hour, or a day, or a year. There are some stars whose light takes three thousand years to reach us. Go and work out how far they are from us! And you think you are so great! I would therefore advise all atheists and young men alike to admit the incompetency of man not only morally, but intellectually and academically as well.

"CAN MAN EXTEND BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF TIME AND SPACE?

Another time when I was in Kaifeng, I met another one of those young, stout atheists. I walked up to him and patted him on the shoulder, saying, "I saw God today!" He stared at me in curiosity and demanded a further word. I replied, "You are God! If you know that there is no God, then you have to be God." He asked for an explanation. I said, "Since you are convinced that there is no God, you must have traveled over the whole earth. If God is not in Shanghai, He may still be in Nanking. You must have been to both places. That is not all. If God is not in Nanking, He may be in Tientsin. You must also have been to Tientsin. But you cannot draw this conclusion simply by being in China; God may be in another country. So you must have been to every country on this earth. If God is not in one place, He may be in another. Therefore, you must have traveled throughout the world. One never knows if God is hiding at the North Pole or the South Pole or in the woods or wilderness somewhere. So you must have combed through all those regions as well. If God is not found on earth, He may be found on the moon. You therefore must have been to the moon. God may also be on other planets or in outer space. This means that you have traveled through space and all the other galaxies as well. If you can say that there is no God, it must mean that you have traveled throughout the whole universe. If this is the case, you must be God yourself."This is not all. Even though you know that God does not exist in Shanghai today, how about yesterday? Perhaps God will come tomorrow. You say that you know there is no God today, but what about last year? And how do you know that God will not come next year? You say that there is no God this year, but what about a thousand years ago? Very well, you must be an everlasting one who knows everything about the past and future. You have to be a being beyond time and space. You must be in Tientsin and in another country at the same time; you must be omnipresent from the east to the west, from the North Pole to the South Pole. Who else but you can be the very God? If you are not God, you can never be qualified to say that there is no God.

"THE EVIDENCE”

Some will immediately step back and say, "I have never said that I know there is no God. One can never tell whether there is a God or not." Well, if you cannot give a conclusion, I will ask witnesses whom I consider trustworthy to present arguments to you and prove the existence of God. Again let me say this, you are the judge, and I am the prosecutor. I am presenting only the evidence before you. Decide for yourself if there is a God.

THE UNIVERSE

First, looks at nature, the world that is before our eyes and every phenomenon in it. We all know that scientific knowledge is the rational explanation of natural phenomena. For example, there is an observed drop in the temperature of a patient. The drop in temperature is a phenomenon, and the explanation for it is scientific knowledge. When an apple falls from the tree, it is a phenomenon. Why does an apple not fly into the air? The explanation for this phenomenon constitutes knowledge. A man with knowledge is a man who has the proper explanations.

ONLY TWO EXPLANATIONS

The universe displays countless phenomena of diverse forms, colors, shapes, and nature. We cannot fail to notice these phenomena before our eyes. The explanation for all these phenomena is known as knowledge. All thoughtful persons have only two explanations as far as the origin of the universe is concerned; there is no third explanation. You have to take one or the other of them. What are these two explanations? The first says that the universe came into being through natural evolution and self-interaction; the second attributes its origin to a personified being with intellect and purpose. These are the only two explanations presented by all philosophers of the world. There is not a third one. Where did the universe come from? Did it come into existence by itself or through chance? Or was it designed by the One from whom we derive the concept of God? You have to think and then make a decision about it. Everything that is by chance has certain characteristics. I would suggest you list all of these in a detailed way, the more the better, and then compare all the phenomena of the universe with your list. Alongside of this make another list of the characteristics which, in your opinion, would be prominent if the universe was created by an intelligent Being. Now by a simple comparison of nature with your two lists, it will be easy to draw a reasonable conclusion.

CHANCE EVENTS

What are the characteristics of things that come about by chance? First, we know that they are unorganized. At the most they can be partially integrated. They can never be totally organized. One can achieve a specified goal by chance once, but he can never achieve a specified goal by chance all the time. Anything that comes together by chance can only be integrated partially, never totally. For example, if I throw this chair to the other side of the room, by chance it may come to rest at a perfect angle. If I do the same with a second chair, it may also lie neatly beside the first one. But this will not keep on happening with the third and the fourth and so on. Chance can only provide partial organization. It does not guarantee total integration. Furthermore, all random interactions are aimless, disorganized, and purposeless. They are without order and structure; they are loose, formless, disorderly, and not directed toward any meaningful purpose. Briefly, we can say that the characteristics of chance events are disharmony, irregularity, inconsistency, purposelessness, and insignificance. We will write down these four characteristics on our list.

CONSISTENCY AND ORGANIZATION

Now let us compare the things in the universe with these characteristics. Take, for example, the human being. He is carried in his mother's womb for nine months and delivered; he grows up and eventually dies. This cycle is repeated for every single individual. Consistency can be observed. It is not a wild game of chance. Again, look at the sun above your head. It does not exist purposelessly. Rather, it has its purpose and significance. Look at the moon, the stars, and the myriads of galaxies through your telescope. Some stars have their own planets. They all follow definite tracks and patterns. They are all organized. Their manner of motion can be calculated and predicted. The calendar in your hand is derived from them. Even next year's calendar can be printed before this year is past. All these show that the universe is organized, consistent, and purposeful.

MICROORGANISMS

Let us turn to the micro-world. Take a thin slice of wood. Put it under a microscope and observe its grain and structure, all meticulously regular and rhythmic. Even a blade of grass and the petal of a flower are finely fashioned. Nothing is unorganized or confused. Everything is disciplined and functional. All these things witness one fact to you: the universe, with its macro and micro aspects, is purposeful and meaningful. Can you say that all these came into existence by chance? Surely you cannot.

IS IT OCCUPIED?

Once I was preaching the gospel with a co-worker of mine in a village. On the way back we were extremely thirsty. There was neither a teahouse nor stream for us to get water. In fact the whole area was uninhabited. After walking for a while we came across a thatched hut. We went to the door quickly and knocked. For a long time there was no answer. We thought that no one lived there. When we opened the door and went in, we found that the floor was swept clean. In one of the rooms was a bed with nicely folded sheets. There was a teapot on the table, and the tea in it was still warm. I said, "Surely someone must be living here. All the arrangements indicate beyond doubt that this place is occupied by someone. We should not drink this tea. We must get out quickly or else people will think we are thieves." We walked out and waited for the owner to return. By observing the arrangements of the house, we concluded that someone was living there, without having seen the occupant. In the same way, we know that God is there by the arrangement of everything in the universe, although we cannot see Him. Every single phenomenon of nature is so balanced, organized, meaningful, and functional. You may say that they come by chance, but it is impossible for me to believe that chance is its sole originator. The Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Only foolish people can say in their hearts that there is no God.

CHANCE OR DESIGN

The universe has to be created by someone with profound wisdom, vast knowledge, and intricate design. If you cannot accept the concept of random formation of the universe, you have to admit that it was created by such a God. There cannot be a third explanation. The choice is left to you. You have to decide if the universe came by chance or whether it was created by God.

A DEMAND AND ITS OBJECT

One witness may not be enough. I will call in another. This time we will consider man's heart. Before doing so, we should also observe one fact: wherever there is a desire, there must first be an object for that desire. For example, an orphan who has never seen his father naturally has a desire for a kind of paternal love. I have asked many people who were orphans, and they all have felt this irrepressible yearning. By this we can see that every desire of the heart arises out of an object in the world. As human beings we have a need for social belonging. We need companionship and mutuality. If you put a boy on a deserted island and he grows up alone, he still has the yearning for companions, for beings like himself, even though he has never seen a human being. This yearning or desire is the very proof that somewhere in the world there is something known as "man." At a certain age, man begins to think about posterity; he starts desiring children and grandchildren. This is not a mere fantasy. This desire stems out of the existence and possibility of offspring. Hence, where there is desire, there is an object for that desire.

THERE IS GOD IN THE HEART

Do we have any desires other than social identity and self-propagation? What other cravings do we have? Deep in everyone there is a craving for God. Whether they are highly civilized races, such as those among the Caucasians, or the ancient civilizations, such as the Chinese civilizations, or the African natives and uncultured aborigines, they all have a common craving --God. As long as they are men, they have a yearning for God, no matter what race or nationality. This is a fact. You cannot argue against it. Everyone is seeking after God. Everywhere man is craving for God. This is very clear. By applying the principle that we just mentioned, we can see that since our heart feels the need for a God, there must necessarily be a God in the universe. Since there is a need for God in the heart, there must be the existence of God in the universe. If no God exists, we would never have such a craving in our heart. We all have an appetite for food. In the same way, we all have an appetite for God. It would be impossible to live if there was only an appetite for food but no food. Likewise, it would be impossible to live if there was a capacity for God but no God.

NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT GOD?

Once an atheist rudely rebuked me in a loud voice: "You said that a man has the psychological need for a God. But there is no such thing, and I do not believe in it." I said, "Well, do you mean to say that you never think about God? In fact, even while you were talking, you were thinking about Him. This indicates that you do have a capacity for God. There is no one who has never thought about God. He may try not to think much about Him. Since this thought is in you, there must be such an object outside of you.

"THE WORDS AND THE HEART”

A young man once came to me to argue about God. He was vehemently against the existence of God. He gave me one reason after another for saying that there is no God. As he was enumerating the various reasons why God should not exist, I listened to him quietly without saying a word. Then I said, "Although you insist that there is no God and support yourself with so many arguments, you have lost your case already." He said, "What do you mean?" I went on to explain: "Your mouth can say as much as you want about there not being a God, but your heart is on my side." He had to agree with me. Although one can give all sorts of reasons in the head, there is a belief in the heart that no argument can defeat. A stubborn person may give a thousand and one reasons, but you can have the boldness to tell him, "You know better in your heart that there is a God. Why bother to look for evidence outside?"Now what would you say? After looking at nature and the universe, after checking with your inner feeling, it is up to you to decide whether or not there is a God. But you should not be irresponsible; your attitude must be sober because everyone has to meet God soon. One day you will all stand before Him. Everything concerning you will be laid bare. On that day you will know God. But now is the time for you to be prepared. We should all be prepared to meet our God

CONSIDER THIS

I shall begin by assuming that the issue of God's existence is settled. We all believe that there is a God. As those who desire to know the truth, we must go one step further to find out what kind of God He is. God is the greatest Unknown. We must spend some time to find out about this unknown One. The next step now is to know what kind of a God He is.


THE BIBLE
In the past few thousand years’ man has been inquiring about the nature of God. Is He kind or is He righteous? Is He indifferent towards us, or is He extremely interested in human affairs? These types of questions are the direct cause of all human religions. What is religion? Religion is man's inquiry about God and his explanation of Him. Through these explanations, different men have arrived at different concepts about God. What kind of God is He? This is a big question. It is also a very serious question. We have all given our thought to this subject at one time or another. The question might even have occurred to our little mind when we were five years old. All men, educated or ignorant, have been intrigued by this question. It comes naturally after some contemplation and observation.

But a person trying to speculate about God is like an ant attempting to understand a human being. It is extremely difficult for the little creature to try to realize our life, nature, and mind. In the same way it is impossible for us to try to comprehend God. For this reason, in the past few thousand years, all kinds of people, theologians and philosophers alike, have done much thinking about Him. What has God been doing all this time? Has He been indifferent to us or has He tried to reveal Himself to us? What is God's attitude? Do you think He would say, "I am God and have nothing to do with human beings. I do not care what you think about me. I shall stay in heaven as God. Let the mortals be ignorant!" Or do you think He has a desire to reveal Himself to man and visit him?
When I was in India, I saw some people lying naked on beds studded with nails. Some walked with bare feet on burning coals. These people devoted a great deal of energy to seeking after God. What has God done to them? Did He hide Himself and take no notice of them at all? Has He not kept Himself as a perpetual mystery? This is a great question. We have to consider it scientifically and objectively in order to find out what God is like.

A few years ago I spoke on a similar subject to some medical students in an auditorium in Cheloo University. I said that man is an organism with a life. God also is a life. Man's life is higher than that of the lower animals, and God's life is even higher than that of man. I asked the students, "Since we realize that all living organisms have some common laws and express some common traits, can you name them?" Different ones then started to bring up different points. At the end we summed up the discussion in this way: all living organisms contain two common characteristics. You can call these characteristics their common expressions or their common laws. First, every life wants to preserve itself. It tends to reproduce itself. There is the ability to produce posterity, to continue its own life. Second, every life wants to have fellowship with other lives. It cannot stand being by itself. When a man cannot find fellowship with another human being, he goes to dogs, cats, fish, or birds and makes friends with animals. All living creatures desire fellowship.
Based on these two characteristics of life, namely, the preservation of itself and fellowship with others, laws of human government are instituted. For example, the death penalty reflects a convict's desire to preserve his own life; punishment comes in the form of taking away and terminating such a life. This is the way to inflict suffering on a life. Imprisonment, as a less serious punishment, cuts him off from having fellowship with others. This reversal of the life principle becomes then a suffering for him. From this we see that punishment is applied according to the principles of life.
With these two chief characteristics in mind, let us turn to the life of God. God is an organism of a higher order than human beings. He is naturally governed by this law of life. We can know God by the characteristics and distinctive features of His life. From this we can deduce whether or not God wants to have fellowship with man.


There are two kinds of religion: religion based on natural concepts and religion based on revelation. Natural religion starts with man as the center. He is the one that is seeking after God and studying about Him. What then is revelation religion? Revelation religion comes directly from God. He is the One who comes to reveal things to us. Man's thoughts are often useless fancies. God's revelation alone is trustworthy. Christianity is different from all other natural religions in that it is a religion that comes from revelation. Christianity begins from God. It is God who comes to seek out man, rather than man who seeks after God.
I will not try to persuade you to believe in Christianity or to read the Bible. I will only make a few suppositions. We will treat the subject in the same way as if we were solving a problem in geometry. We will start from the suppositions and then deduce our arguments step by step. We will examine our reasoning’s to see if they are sound and if our conclusions are logical. As in mathematics, with some problems we work forwards, while with others we work backwards. At any rate, in the end we should be able to tell whether or not a supposition is justified.

We have to make a few suppositions. The first one is that God exists. This in fact has been covered by us already. We have agreed that there is a God. He is a Being who has a purpose.
Second, we assume that God has a desire to reveal Himself to man. If God wants to reveal Himself to man and if He wants us to know Him, how does He do it? In what manner can He be made known to us? If He speaks to us through thunder or writes to us through lightning, we will not be able to comprehend His message. How then does God make Himself known to us?

If He is to reveal Himself and if He wants us to know Him, He necessarily must do it through human means. What then are the common ways that men communicate with one another? First, they do it through speaking and second through writing. All means of communication, whether telegraph, telephone, sign, or symbols, are all included in these two categories. If God is to manifest Himself, these are the only two means for Him to do so. For the present we set aside the aspect of speaking; we will see how God communicates with us through writing.
If God reveals Himself through writing, of all the volumes written by different people throughout the centuries, there must be one book which is divinely inspired. This is a very crucial test. If such a book exists, it proves not only the existence of God, but it contains His written revelation to us as well. Is there then such a divinely written book?
In the search for such a book, let us first mention a few basic principles. Suppose I want to order a book from a publisher. If I can tell him the name and author of the book, there will be no trouble getting it. If, however, I forget the name and author of the book, I can describe the characteristics of it to the publisher, such as the contents, size, color, binding, etc. The publisher will then search through all his books and locates the volume I want. God has one book in this universe. How do we find it? We have to know its characteristics first. If there is any book that has been written by God, it must meet certain conditions or have certain qualifications before one can say that it is from God.


Let me put forth a few propositions. If there is a book written by God, it must first of all mention God. It must tell you that it is from God and that its author is God. This is the first qualification. Second, it must carry a moral tone that is higher than what we commonly know. If it is a fabrication, it can at the most be on the same level as man. Third, if there is such a divine book, it must tell us about the past and the future of this world. Only God knows clearly what occurred in the past and what will happen in the future. Only by telling us these matters will we know Him as God. Fourth, this book must be simple and available so that all may be able to secure and understand it. If there were only one such book in the world, then only a very few people would be able to see it. It would not pass the test unless it is a book accessible to everyone. In the United States there is a group of people who claim to have a book from God. It is engraved in gold and contains only twelve pages. Such a book then would not be accessible to the Chinese. God would never write to us a book at which we could not look.
Now the matter is simplified. Let us repeat these four conditions once more. (1) If such a book exists, it must tell us explicitly that its author is God. (2) It must carry a high tone of morality. (3) It must give a detailed description of the past and the future of the universe. (4) It must be available. Let us pick out some of the more important writings throughout human civilization and check them against these qualifications to see if any meets our requirements.

We will start from books that are generally considered to be good. Let us take the Chinese classics of Confucius. They are immediately disqualified under the first requirement, for none of them claims to be written by God. They do have a high tone of morality, but they fail to give the origin and destiny of the world, the universe, and man. This does not mean that they are worthless books; it means that they do not contain the qualifications we want. They are not what we are looking for.
Let us go to the classics of other cultures. There are numerous volumes of famous writings, but none of them passes the first test. They are all clearly written by man. They may be masterpieces in philosophy or morality, but they are not written by God, nor are they divinely inspired. We have to set them aside.
There is a book in India called the Rig-Veda. It once dominated Hinduism. However, it does not claim to be written by God.
Another book called the Avesta, written by a Persian named Zoroaster, is also extremely influential in the Middle East. It does not claim to be from God either. Moreover, its moral tone is not especially commendable.
Let us come to the Koran of Mohammedanism. This is the closest one we can find. It tells us that it comes from God; it meets the first requirement. However, it does not fulfill the second requirement, for its moral tone is too low. The heaven it describes is full of lusts and flesh. God could never write a book with such licentiousness and immorality. Hence, this book does not pass the test of morality.


After searching through all the books, you have to come finally to the Bible. If God desires to communicate with man, and if He does so through writing, then this is the only book that can pass the four tests. Hence, this must be the book God has for man.
What does this book say? In the books of the law in the Old Testament, it says, "Thus said the Lord," at least five hundred times. Other books in the Old Testament repeat the phrase about seven hundred times. In addition to the references in the New Testament to the speaking of God, the Bible has more than two thousand claims of divine origin. If God has no intention of communicating with man, we can forget about this book. But if He does communicate with man through writing, then this book has to be of immense value. Can you find another book where God is claimed as its author that many times?
We have to see if the Bible meets the second qualification. Let us take a look at its moral tone. Everyone who has studied this book confesses that it carries the highest moral standard. Even the sins of the noblest persons are recorded and condemned without mercy. Once a strong opposer of the Bible was asked by his son, "Why are you so strong against the Bible?" He answered, "If I do not condemn it, it will condemn me." This book does not let us get by easily. The human concept is that all sexual acts outside marriage are considered as fornication. The Bible, however, says that even an evil thought is fornication. Human morality condemns an act of killing as murder, but the Bible condemns a slight hatred in the heart as murder.
We consider a man who lets his enemy get by without paying vengeance as forgiving. But the Bible charges man to love his enemy. How high is its moral tone and how low we are before its standards! You cannot help but admit that it presents the best ethical code for humanity.

Furthermore, this book describes in detail the past and future of the universe. Once a friend told me that he could believe in everything the Bible says except the parts in Genesis and Revelation where it talks about the origin and destiny of the heavens and earth. I told him that if this is indeed a book from God, it must, of necessity, contain these matters. If the Bible did not contain Genesis and Revelation, it would be the same as any other book, and we would have to look for another book; it would not be the one we want. But the past condition of the world and its future destiny are recorded here. Hence, the third qualification is also met.


What is the circulation of such a book? Last year (1935), more than two hundred million copies were sold. Can you name another book that has such a high circulation rate? This statistic, moreover, is not limited to just last year; every year the number has remained approximately the same. In one sense this book is very popular. In another sense it is like a thorn in your hand; it pierces you. This book gives you a headache. It creates an unspeakable uneasiness within man. It even causes man to oppose it. In spite of this, its annual sales are still over two hundred million.
Furthermore, this book is translated into more than seven hundred twenty languages. In every country and among every race, there is a translation of this unique book. It is extremely easy for anyone to obtain a Bible anywhere in the world. If the Rig-Veda were God's book, then more than half of the world would perish due to a failure in obtaining it. Even if you put the Rig-Veda in my hand, I would still be unable to understand it. If only the educated ones can contact God, then I am destined to go to hell. If only the Indians have the opportunity, we Chinese, as well as other races, are out of hope. If God speaks through the Rig-Veda, then where can we find that book? Maybe we can only find the original copy in the London Museum. And even that may not contain the original meaning of God's revelation to man.

This is not all. The Bible contains sixty-six books and it is divided into the Old and New Testaments. It was written by no less than thirty people. The span from the time the first book was written to the time when the last book was finished is more than sixteen hundred years. The places where they were written are also different. Some were written in Babylon, some in Italy, some at one end of Asia Minor, others at the other end of the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the writers themselves differed in their backgrounds. Some were lawyers; some were fishermen. There were princes, and there were shepherds. All these writings by men of different backgrounds, languages, environments, and periods are put together. The amazing thing is that it is still a complete book.
All those who have had some experience of editing know that in order to put together a few articles written by different authors, it is necessary for the authors to be of comparable level of academic achievements and viewpoints. Even when the academic standard and viewpoints are similar, there will still be conflicts and contradictions when you put five or six articles together. But the Bible, though complex in contents, contains history, poetry, laws, prophecies, biographies, and doctrines and was written by so many different ones at different times and under different circumstances, yet when you put them together, they surprisingly run as one continuous volume. There is no conflict or contradiction. They are written in one breath.


If you read this book carefully, you have to admit that God's hand is behind all the writings. More than thirty people of varied backgrounds and ideas in different times and places wrote these sixty-six books. When you group them up, they link together as if they were written by one individual. Genesis was written about fifteen hundred years before Christ, and Revelation was written ninety-five years after Christ. There is a time span of sixteen hundred years. One talks about the beginning while the other projects the end of the world. Yet whatever begins in Genesis is concluded in Revelation. This amazing feature cannot be explained in human terms. Every word of it has to be written by God through man. God is the motivating One behind the whole composition.

There is another remarkable thing about this book. In itself it is a book that gives life. Yet countless numbers of people have lost their lives for its sake. There was a time when anyone who held this book in his hand would immediately be put to death. The most powerful empire in history was the Roman Empire. There was a time when this empire summoned all its forces to destroy this book. Everyone who possessed it would be inhumanly persecuted and later killed or burned. They wiped out thousands of people and burned countless copies of the Bible. They even set up a monument at a place where they killed Christians. On it was the inscription: "Christianity is buried here." They thought that when they had burned all the Bibles and removed all the Christians, they would see Christianity lying there beneath their feet. But it was not long after that when the Bible came back again. Even in a country like England, which has already accepted Christianity as its state religion, you can still find tombs of martyrs for Christ if you visit different places there. Here and there you can find places where the Bible was once burned. Or you may come across a tombstone that tells you that such and such a person tried so hard and wrote so many books in his life to oppose the Bible. One place may tell you that the Bible was once burned there, and another place may tell you that Christians were once killed there. One signpost may point you to a statue of martyrdom, and another may point to a site of Bible burning.
Why is it that so many people have tried so hard to oppose this book? Why is it that men would pass by other books, but would either oppose this book with every fiber of their being or would put their whole life to the stake for it? There must be something extraordinary here. Even if you do not believe that this is God's word, you have to admit that there is something unusual about this book.


This book seems to be very simple and easy. If you consider it from the historical point of view, it tells the origin of the universe, the earth, the plants, human beings, how they established their kingdoms, and how they will eventually end. This is all. There is nothing special about it. Yet it has been handed from generation to generation for centuries. Today it is still with us. Moreover, if you do not confess that it is truth, you have to conclude that it is false. You can disregard many books, but you cannot ignore this book. Nor will it ignore you. It will not let you go. It demands a verdict from you. It will not pass you by.

Another remarkable thing about this book is that almost half of it is prophecy. Among the prophecies, almost half of them are fulfilled. The other half is for the future and await fulfillment. For example, it predicted the fate of the nations of Moab and Ammon and of the cities of Tyre and Sidon. Today when people talk about big cities, they mention London and Shanghai. Then it was Tyre and Sidon. They were two chief cities of the ancient world. The prophecies concerning these two cities were all fulfilled. Once I was in the Middle East. For some reason I did not visit those two places. However, I bought two pictures of those cities. It amazed me when I looked at those pictures. I could not help but believe in the Bible. It was prophesied that if these two metropolitan cities did not repent, they would be destroyed and devastated. Their land would become hills of rocks and pebbles where fishermen would come to dry their nets. In the pictures that I bought, there was nothing but fishing boats and open nets on the shore. This is only one small fact that proves the reliability of biblical prophecy.
If you compare past events with the prophecies in the Bible, you will find that they all correspond one with another. For another example, take the birth of Christ. Isaiah prophesied concerning a virgin with child a few hundred years before Christ actually came. Later, He was born indeed of the Virgin Mary. The prophecy was accurately fulfilled. As the prophecies concerning the past have been fulfilled, so the prophecies concerning the future must also be fulfilled.

If God desires to communicate with man, He must do so through common human channels of communication. He must use the human language or human writings. In other words, there must be a book in the world that is a direct revelation from God. If such a book does exist, it must contain the four criteria we mentioned. Now we can say that such a book is found. This book tells us that God desires to have fellowship with us. He speaks to us through this book. Through it God is no longer an unknown Being. We can now know Him. This book is the Bible. I hope all of you will read it .

THIS IS A SERIOUS MATER, IS HE CRAZY? A LUNATIC? A LIAR? PLEASE YOU’RE VERIDICT

God desires to reveal Himself to us. He does so through means that are comprehensible to man. These are namely written and spoken language. We have seen how God reveals Himself through writing. Now we want to take a look at His revelation through speaking.
Suppose that you have had correspondence with a person for many years; however, you have never seen him. Naturally, you would want to know him more by having some direct acquaintance with him. Full understanding of someone cannot be achieved merely through writing. Direct contact gives a better chance. It seems as if communication through speech is of a more intimate and thorough nature than writing. When spoken language is added to written language, communication becomes enhanced. If you take away either of the two, you have a gap. Of course, if you take away both, communication is completely voided. Effective communication is always carried out by these two means.
If God's intention is to reveal Him to us, He must of necessity do so through speaking. But how does God speak? Does He trumpet from the heavens? If so, we would all be frightened to death. We would all run away. No one would dare to listen. There is a chasm between Him and us. He, being so high and great, would drive us away from His holiness. How then does He speak?
THE WINTER ON THE MOUNTAIN
let me relate to you a story. One winter I was staying on the mountain Lu-shan, recovering from an illness. It was immediately after the war, and there was practically no one living on the mountain. In the vicinity of my dwelling, one could hardly see anyone all day long. I am a quiet person by nature. This kind of environment was very appealing to me. Not only was it quiet there, but the weather was cold as well. From morning till dusk, all I saw was a boy who came three times to deliver my meals. At the beginning I was quite at ease. But after a while, even a person like me began to feel lonely.
One day after lunch I went to take a nap. There was a balcony outside my bedroom window. When I woke up I saw some little creatures gathering around the balcony. Bits of my meal had been dropped there, and the birds were busily chirping around them. As they hopped around, they chirped and made many cheerful noises. I said to myself, "All right. Since I cannot find any human beings, I will try to make friends with these little birds."
I rose up and went out to greet them. But in an instant they all flew away. An idea came to me. I took some of the leftover rice and began to arrange it in rows, with only a few grains in the first row and gradually increased them towards the entrance of the doorway. I hid behind the door and watched them coming. Soon they gathered around again. I said to me, "This is my chance." I walked out and began to make friends with them. But the minute they saw me, they all scattered. Some perched on the branches of the tree across the balcony and stared at me, as if trying to determine what my intention was. Every time I approached them, they flew away, and every time I walked away, they came back. This went on a number of times.
I wanted to preach to the birds. I wanted to tell them, "Little birds, I have no special intention in doing this. This is winter on the mountain, and food is scarce. I have enough food with me, and I just want to share it with you. Please be at peace and come down. I only ask that as you eat, I can sit among you. I want to listen to your songs and watch you playing. Come. Let us be friends..." But the birds would not come. They did not understand me. I had to give up.
Later I had a certain realization within. I began to preach to myself. I said, "This body of mine is too big. If I could shrink from five feet eleven inches to the size of a bird, and even change myself into a bird, they would not be alarmed by my presence. I could then tell them my heart's intention, and we could spend the winter on the mountain Lu-shan together."

We have a similar problem today. If God remained God, we could never understand Him. If He talked to us in His language, we would be altogether lost. If God wants to reveal Himself through speaking and have fellowship with man, He must shrink Himself to such a degree that He and we are the same. Only then would He be able to speak to us and tell us of Himself and of the mysteries of the universe. Only then would we be able to understand Him.
Has God become a man to reveal Himself through His speaking? Let us again use the method of supposition. What if God revealed Himself through the human language? What if He became a man and fellowshipped with man? The implication is tremendous here! It would mean that in this world, among all the human beings throughout history, one person was not merely a man, but God as well! If it is granted that God became a man, there must be a mortal who was also divine. We need to find out about this One.

This is a thorny task. But we will employ the effective method we have adopted—namely, setting down a few principles. Then we will search according to these qualifications and directions. We want to base our evaluation on what manner of life a person should possess and what qualifications he must have if he is God.
The first condition that this person must fulfill is that he must claim to be God while he is on earth. He cannot be apologetic about it. He must declare boldly that he is God. Only then can we know who he is. Without this declaration, we have no way to guess his identity. Hence, a declaration is our first qualification.
Second, the way this person came into the world must be different from ours. If I said that I am God and yet was born in the same manner as every other mortal, my words would carry no force. If on the other hand, I dropped down from heaven; my assertion would be taken seriously. The way this person comes into being must be extraordinary. He must come in an absolutely different fashion; otherwise, his words will not carry the necessary weight.
Third, this man must bear a moral standard that is far above that of all other human beings. He must have God's holiness, and his life must bear the mark of God's righteousness. For example, if I became a bird and lived in exactly the same way as other birds, without showing them anything extraordinary, I could not convince them that I was actually a man. If God is to become a man, His moral behavior must be of the highest quality. This is the only way that we could identify Him as God.
Furthermore, if a person is God, he must necessarily be able to perform things which no mortal can do. If he can achieve what we cannot achieve and know what we do not know, we can say that he is truly God.
Lastly, this person must be able to tell us the divine purpose concerning man. What was God's purpose in creating the universe and man? How does He take care of human pains and sorrows? What is the origin and ultimate solution of everything in the universe? What should our attitude towards God be? All these he must reveal to us. Unless this one shows us what we do not see, we cannot say that he has shown us any revelation.
We will set down these five conditions and put the whole of humanity to the test. Let us find out if someone meets the five requirements. Such a person would surely be qualified to be God.
The first person to put to the test should be you. Of course, you are not God, because you have never claimed to be God. Nor have I ever claimed to be. So that rules out you and me. Very well, now we will introduce Confucius. If you read his books, you will find that he did conduct a very moral and proper life. But he never claimed to be God either. Hence, he fails in the first step.
What about Sakya Muni, the founder of Buddhism? Not only was there an absence of the claim of divinity, but his philosophy itself is void of deity. He did not believe in the existence of God. Since he had no God, he cannot be God either.
Next, go to Mohammed. He believed in God. But he never claimed to be God. He called God Allah and himself the prophet of Allah. If you go through every person in history, you will discover that no one ever claimed to be God except One. That One was Jesus of Nazareth. He claimed to be the living God. No other person put forward such a claim.

How can Jesus of Nazareth claim to be God? Before going on, we have to pause for a moment to seriously consider the matter. It is not a light thing to claim to be God. A person who makes such a claim falls into one of three categories. He must belong to one of these three categories; he cannot belong to all three. First, if he claims to be God and yet in fact is not, he has to be a madman or a lunatic. Second, if he is neither God nor a lunatic, he has to be a liar, deceiving others by his lie. Third, if he is neither of these, he must be God. You can only choose one of the three possibilities. If you do not believe that he is God, you have to consider him a madman. If you cannot take him for either of the two, you have to take him for a liar. There is no need for us to prove if Jesus of Nazareth is God or not. All we have to do is find out if He is a lunatic or a liar. If He is neither, He must be the Son of God. These are our three choices. There is no fourth.
What did Jesus of Nazareth say about Himself? In John 10:30 He said, "I and the Father are one." We need some explanation here. In the Bible the invisible God is called the Father. The Son manifests and expresses the Father. What is hidden is the Father, and what is expressed is the Son. The Son is the One who can be seen and touched. Behind, you have the Father. In front, you have the Son. The two are actually one. They are the two sides of the same reality. When we talk about two, we refer to the fact that one is hidden while the other is revealed. When we talk about one, we say that the revealed One is just the hidden One in manifestation. This is the biblical interpretation of the Father and the Son.
Therefore, when Jesus of Nazareth one day said, "I and the Father are one," it was a statement that no one else could make. This man was saying in reality that He and the invisible God are one entity. He is God and God is He. God is the invisible Father, and He is the manifested Son. The Father and the Son are one! Who can this One be that made such a claim? Is He a madman? Is He out to deceive us?
After Jesus spoke such a word, what reaction do we see? "The Jews again took up stones that they might stone Him. Jesus answered them, I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these works are you stoning me? The Jews answered Him, We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, are making Yourself God" (vv. 31-33). The Jews understood very well that Jesus' words meant that He claimed to be God. After hearing these words they wanted to stone Him to death. A claim was made by Jesus, and an accusation was charged by the Jews, both of which concerned His divinity. Was Jesus insane? Did He speak pure nonsense just to cause people to kill Him? Or was He a swindler setting up some kind of a scheme? If so, what was He trying to gain? Was He trying to gain death?

Perhaps we will go back a little bit to the earlier parts in the Gospel of John and see what it says there. John 1:18 says, "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." Why has no one seen God? It is because God is invisible. Jesus said that He was the only Begotten of the Father; He expressed the invisible Father. When you see the only Begotten, you see the Father.
Again He spoke concerning Himself, "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven" (3:13). Have you ever heard anyone say such words? I cannot say, "No one has been to Shanghai, but he who comes from Shanghai to Tientsin, even I, Watchman Nee, who is in Shanghai." If I say so, I would be gibbering nonsense. But Jesus was speaking a heavenly language. He said that He came out of heaven and is still in heaven. What can a person be if he can be in two places simultaneously? Either he is God or he is a lunatic or he is a liar. If you have not yet believed in Christ, please give a verdict to this issue. Who is this man?
Let us read John 3:31-32: "He who comes from above is above all; he who is from the earth is of the earth and speaks out of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. What He has seen and heard, of this He testifies, and no one receives His testimony." He said that He came out of heaven and was above all. After a while He said the same thing again. Let us see what the purpose behind these words is. He came to preach the things of heaven, but no one received His words. He mentioned words like "heaven," "above all," "out of heaven," etc. What kind of man was He? Confucius never said this. Neither did Sakya Muni or Mohammed. Was Jesus of Nazareth a madman, a liar, or the Son of God?
John 5:17 says, "But Jesus answered them, My Father is working until now, and I also am working." He always put Himself in the same place as the Father. Verse 18 says, "Because of this therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." When we read His words now, we may consider them to be ordinary remarks. But the Jews knew what He was saying. They knew that He was making Himself equal with God. The words in fact meant that God is His Father and He came to express God. The invisible One is God, and the visible One is He. Therefore, the Jews sought to kill Him. What should we do about such an unusual person?

John 6:46 says, "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except Him who is from God, He has seen the Father." Here the word is clearer. He said that no one other than Himself has ever seen God. Only He knew what the Father is like. I can only say with soberness and reverence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. Read John 8:18. What did He say? "I am one who testifies concerning me, and the Father who sent me testifies concerning me." The question in verse 19 is most interesting: "They said then to Him, Where is Your Father? Jesus answered, you know neither me nor My Father; if you knew me, and you would know My Father also." Have you seen what He was saying? They had seen Him, yet did not know Him. Of course they would not know the Father either, whom they had not seen. If men knew Him, they knew God. Who is He then? If knowing Him equals knowing God, is that not the same as saying that He is God and God is He?
Read John 8:23: "And He said to them, You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world." The preposition "from" in this verse is ek in Greek. It means "out of." That is how it should be translated. He said, "You are out of this world, but I am not out of this world." This man claimed to be from above; He did not come out of this world. Who can He be?
The Jews were confused. They were totally bewildered. Who was this man? The ancestor of the Jews is Abraham. They boasted of being the descendants of Abraham in the same way the Chinese boast of being the offspring of Hwang-it. The name Abraham was highly venerated among the Jews. Now they brought out Abraham. Please read John 8:53: "Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too. Who are you making yourself?" How did Jesus answer them? Was He greater or smaller than Abraham? In verse 56 Jesus said, "Your father Abraham exulted that he would see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced." What is this? Even Abraham had to look forward to Jesus! Hence, verse 57: "The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Now please pay your attention to Jesus' answer in verse 58: "Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am." Tell me who this man is. If I told you that before Hwang-it was, I, Watchman Nee am there, you would immediately write me off as a lunatic. Some of you would say that I am a liar. The words Jesus spoke made Him a madman, a liar, or God. There can be no fourth alternative.

We have to read on. In John 10:37-38 Jesus said, "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works so that you may come to know and continue to know..." Know what? The clause following is very crucial. It is a big statement: "...that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." Who then is this man? He said that He was in God and God was in Him.
Passages like the above are numerous in the Bible. I shall mention one more. Read carefully John 14:6-7: "Jesus said to him, I am the way and the reality and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known My Father also; and henceforth you know Him and have seen Him." It says clearly that if you know Jesus of Nazareth, you have known the invisible God. Why is this so? It is because He is God.

One of the disciples was confused. John 14:8 says, "Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us." Philip was asking to be shown the Father who had been mentioned again and again by Jesus. Verse 9 says, "Jesus said to him, have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father?" Here Jesus made it very plain that to see Him is to see God. He made no apology about it. He is God. There is no need to see the Father anymore. If you see Him, you see God!
Who is Jesus of Nazareth? What would you say? Is He merely the founder of the Christian religion? Is He merely an example of self-sacrifice and humanitarianism? Is He a social reformer? Is He an advocate for universal love, peace, and freedom? Listen to what He said about Himself. He said that He is God. What is your conclusion? Is He a lunatic or a liar? Is He a hoax, or is He God? This is a vital question.
Can He be a madman? If you read His biographies in the Gospels and observe His life and manner, you will realize that not only was He sane and sound, He was very sober and firm. If there is a perfectly sound person in this world, He has to be the One. His mind was clear, and His mentality was alert. If you study His deeds and words carefully, you have to confess that His thoughts are very logical and consistent, and His manners are most comely and appropriate. To opposing ones He only needed to reply a few sentences, and their arguments against Him were defeated. He did not have a trace of madness in Him. A madman could never have done what He did.
Then is He a liar? A liar always lies for a profit. If there is no profit to be gained, what is the purpose of lying? Why was Jesus crucified? For no other reason than that He claimed to be God. At the last judgment, the hour when His release or crucifixion was to be deliberated, He was examined as to who He was. What was His answer? He said that the Son of Man would be seen sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high, descending on the clouds in glory (Matt. 26:64). Even then He claimed to be God. As a result, He was crucified on the cross. Is there a liar who would sacrifice his life for his lie?

Once I met a person who wanted to talk with me about our faith. He read some books about Jesus and admitted that Jesus had a high standard of morality. He could consider Jesus as a perfect man, a model for humanity. But he could not believe that Jesus is God. I said, "If you admit that He has a high standard of morality, then He at least is not a liar. If you agree that He is not a liar, then you have to accept His claim of divinity as truth. He repeatedly asserted that He is God. If you admire His morality, you have to recognize His divinity as well. Jesus of Nazareth is God!"

Please read John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Verse 14 says, "And the Word became flesh and tabernacle among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality." What is the "Word" mentioned in verses 1 and 14? Verse 1 speaks of the relationship the Word has with God. In reference to when, the Word was there from the beginning. In reference to where, the Word was with God. In reference to what, the Word was God. Today the Word has become flesh; He has taken on a human body and dwelt among men. As to how He dwells, it says that He is "full of grace and reality," and "we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father." Who is this One? He is Jesus of Nazareth.
Here we have only seen one of the five qualifications mentioned earlier. Only Jesus of Nazareth meets this first condition. This proves that He is God. We shall go on to see the four other conditions or qualifications. Jesus of Nazareth must meet all the other four qualifications before we can conclude that He is God.

GOD COME INTO THE WORLD

If God is to be a man, He must come into the world in a way that is very different from all other mortals. We come into the world through our parents and are conceived by our mothers. To ascertain whether Jesus of Nazareth is an ordinary person or the incarnated God, we need to examine His birth. If His birth was no different from ours, we have to conclude that He is nothing but a man. Not only does He have to pass the first qualification, but He needs to pass the second one. Do not hastily believe in a person simply because he claims to be God; we have to test him by our second criterion. If he is indeed God, he must be born in an extraordinary manner.
If we study the birth of Jesus, we will find that it was very different from ours. He was born of a virgin. Both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament tell us this fact. Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary.

Before we go on, we have to realize that there are two ways to know God: by natural speculation or by revelation. According to natural speculation, one meditates and conjectures about God. In revelation, God speaks to man. We want to look at the revelation of God. We want to know what God says.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke show us that Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary. This important fact enables us to conclude that He is no ordinary person, and it justifies our being a Christian.
The natural mentality cannot readily accept this fact. Some years ago, a big debate was conducted in England. On one side were prominent leaders of modernistic schools of theology. On the other side was a famous Presbyterian pastor-theologian. Four major topics were raised. Twice a day, for four consecutive days, each side took turns delivering a long speech for a total of eight messages. One of the topics was related to our subject—the virgin birth. The modernistic theologians asserted that one reason alone was enough to disprove the virgin birth—the event was biologically impossible. According to the law of biology, it is impossible to have the virgin birth.
On the same day, their opponent gave the rebuttal. Let me briefly mention a few of his arguments. He said, "Our friends have denied the possibility of such an event on the ground of biological law. I am here to ask whether such an event happened. They asked, 'Can this happen?' They referred you to academic principles. I am asking, 'Has this happened?' I point to a historical occurrence. It is one thing to be academically justified. It is another thing to be historically recorded."
As he was speaking, he drew out a newspaper from his pocket. In the paper was an article about an accident that had happened a few days earlier. A man was driving on a winding mountain road. Due to carelessness, the car slid and tumbled down a deep gorge. The car was totally wrecked. Not even a square foot of the vehicle was left untouched. It was thoroughly damaged. But the man on the ground was absolutely unhurt. Later, he rose up and walked away. The theologian read the passage aloud and said, "This car tumbled down a thousand feet into ruin. You cannot even find a square foot of whole metal, and yet the man was unharmed. My friends would ask, 'Could this man live?' But my question is, 'Is this man alive?' He is alive! If you consider the possibility, there is none. But if you consider the fact, there it is!"
What we have is a historical fact. If we try to study the virgin birth from a scientific point of view, we may conclude that this is an impossible event. But my question is whether or not such an event occurred. The Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus was born of a virgin. So does the Gospel of Luke. At least you have to say that these records have said such a thing and that such an event was recorded in history. At least you have to believe that there is a historical event.
I am not asserting that Matthew and Luke were inspired by the Holy Spirit when they wrote their books. Whether these books were divinely inspired or not, we will set aside for a moment. We are saying that there were a few people who followed Jesus. They wrote His biography. Both Matthew and Luke were contemporaries of Jesus. Matthew followed Him for more than three years. Luke was not as close, but he "carefully investigated all things" (Luke 1:3). I believe that when he wrote his gospel, the mother of Jesus was still alive. What did they say about the birth of Jesus? They all testified that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. His birth was absolutely different from ours. Today, after almost two thousand years, some who never saw Jesus, never talked to Mary His mother, and never met Joseph His father; conclude that He was not born of a virgin. How can you say that He was not born in this manner? Are you ruling out the possibility of such an event and concluding that it did not happen because of some arguments you proposed in your study room or some theories you fashioned in the laboratory?

Perhaps we should read the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. There are forty-two generations in the genealogy. Beginning from the first generation, it repeatedly says, "So-and-so begot So-and-so." This phrase is used through verse 15, which says, "And Eliud begot Eleazar, and Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob." Verse 16 continues, "And Jacob begot Joseph." The surprising thing is that the next part of the sentence does not continue with "Joseph begot Jesus." Rather, it says, "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." When the line reaches Joseph, the pattern is dropped. This is because Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. His way of birth was very different from ours.

We have seen that His method of coming into the world was an unusual one. Now we want to look at His way of departing from the world. As we shall see, this was also contrary to our ordinary deaths. No one can ever predict the place, time, and manner he or she is going to die. A hundred years from now, all of us here will be dead. But no one knows how we are going to die. Jesus of Nazareth, however, foresaw His own death. He knew exactly when, where, and how it was to happen.

Once when someone told Him that He was going to be killed, He answered that it was not acceptable for a prophet to perish outside of Jerusalem (Luke 13:33). He knew that He was going to die in Jerusalem. One day, He told His disciples that the hour had come. Not only did He sense the imminence of His death; He told others that His death hour had come. He knew also how He would die. A number of times He mentioned that He would be crucified. This was recorded at least three times in Matthew. Not only was this man different in His way of entering into the world, but His manner of departure was no less extraordinary. Both His birth and His death were very unusual. Is this the Son of God? Let us consider the third qualification. What kind of morality did Jesus of Nazareth have? Was He the same as we are? Did He ever sin?
I like the sentence Jesus spoke in John 8. Many were opposing Him at that time. They surrounded and cross-examined Him. In return He asked, "Which of you convicts me of sin?" (v. 46). This was a tremendous challenge! Which one of us would dare to stand before everyone and challenge to be convicted of sin? Whoever dared do such a thing would be put to shame the minute his wife stood up to testify against him. Perhaps, in less than five minutes, seven or eight people would immediately rise up to expose his lies and unfaithfulness. But when Jesus made such a statement, no one was able to convict Him of sin. There have been a countless number of saints and sages throughout the ages, but none was bold enough to claim to be perfect and sinless. Why is it that Jesus alone dared to make such a claim?
All I can say is that this man is either arrogant to the extreme or holy to the uttermost. A proud person may talk in an outlandish manner because he does not know himself; he has no realization of what kind of person he is. But when Jesus challenged, "Which of you convicts me," there was no way He could be humble or polite about it. He is without sin, and He is holy to the uttermost.
Jesus of Nazareth is not like Confucius, who said that given some more time, he would be rid of big, moral flaws. Jesus is sinless. When He made such a statement, He made it before His enemies. If there had been a slight misconduct on His part, the Jews would have caught it right away. The Jews are not prolific writers; they have not produced many books other than the Holy Scripture. But after Jesus, many books were written by the Jews to contradict Him. All these books deny His divinity, but none touch His morality. Of all the opposing writings, none can prove that Jesus ever sinned.
Every philosopher or founder of religion, at one time or another, has said, "I repent," or "I regret such and such a matter. I will do better from now on." But Jesus of Nazareth never repented. A sinner must of necessity repent. But what does a sinless man have to repent of? Jesus never apologized to anyone; He never did anyone any wrong.
When I was in England, some British friends asked for my opinion concerning their people. I said, "Among you, once ever so often, I hear, 'Excuse me' and 'I beg your pardon.'" To the English, anyone who does not know how to make these two remarks has to be an extremely base person, for he knows not his own mistakes. Anyone can make a mistake, but when one refuses to admit his mistakes, he makes himself vulgar. For this reason we have to say, "Excuse me" and "I beg your pardon" all the time.
The amazing thing is that Jesus of Nazareth never said "sorry" to anyone. He never apologized. Could He be so evil as to ignore His conscience completely? Was He oblivious to His own errors? Or is He really sinless? If so, He cannot say, "sorry." It is not a matter of humility or politeness to Him, but a matter of maintaining His standing.

I love the story about Jesus once walking down a road. Many people were gathered around Him, hoping to see the resurrection of a dead person. It was so crowded that the people pressed upon each other. One woman, who suffered from an issue of blood for years, thought that Jesus would surely be able to heal her since He had performed all kinds of miracles. She did not come to the Lord directly. All that she did was touch the fringe of His garment, and the sickness was immediately healed (Mark 5:25-29).
Jesus felt something, turned around, and asked, "Who touched me?" How did the disciples respond? They said, "You see the crowd pressing upon you and you say, who touched me?" (v. 31). He should have asked, "Who pressed me?" instead of "Who touched me?" If I were Jesus, I would have said in a gentlemanly fashion, "Excuse me." But Jesus did not need to say that. When He said that it was a touch, He meant that it was a touch and not a pressing against. The disciples only knew that many thronged around Him. But He knew that someone "touched" Him. He knew what He was doing. There was no need for apology. He knows no sin because He is without sin.
Let me mention another story about Jesus. One day He came to the synagogue in His hometown. Someone handed Him the Scripture, and He started to read from a passage about Himself. The people there, however, despised Him. He remarked that a prophet is always despised in His own place. For this reason, God would not choose them but would rather go to someone else. After they heard this, they were very indignant. They carried Him outside and tried to throw Him down a cliff. I like very much what Jesus did then. He passed through their midst (Luke 4:16-30). If someone tried to push us over a cliff, we would struggle to escape. But He was no ordinary person. He simply passed through the persecutors' midst. They could do nothing except let Him pass by! He is without sin.
Again, you see the same Jesus preaching to a ruler at midnight in a house (John 3:2), while choosing to converse with a woman beside a well at midday (4:5-7). Everything He did was very proper. No one can say anything against Him. You cannot find fault in Him.

Another time some opposes came to tempt Him. They asked whether or not it was lawful to pay tax to Caesar. The Jewish nation, as you know, no longer existed then, and Caesar of Rome was their king. If Jesus said "no" to the question, He would have been involved in a political issue, and the opposes would have had an excuse to condemn Him. If He said "yes," all the Jews would have counted Him as siding with the Romans and hated Him. The result, of course, would have favored the opposes. This was a question that could not be answered "yes" or "no."
How did Jesus reply? He said, "Show Me the coin for the tribute" (Matt. 22:19). He was wise. He even had the opposing ones draw out the money from their own pockets. Then He asked, "Whose is this image and inscription?" (v. 20). They had to admit that it was Caesar's. Jesus gave an excellent reply: "Render then the things that are Caesar's to Caesar and the things that are God's to God" (v. 21). With that He dismissed the whole case. This is where His majesty lies. He never made a mistake. You cannot get a case out of Him.

I cannot enumerate all His deeds. Everything He did bears such a mark of nobility that there is absolutely no flaw in His behavior. I will briefly mention His betrayal as a final example. It was very late in the night, and men armed with torches, spears, and swords came to arrest this empty-handed Jesus. He asked them, "Whom do you seek?" They said, "Jesus the Nazarene" (John 18:7). He replied, "I told you that I am" (v. 8). At that very word, the band of rogues whose minds were set on capturing Him fell back to the ground. If Jesus had not voluntarily given Himself over to them, they would never have been able to seize Him. Such calmness and majesty can only be seen in Him!
As to the traitor, Jesus knew from the first day of his intention. Yet He allowed the same to follow Him and even let him be the keeper of the money. All the time Jesus knew that money was being stolen by him. Who can demonstrate such forbearance and uprightness? Here is a man who is absolutely different from all others. In every respect, He has been proven to be the Son of God.
The fourth qualification we mentioned is that one who claims to be God incarnated must be able to perform what an ordinary person cannot. Has Jesus of Nazareth performed any supernatural acts? We are not His contemporaries; it was almost two thousand years ago that He walked on earth. Naturally, we cannot be His witnesses. But one thing is sure: the apostles who followed Jesus recorded, preached, and testified the things concerning Him. The four Gospels were all completed within thirty years after His departure. Most of the Jews who were then alive had seen Jesus. If the apostles' records were false, they would have been repudiated long ago. However, the Jews only argued that Jesus is not the Son of God. They never denied His deeds, for the deeds were all facts.
Today, when we read the four Gospels, we have no apprehension about their authenticity. If there had been a slight error when they were written, there would have been grave problems because many of the contemporaries had actually seen and heard Jesus. There was no chance for any fabrication. Hence, these books cannot be a hoax. If the Jews could not attack these books, there is even less of a basis for an attack today.

Let us examine some of the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth. Matthew 11:2 and 3 say, "Now when John heard in the prison of the works of the Christ, he sent word through his disciples and said to Him, Are You the Coming One, or should we expect another?" John wanted to make sure that Jesus was the Christ sent from God. If He was not, John would wait for another.
Verses 4 and 5 say, "And Jesus answered and said to them, go, report to John the things that you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; and the dead are raised and the poor have the gospel announced to them." Jesus answered neither "yes" nor "no." He only asked the messenger to tell John of the things heard and seen. He wanted John to think about them and decide for himself if Jesus was the Christ. Jesus proved His divinity by the miracles He performed. Here is a man who accomplished things that are impossible for human beings. You cannot help but confess that He is God.
John 7:31 says, "But many out of the crowd believed into Him and said, Will the Christ, when He comes, do more signs than this man has done?" Many people testified that He performed all kinds of miracles which no man could do.

John 10:24 says, "The Jews therefore surrounded Him and said to Him, How long will you hold our soul in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." On the one hand, the Jews hardened their hearts and refused to acknowledge His divinity, and on the other hand, they were puzzled by the many supernatural miracles that He performed. They gathered around Him and pressed for an answer. There is one thing in which Jesus never gave in: His claim to divinity. He performed what mortals could not. These acts testify to His divinity. He told the people clearly, "The works which I do in My Father's name, these testify concerning me" (v. 25). On the one hand, He made His claim, and on the other hand, He performed miracles to justify His claim.
In John 14:11 He said to His disciples, "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me." This is the same as saying that He is the invisible Father. "But if not, believe because of the works themselves." If He had not done anything impossible, this word would have had no value at all. If He had not performed any extraordinary acts, they would have asked back, "What works have you done? We do not know what you are talking about." But the disciples knew of the acts He did. All these acts prove that He is the Son of God.

We have to check Jesus of Nazareth against a fifth qualification. If He is God, He has to show us what He is. Is He kind, or is He severe? Is He gentle, or is He fierce? What kind of a God do we have? As a matter of fact, Jesus did show us what God is.
This is a most wonderful thing. The eternal, invisible God is now seen by us. There is no need to conjure up an untouchable and far transcendent God or imagine what He is like; He has revealed Himself to us. He has dwelt in our midst and walked among us. Jesus of Nazareth is the very God dwelling among and with man. He has manifested God's nature and attributes to us. There is no need to search for God anymore because He has revealed Himself. Our mentality is too limited. Our hands are too short, and our viewpoint too narrow. If we were left to ourselves to study and search for God, we could only conclude that He is the unknown One. Now we know that God desires to reveal Himself. In fact, He has revealed Himself to us already.

We have said that the two means whereby God communicates with us are the written and spoken language. For this reason, the Bible and Jesus of Nazareth are the two indispensable factors in our faith. When you take away either one, God becomes the gravest problem in the world. Hebrews 1:1 says, "God, having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets." These speaking constitute the Bible. "Has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son" (v. 2). This is Jesus of Nazareth. Whoever is in Christ now may know Him. To have heard the words of Jesus of Nazareth is to have heard the words of God.
Dear reader, what is your attitude towards Jesus of Nazareth? Thomas confessed, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). Peter proclaimed, "You are...the Son of the living God!" (Matt. 16:16). Martha said, "I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of God" (John 11:27). Even a Roman centurion exclaimed at the sight of Jesus hanging on the cross, "Truly this was the Son of God" (Matt. 27:54b). I hope you will make the same confession

Our Christian faith is based upon the revelation of God. It is different from all other religions which are attained through meditation, conjecture, and searching. We believe that the Bible is God's revelation to us. In other words, it is His spoken word to us. We also believe that God has become a man, who is the very Jesus of Nazareth. God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ constitute the basis of our faith.

Let us begin by looking at the position that Christ occupies in our faith, or we may say, in Christianity. However, Christianity has been altered and is not what it ought to be. At the present we will not mention what Christianity ought to be. Rather, we will only draw a comparison between Christianity and other religions in order to see the distinctiveness of our faith. We will not try purposely to exalt Christianity and debase other religions. We will only draw an objective comparison between them.
First, let us consider Confucianism. Actually, followers of Confucius never formally assert that theirs is a religion. Confucianism merely exercises great influence on Chinese culture, education, ethics, and philosophy. One thing, however, is certain: the teachings and doctrines of Confucius are of foremost importance, while the person Confucius is not as crucial. I do not mean that Confucianism has no concern for Confucius. The man indeed was an extraordinary person. However, in order to be a part of Confucianism, one only need to understand the doctrines of Confucius, abide by his teachings, and be thoroughly acquainted with his books. It does not matter whether one understands the man Confucius or not. The principles, doctrines, and teachings of Confucius are the essence of the religion.

Next let us consider Buddhism. The founder of Buddhism was Sakya Muni. Once he preached to his disciples about evil persons being reincarnated through the Wheel of Rebirth after death. This is something that attracts man's attention. But in all of Buddhism, the point of emphasis is doctrines and theories. Concerning the man Sakya Muni, although he has a history and biography, they are something parenthetical. They do not form the crux of Buddhism. The center of the religion is not the man Sakya Muni. Whether there was such a person is unimportant to today's Buddhism. All that is needed are the doctrines and teachings.
Other religions such as Taoism and Mohammedanism are all of the same principle. After each founder set up a religion and left his teachings, doctrines, and regulations as the content of his religion, the founder himself was disassociated from the religion and had little to do with it.
But our faith is entirely different. From its outset, Christianity is built on the man Christ. It is not built on the doctrines and teachings of Christ. It is amazing that when you open the Bible, you will not find too many chapters of doctrines. Passages where pure doctrinal issues are expounded are rare and of less concern to people. What concerns one the most is the man Himself and what kind of person He is? All who have read the Bible know that the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are not outstandingly voluminous. His person draws our attention. He alone is the foundation of our faith.
The word Christ came from Greek, meaning the Anointed One. According to the Chinese, when a man takes up a task, he is given a letter of employment. The Jewish equivalent of this is anointing. When God summons a person for a work, He pours oil on the person as a seal of commission. Christ is the very God who was set apart to come to earth to be a man for the manifestation of God, in order that man may know God. Christ is the Anointed One. He is commissioned to such a task.

Due to this basic distinction, Christ is different from the founders of other religions. Once He asked His disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" Over and over again He demanded that His disciples believe in Him. He said that he who believes in the Son has eternal life. Again He said, "He who loves father or mother above me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter above me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:37). Unless a man loves in this way, he is not worthy to be His disciple. Words such as these have been uttered only by Him. No other religious leader ever said anything like that. Confucius never said to Yen-weh or Tze-lu, "Believe in me," nor did he ever say, "Love me." Neither did any of the other leaders, such as Sakya Muni or Mohammed, demand of their disciple’s faith in them. All it takes to be their disciples is to believe in their doctrines.

Hence, the true Christian faith is based on a person. It is built on Christ and not on some doctrines. The crux of the true Christian faith is a question of who Jesus is! Is He merely a Jew? Is He only a prophet? Or is Jesus the Son of the living God? The whole matter hinges upon who Jesus of Nazareth is. The difference between a genuine Christian and a false one lies not in the knowledge of the doctrines of Christ. Rather, it lies in the knowledge of who Jesus is!
Who is this man from Nazareth? Since this is a crucial question related to our basic faith, we have to find the answer in the Bible. We will pay more attention to the Gospel of John and discover that only Christ Himself is the center of the Bible and the focus of the whole of Christianity.
Before taking up the Gospel of John, we have to take a look at the background of the book. Prior to the coming of Christ, a forerunner was sent by God to prepare a way for Christ that men might be ready to acknowledge Christ. The forerunner was John the Baptist. Because of his powerful preaching, many people were convicted. As a result, many thought that he was the Christ who was supposed to come.
But John 1:8 says, "He was not the light, but came that he might testify concerning the light." The light means Christ. He is called the light because light reveals and manifests. John was not the Christ. He was only bearing witness to Christ.
Concerning this light, verse 9 says, "This was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." In this dark world, if a person has Christ, he will know all about God. When this light shines forth, man will say, "Here is God." They will recognize the light as God.
Up to verse 9, we still do not know who this light is. Read on from verse 10 to verse 15: "He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, yet those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name, who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and tabernacle among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality. John testified concerning Him and cried out, saying, this was He of whom I said, He who is coming after me has become ahead of me, because He was before me." Have you realized, after reading the above verses, that all that is recorded here are actual facts, rather than many doctrines?

What did John the Baptist say about Christ? He said, "He...is...after me." And yet He who was after John would be before him. This is because Christ was before him in the first place. This is the beginning of the testimony of John the Baptist.
John 1:27: "He who is coming after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." The preaching of John is the beginning of our faith. He came just to tell others who Jesus of Nazareth is. Not only was Christ before John, He was so much greater than John that he was not worthy to untie the thong of His sandal and be His slave.
John 1:29: "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world?"
Verse 30: "This is He of whom I said, a man is coming after me who has become ahead of me, because He was before me." When John introduced Jesus, he said, "This is He"! (v. 30). The Gospel begins by showing us who Jesus is!
This is the word of the forerunner. But what about Christ? What did He say? We admit that in the Bible there are a few basic doctrines. For example, regeneration is one of the basic truths. Buddhism and Mohammedanism also talk about regeneration. In their teachings they teach that whatever is past is considered as dead yesterday, and whatever is hereafter is considered as born today. But what did Jesus say about regeneration? Let us look at the record of John 3.
"There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This one came to Him by night" (vv. 1-2a).
Nicodemus was a ruler. He was also a learned and aged person. He came to Jesus to discuss some problems with Him, and Jesus brought up the matter of regeneration.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (v. 3).
Jesus showed Nicodemus the matter of regeneration, telling him that he needed to be born again. After Nicodemus heard this, he was confounded. He wondered how an old man could be born again. Did that mean that he had to go into his mother's womb and come out again? Jesus told him that this is not a birth of the flesh, but a birth of the spirit. If a man is not born of the Spirit, even if he could go into his mother's womb again, the flesh would still beget flesh. Only the Spirit begets spirit. Here you can see that even in such a basic and fundamental matter, Jesus did not expound much doctrine. He only mentioned a very simple fact—the need to be born again.

No wonder Nicodemus asked, "How can these things be?" Jesus told him that this is not an earthly matter. It is something heavenly. That is why he could not believe. How can a man be born again? "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that every one who believes into Him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that every one who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes into Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of God" (vv. 13-18). Have you seen this? This is regeneration!
Jesus was saying that regeneration is not a doctrine. It believes into Him. To be born again is to believe into Him. If a man does not believe into Him, he cannot be regenerated. After saying so much, it all comes back to "Him."
What is our concept of regeneration? We think that if one was a thief yesterday and returns his booty to the owner today, that this is regeneration. Or, if one thought of having a mistress yesterday, but gives up that idea today, that this is regeneration. We think that as long as we quit doing whatever was bad in the past, considering it as dead, and strive to do well hereafter, we are born again. But this is man's concept. This is not the regeneration that Christ gives.
The way of Jesus depends on whether you believe into Him or not. He who believes into Him has eternal life! God gave His only begotten Son that every one who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life. He who believes is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned. This is not a doctrine. It is a matter of the person. It is a relationship between Him and man.
Besides regeneration, there is another crucial matter, which we call Christian satisfaction. A genuine Christian feels that his hopes are fulfilled, his aspirations attained; he has no want; he is absolutely satisfied. But this satisfaction is very different from the contentment that people commonly talk about. Contentment is to see things in an optimistic way, to let things come and go by as they are without insisting on anything. There may not be much wealth or position. There may not be much honor or renown. But as long as one can live in peace and be left unbothered, that is good enough! This is contentment. But this is not satisfaction. When a person is satisfied, he feels that he has what he wants and that he has no more desires.

There is an excellent record in John 4. What did Jesus say to a Samaritan woman there? "Everyone who drinks of this water shall thirst again" (v. 13). If you desire worldly glory, renown, wealth, position, etc., you will never be satisfied. When you have ten thousand dollars, you will want a hundred thousand, and when you have acquired a hundred thousand, you will start dreaming about a million. There will never be satisfaction. He who drinks of this water will thirst again.
How do you quench this thirst? The Lord Jesus said, "But whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall by no means thirst forever" (v. 14). An amazing fact is that neither Confucius nor any other religious leader ever said such a thing. The teachings of Confucius and Mencius only tell you to be content and to abide in your poverty. The person Confucius or Mencius has nothing to do with your contentment. However, the person Jesus has a great deal to do with your thirst-quenching.
Naturally the woman desired to drink of this thirst-quenching water. When she asked Jesus for this living water, "Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the gift of God and who it is who says to you, Give Me a drink, you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water" (v. 10).
Was Jesus preaching a doctrine? No. There was no doctrine. The only thing He did was point to Him, as if to say, "Well, if you know who He is, you will ask of Him at once, and He will give you living water, that you may never thirst again." Have you seen this? The whole question is who Jesus of Nazareth is.
The Samaritan woman was not a decent woman. The fact that she had had six husbands showed what kind of woman she was. She must have been dissatisfied with this one and that one. One husband could not make her happy; another could not make her satisfied. As a result, she changed from one husband to another, and then to a third and a fourth, until she came to the sixth. One day she came out to draw water, a symbol of her being one that drinks and is still thirsty. The remarkable thing is that on that day, her life was changed. She became satisfied! What did she do? She did not do anything! On that day she realized who Jesus of Nazareth is and she was saved. Let us look again at the process through which she came to know Jesus.


"The woman said to Him, Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet" (v. 19). Because Christ told her everything that she ever did, she perceived that this was no ordinary man. He must be a prophet. Jesus said something more to show her that He was not merely a prophet: "Believe Me" (v. 21). The woman said, "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when He comes, He will declare all things to us" (v. 25). What did Jesus answer her? He said, "I, who speak to you, am He" (v. 26). The first thing that a sinner needs to do is not to repent and change his behavior, but to realize who Jesus is. All will be well if he realizes who Jesus is. Later the woman returned to the city and told the people, "Come, and see a man who told me all that I have done. Is this not the Christ?" (v. 29). I do not like the words, "Is this not." Since she knew that this man was the Christ, why did she say, "Is this not"? At any rate, she believed and went to tell others that Christ had come. You can see clearly that the whole issue is not about doctrine but about a person! Our basic concern is not doctrines. Rather, it is seeing who Jesus is! Once we have the Lord Jesus, we will have real satisfaction; we will be filled with the sense of having acquired everything. We will see a little more from John 5. It seems that in chapter five the Lord Jesus spoke some doctrines. But actually not much was expounded. It was once again an invitation to receive the knowledge of who Jesus of Nazareth is. He spoke some words, but they were to lead us to believe into Him. The Lord Jesus said that the Jews searched the Scriptures. But the Scriptures, the Lord pointed out, are a witness to Him. What is written there concerns Him. It is important to know the Scriptures. But more important than that is the knowledge of who Jesus of Nazareth is. The question is not what kind of teaching He teaches, but what kind of a person He is when we come to John 6, the matter is brought out in an even clearer way. "Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall by no means hunger, and he who believes into me shall by no means ever thirst" (v. 35). He did not preach any doctrine. He just said, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall by no means hunger." Have you seen the implication here? If I say that I am your bread of life and that he who eats me shall never hunger, you will surely say that Mr. Nee is a madman from Shanghai. Religious leaders can only give doctrines to others. They cannot give themselves to others. But Jesus is different. He is the bread of life. He is also the thirst-quenching water. The problem is in the people's unbelief in Him. When anyone believes in Him, everything will be all right."I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven that anyone may eat of it and not die" (vv. 48-50). These are words that no other can speak. Only Jesus can say this. He is neither a madman nor a liar. And whatever He says always points back to Him. This man is the bread of life. He who eats of Him shall not die! Hence, our Christian faith is based on the issue of who Jesus of Nazareth is. We are not spending time merely to study His teachings. We are only asked to answer one question: who is He? What Christ proclaimed persistently on the earth was not His doctrines but Himself. The focus is not on the doctrines but on the person. As far as doctrines go, the books of Confucius and Mencius are filled with philosophies, ethics, and morality; they far exceed those in the Bible. But there is only one issue: who is Jesus of Nazareth? Do you know? Who is this Jesus of Nazareth? Let us read on. John 6:51: "I am the living bread which came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread which I will give is My flesh, given for the life of the world."Here His words become more and more peculiar. It is strange enough to say that He is the bread of life which came down out of heaven. Now He says that he, who eats Him, not only will not die, but will live forever. This is extraordinary. Even more intriguing are the words that say that the bread He gives is His very flesh. No wonder the Jews at that time said that it was a hard saying. Who can take this? It is right! We never heard such words before. We never heard them from Confucius, from Mencius, from Lao-tze, from Chuan-tze, or from any other sages. We never heard them in China or in any other country. No man has ever spoken such words. After Christ spoke such words, verse 52 says, "The Jews then contended with one another, saying, how can this man give us His flesh to eat?" What doctrine did Jesus preach? None. All that He said was to eat His flesh. Verses 55 and 56 say, "For My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and me in him." You can see that He is only emphasizing Himself. This is not a set of doctrines. Rather, it is the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood. Those who eat and drink will live forever. When we come to John 7, we see the last day of a great feast. Jesus spoke some words in front of those who were attending the feast. "On the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, if anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. He who believes into me, as the Scripture said, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water" (vv. 37-38). Just imagine: on one of our busy festive holidays, I, Watchman Nee, stand up in the midst of a crowd and shout, "If you are thirsty, come to me and drink. He who believes in me, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water." What would you say? You would surely say that I am a senseless fool from Shanghai who is talking nonsense. But that was exactly what Jesus did and said. There was really no doctrine; there was just the person Christ. On that day when Jesus spoke those words, a dispute arose among the Jews. Some said that this truly had to be the Christ. Others reasoned how Christ could come out of Galilee. In trying to answer who this man was, an argument arose among the Jews. The argument centered around one thing: who was this Jesus of Nazareth? A genuine Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the Christ. Further on in John 8:12, Jesus told the crowd, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me shall by no means walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." You can see that again His words are not doctrinal. The emphasis here is the "light" and the "I." It is not the practice of His teachings that makes a Christian. Rather, it is a relationship with Christ that qualifies us as one. Only by believing into Him will we receive the light of life. Only by receiving Him will we not walk in darkness. John 8:21-22 says, "He said therefore again to them, I am going away, and you will seek me and will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come. The Jews then said, He is not going to kill Himself, is He, for He says, where I am going, you cannot come?" The Jews were confused again. Where is the place He is going that we cannot go? They thought that perhaps He was going to commit suicide. Actually if that place could be reached by committing suicide, the Jews could still get to it by killing themselves. How could the Lord go to a place to which they could not go? Verse 23 says, "And He said to them, you are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world." It is because of this that where the Lord was going they could not go. Furthermore, they did not die in their sins because they were murderers and adulterers. Verse 24 is crucial, especially the latter half: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." The King James Version added the word "he" after "I am." Let us quote the words of the original text. The Lord said, "You will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." The question is whether or not you believe that He is. What does this mean? It means that of the millions of people in humanity, you can pick out one and say, "This is He! This is God!" We want to examine Jesus of Nazareth to see if He indeed is! If we believe that He is, we will not die in our sins. Many believe in a distorted Christianity, but we want to believe according to what Christianity really is. The first question we must ask is whether or not Jesus of Nazareth is. Once again the Jews retorted by asking, "Who are you?" (v. 25). Jesus' answer seemed to say, "This is not the first time that I tell you who I am. Concerning this matter I have never given in. I told you that I am; I am the One." Time after time He proved to others that He is; He is the Son of God. If we read the Gospel of John through, we will find that every passage concerns this one point: Jesus is the Christ. In John 10 the Jews surrounded Him and said, "How long will you hold our soul in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly" (v. 24). The question still hung on this one point. How did Jesus answer? He said, "I told you, and you do not believe...You do not believe, because you are not of my sheep" (vv. 25-26). All who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He is God incarnated as a man, is not Christians. Those who do not recognize Him as the Son of God do not have the life of Christ in them; they are not His sheep. Upon this issue stands the whole basis of the Christian faith. In John 11 Jesus said again, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes into me, even if he should die, shall live" (v. 25). Can a common mortal utter such words? In John 12 Jesus cried out aloud, "He who believes into me does not believe into me, but into Him who sent me; and he who beholds me beholds Him who sent me. I have come as a light into the world, which every one who believes into me would not remain in darkness" (vv. 44-46). You can see that the One who sent Him hinges on Him. To believe into Him is to believe into the One who sent Him. To see Him is to see the One who sent Him. The light also hinges on Him. To be in the light is to believe into Him. Everything hinges on Him. Then in John 14 the Lord said, "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe into God, believe also into me" (v. 1). He wants us to believe into Him in the same way that we believe into God. The one thing He always insists upon is the demand to believe in Him. John 15 speaks of some who hate the Lord. He said, "He who hates me hates My Father also" (v. 23). Once again He reveals that He and the Father are one. In John 16, the Lord said that one day the Holy Spirit would come and convict the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. Why concerning sin? The explanation is in verse 9: "Concerning sin, because they do not believe into me," because they do not believe that He is the Son of God. This is a sin, a very serious sin. When the Holy Spirit comes, He will convict men, and they will realize how serious a sin it is not to believe in Jesus being the Son of God. One further passage in the Gospel of John will suffice. 17:3: "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Him whom you have sent, Jesus Christ." Here we are shown what eternal life is. The Lord's definition of eternal life is to know God. Believing in the eternal God and believing in His sent One—Jesus Christ—is eternal life. Eternal life hinges upon this person. I hope that we would all realize who Jesus of Nazareth is. Our faith does not have any empty doctrines. It is based on the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. To receive Jesus Christ is to receive God.

THE DIFERENCE BETWEEN A PERSON AND TEACHING

We have said that Christianity does not emphasize doctrines. Rather, it emphasizes the person Christ. Even when some doctrines are mentioned, they are few in number, and when you go about expounding them, they always point back to a person. If you turn to the four Gospels you will be amazed to find that everything recorded is just a description of Jesus of Nazareth. There must first be the knowledge of who He is; doctrines come afterwards. We have ascertained the person of Jesus Christ. Now we want to take a look at the doctrines of our faith.

You cannot find many doctrines in the four Gospels. Neither are there many doctrines in the Acts of the Apostles. One finds doctrines only after coming to Romans. This is exactly what we have said before; that you have to know who Jesus Christ is before you can understand what His doctrines are all about.
Concerning doctrines, there is also a vast difference between those in Christianity and those in other religions. I would like to mention again that the fact that I am a Christian does not mean that you have to feel and see things as I do. I will not take such a presumptuous attitude. I will only present the facts again, showing the difference between Christianity and other religions. I will not decide what is good or bad. You are asked only to examine the facts. If you think that this is right, then believe in it. Otherwise, take your choice. Emotional words are unnecessary here. I will, therefore, make no plea or invitation.
Observing all the religions that are before us, you will see that all of them emphasize doctrines, not a person. Whether Confucius or Lao-tze, who they are and what they teach are two different things. They are two separate entities. Their doctrines do not have much to do with their person. You can take the person away from the religion, and it will not make much difference. The person only preached the doctrines, but he became disassociated from that which he preached.
This is not the case with our faith. When did Christian doctrines come into existence? It was after the death, resurrection, and departure from the world of the person Christ that the doctrines began. All doctrines came later. Moreover, all these doctrines are centered upon Christ. The doctrines and Christ are inseparable. First you have Him, and then you have His doctrines.

For example, there is a doctrine in Christianity that speaks of the union of God and man. It is a very important doctrine. If you open the Bible to see how this can be, you will see that the source of such a doctrine is the fact that God became a man—Jesus. He is God mingled with man.
The Bible does not present a doctrine of God becoming one with man. Rather, it shows Jesus of Nazareth, who is a sample of God being one with man. Originally, God and man were separate; there was a wide gulf between them. There was no possibility of union. But the Nazarene came. He was God coming to be a man. He was the bridge between man and God, joining the two into one. This is not a doctrine that teaches people to be one with God. Here is the fact: henceforth, when a man is in Christ, he can be one with God.

THE SOLUTION
Another very important doctrine in the Bible concerns death. The Bible depicts man as being totally corrupted, without any possibility of being reformed. The only solution is death. A man is like a piece of worm-infested wood with no chance of being carved or shaped. The only destiny for him is the fire. Death is the solution. Only dead people will not be proud if you praise them a thousand times. Only dead people will not be angry if you rebuke them repeatedly. Only dead people will not be tempted by sin and will not sin. Death solves all problems concerning sin.
But how can we die? How can such a death occur? A religion will exhort you to die. Be dead! If you are dead, sin will no longer have an object to work on! But how can one die? By committing suicide? By throwing oneself into the sea? Or as the old Chinese scholars have said, by considering everything that is past as dead yesterday? No! All these are methods of common religions. They are not the Christian teaching.

EXPERIENCES BASED ON A PERSON


The doctrine of death is absolutely related to Christ. His person determines His doctrines. Jesus died. What does the Bible say about this? It says that the world died with Him (2 Cor. 5:14). His death was to sin; hence, the whole world is dead to sin. Originally, the whole world was in sin, being dead in it. Only Jesus was not affected by death. He did not die of sin; He died to sin (Rom. 6:10). If we are one with Him, we are also dead to sin by His death (v. 11). Sin will not have an object to work on. All the problems of sin in us will be solved.
This is the doctrine of Christianity. It is a fact that is absolutely tied to the person Christ. It is not an exhortation for people to conduct a moral life and repent from their wrongs. These are not Christian doctrines at all. Since Christ has died, whoever is in Him is also dead, thoroughly dead, to sin. Sin has no more grips on us. If Christ had not died, there would not have been any doctrine. All experiences and doctrines are based upon this person Jesus Christ.

Another fact we have is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He died and was resurrected. Hence, on our side, we are not only dead to sin, disassociated from it; we are regenerated and a new creation in the resurrection of Christ. All these are bound to the person Jesus Christ. No accomplishment is by us. Everything depends on Him.

The Bible is not completely void of teachings. However, all the teachings rest on the person Christ Jesus. Only when He has a certain experience can there be a certain doctrine or teaching. Every single doctrine or teaching is bound to His personal experience. His incarnation is the basis of the union of God with man. His death is the basis of our dying to sin and self and the foundation of a life of holiness. His resurrection is the basis for receiving our new life. Everything we have obtained is based on what He has attained. The doctrines are absolutely based upon the person and bound to the person. This is genuine Christianity. This makes our faith different from all other religions.

MAJOR RELIGIONS DEMAND TO BE HONEST
Once when Christ Jesus was about to leave the world, He spoke of a very amazing doctrine. Of course, this doctrine is again closely related to Him. He said, "I am the way and the reality and the life" (John 14:6). Perhaps you have heard others quote this passage. He said that He is the way. He is the way to overcome sin. He is the way to overcome the temptations of the world. He is His own teaching! All the ways to victory are Him.
He also said that He is the reality. We have often heard people say that there is reality in So-and-so's words. Sometimes when someone puts forth a theory, we call it reality. In geometry, when we have proved that this equals that, we say that we found a truth. But the reality that Christ Jesus speaks of is He. He is the reality.
Moreover, He is the life. He does not merely preach a doctrine and ask you to work it out yourself; He is the very life-power to perform what He preaches. Religion tells you to be honest and not to lie. Maybe someone has come and told you, "Exercise yourself not to lie. Every time you lie just bite your tongue once." I think that if we were able to recognize every lie we told, our tongue would be in two pieces before the day was over! Since our life is a human life, there is no possibility for us to not lie or sin. The life of man is absolutely impotent in this respect. Merely to give you some nice, lofty doctrines, while leaving it up to you to work them out, is not the way of Christ.
The Bible says that He makes you able. That ability is of Christ. As long as you are in Him, He is your life. He can make you not lie, no matter what kind of a person you are!

No other founder of a religion is great enough to uphold these three items: the way, the reality, and the life. All of man's experiences are included in these three things. Whenever you do something, you always have to decide whether or not it is worth doing. This consideration is a weighing of the reality. After the decision is made, you have to find a way. And after the way, you must have the power. Whenever you set out to accomplish something, you always have to pass through these three steps: the way, the reality, and the life.
All three are inseparable. You are not given reality first, then the way, and then left to yourself to find the life. Every one of these three items is found in one person. When you have Him, every problem will be solved. This is Jesus. This is our faith. As long as there is a way to Him, everything will follow.
TEACHING USSELES WHITHOUT HIM
when we look at a few passages in the Bible, we easily discover that when the Bible mentions a doctrine, it always says that it is "in Christ." The words "in Christ" are constantly mentioned. Some passages say, "By Christ." But "by Christ" is not the best translation. It is better in those instances to translate them as "through Christ." God does not give things to us directly; they have to go "through Christ." In addition, there are phrases like "with Christ" and "together with Christ." They show the position Christ occupies in the Bible. Everything has to be through Him. Receiving Him is receiving His doctrines. Without Him it is useless to have any of His doctrines.

NO RELATIONSHIP IN THEIR CREEDS

The above cannot apply to all other religions. You can be a devotee of other religions, abiding by their every creed, without having anything to do with the founders themselves.
In arithmetic, there is a table called the multiplication table. You can find the product of any two numbers from one to nine from the table. Everything is arranged neatly. Do you know who formulated this table? I am afraid that millions who use this table never know who made it. But you can use this table without knowing the person who made it. All common religions are like this: you need not have anything to do with their founders, but you can apply their doctrines. The doctrines and those who preached them have no relationship with each other.
In Kaifeng I met a foreign missionary. He had heard my preaching. I discovered that he was related to the doctrines of Christ but not to Christ Himself. He told one of my former classmates, who is also now my co-worker, how to practice the teachings of Christ and expound the theologies in the Bible. My co-worker asked him, "Can you touch people by these? Has anybody repented, forsaken his sins, and had his life changed by your preaching? Do you have such power?" He was dumbfounded by my co-worker's words.
RELATIONSHIP
The source of our faith is Christ. If we have no relationship with Christ, we have no power. The doctrines of Christ are absolutely joined to Christ. The gem of the doctrines lies in Christ. It is useless to merely infer and discuss in an outward way.
Let us now look at the book of Romans in the New Testament. I will not give many explanations. Rather, I will merely present the facts to you. We want to see what the Bible says.
Romans 3:22, 24: "Even the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ to all those who believe, for there is no distinction; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." These verses say that a man receives forgiveness of sins and justification before God by the redemption of Christ Jesus. They are based on a relationship with Christ. Without redemption, the sins of man cannot be forgiven.
ALL IS RECIEVED
Romans 5:1: "Therefore having been justified out of faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Verse 2: "Through whom also we have obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand and boast because of the hope of the glory of God."
Verse 10: "For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled."
Verse 11: "And not only so, but also boasting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation."
Everything that we have received, such as justification, reconciliation, standing in grace, salvation, joy in God, etc., is received through Jesus Christ. Simply by going through Him, we inherit all these.

THE GIFT
Romans 5:15: "But it is not that as the offense was, so also the gracious gift is; for if by the offense of the one the many died, much more the grace of God and the free gift in grace of the one man Jesus Christ have abounded to the many."
Verse 17: "For if by the offense of the one death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will rein in life through the One, Jesus Christ."
Because of Jesus Christ, the grace and gift of God can be bestowed upon all men. We can also reign in life due to Him. Verse 21 says, "In order that just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." The receiving of eternal life is through Him. It does not depend on the good behavior of man.
THE PERSON
Romans 6:6: "Knowing this, that our old man has been crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin as slaves."
Verse 17: "But thanks are to God that though you were slaves of sin, you have obeyed from the heart the form of teaching into which you were delivered."
This is a vital doctrine in our belief: that by faith, we are crucified with Christ, and the old man is annulled. I do not crucify myself. When Christ was crucified, I was crucified with Him. By this I am set free from sin, being no longer a slave to it. In this way I can reckon myself dead to sin and alive to God in Christ. This is a big doctrine that hinges on the person Christ.
LIBERATED
Romans 7:24-25: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death? Thanks are to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then with the mind I I serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin."
Here is a man who was constantly defeated by his own fleshly lusts. When he was at the end of his hopes, crying for deliverance, he saw the way of salvation: liberation by the Lord Jesus Christ. The power of liberation is also in the Lord.

Romans 8:1: "There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus." There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. "Condemnation" does not refer to any ordinary kind of condemnation. According to some recently discovered old manuscripts of the Bible found in Egypt, this word has two meanings. The first is a legal term; the second is a common daily expression. In the legal context it means condemnation as a verdict. But in its ordinary usage it means impotent, powerless, bound, etc. For this reason I will translate this portion as, "There is now then no impotence..." There is no more weakness and inability.
Verse 2: "For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death." Here are two laws. Originally, we were all bound by the law of sin and of death. Now the law of the Spirit of life has freed us; we are no longer under the control of the law of sin and of death. The law of the Spirit of life is in Christ Jesus. Have you seen this? Once again, our relationship with Him sets us free.
Verse 10: "But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness." Since Christ is in me, I can live.
MORE THAN CONQUERORS IN HIM
Romans 8:35, 37: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or anguish or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword? But in all these things we more than conquer through Him who loved us." Although there is so much trouble outwardly, we are still more than conquerors. Strength is obtained by going through Him. Not that we are able in ourselves. It is all by Him and through Him.
In the same manner, verses 38 and 39 say, "For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Why can nothing separate us from His love? It is not because of our virtues, but because this love is "in Christ Jesus our Lord"! Love is tied to the person Christ. When we are in Christ, we are in this inseparable love.

Posted by: rafael | December 31, 2007 5:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

THE ATHEIST MENTAL DISORDER


http://scientistcanotcalculateearth.blogspot.com/

We will look at the theories of evolution in their two main foundations: the expansion of the universe, and the quantum or microorganism. To understand it with reason, thee first subject we are confronted with is God. Let us read a few verses from the Bible. Psalm 14:1 of the Old Testament says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." This sentence may also be translated as "The fool does not want God in his heart." The result of saying this can be found in the second sentence of the same verse: "They are corrupt; they do abominable deeds."Let us also take a passage from the New Testament. Hebrews 11:6 says, "For he who comes forward to God must believe that He is.
"THREE KINDS OF PEOPLE “
Whether you claim too be a Christian, a non-believer, or a seeker after truth, we will start by examining the subject of God. In this respect the world is divided into three camps. The first is that of the atheists who do not believe in a God. The second consists of the agnostics. They have no sure knowledge about the deity. On the one hand, they dare not say there is no God, but on the other hand, they are not clear if God does exist. We belong to the third category of those who believe in God.
PROSECUTION
Is there a God? I will not try to say yes or no to this question. Rather, I will make this place a law court. I will ask you to be the judge, and I will be the prosecutor. The work of a judge is to make decisions, to approve or disapprove the truth of statements; the work of a prosecutor is to present all the evidence and arguments that he can possibly gather. Before we proceed, we have to be clear about one fact: all prosecutors are not eyewitnesses of crimes. They are not policemen. A policeman may personally witness an event, whereas a prosecutor obtains his information only indirectly. He places all the charges, evidence, and arguments collected before the judge. In the same way, I shall present before you everything that I can possibly find. If you ask whether I have seen God or not, I would say "no." I am reading or demonstrating what I have gathered. My job is to search for facts and to call for witnesses. You are to arrive at a conclusion yourself.
QUALIFICATIONS
Many people assert that there is no God. As a prosecutor I ask you first to check the qualification of these people. Are they qualified to make such claims? Are those who assert that there is no God moral or immoral? Do not just listen to their arguments. Even robbers and swindlers have their arguments. Of course, the arguments support them as robbers and swindlers. The subject of their arguments may be very noble; they may talk about the state of the nations and the welfare of society, but their opinions cannot be seriously considered. They are not worthy of passing such judgments. If a man is upright in his conduct and moral judgment, we can give credibility to his words, but if not, his words lose their credibility. This is especially true when it relates to the question of deity. It is interesting to note that the moral standards of men are directly related to their concept about God. Those who admit their own ignorance have a passable standard, while insistent atheists invariably have a low level of moral responsibility. I do not claim to know all atheists, but of the several thousand that I know, none of them possess a notably commendable morality. You may tell me that there was once a moral atheist, but if there was one, he is dead. Or you may tell me that there will be a moral atheist, but whoever he may be, he is not here yet. At least we can say that for now, we do not know a moral atheist.
NO ATHEIST IS MORAL
Recently in a College at Uk, the geologist, who is a defender of evolution therefore an atheist confess he is arrogant, the atheist said “there is nothing wrong in being arrogant, I’m right, so there is nothing wrong”. He was debating with a Christian professor who never change his good attitude even though he was being ridicule and mocked. Regarding the behavior of the Atheist it was sad to see a defender of science behaving as a child, he do not have moral standards, man who do not have a sense for Gods law, he will not respect anyone , regarding respecting other he is immoral. There were many students on the campus who did not believe in God. They were greatly offended by these words. This atheist offended the Christian professor again and again; the atheist said to him I like to interrupt you. He kept offending the Christian professor saying “you want to believe in God because you are insecure; the proof is that you have the psychological need of God, your God and you are false and have a mental disorder”. This is completely unethical using the right words immoral. Even the body language of this old man of Uk tells, something wrong with him, he cross his arms in a defensive way , he did look the audience , look to the floor and even when he smile was sad. He looks nervous and evasive; his body language showed that something was wrong with him. He made funny gestures and faces at the Christian professor. How can anyone with moral decency shuffle his speaking to do gestures and call to the other professor false in his believes and say that he has a mental disorder.
No atheist has helped you become better? Has he made your thoughts cleaner or your heart purer? Or did it make you just the opposite?"

"Regarding to what they speak”
This atheist use scientific methods of questioning, and this are endless, their speaking for sure is has not good intention. How come they will ask: Why Jews and Muslims who believe in God, hate each other and kill each other because their religion.

Muslims attacked Americans in 9/11 because they hate Americans and do not tolerated Americans way of living.

What are the intentions of these questions? Most of people know that Jews and Muslims have been fighting over their land for thousands of years; it is not for the God in which they believe it has been always the land. And that is their problem is up to then how they deal with it. The atheist confuse them as well others and said they kill each other because their God. Mr. Atheist can you put into your head that is because the land. Or what is what you are really after. Sure you have a bad tongue.

And why do you ask them about 9/11 actually you Atheist went to the Middle East and told them. You hate Americans because they allow prostitutes on the street. Of course they will say they do not like their respectfull woman to be in the street as prostitutes. But you Godless

Man understand, that their government is theocratic, meaning their believe in God is their Law and constitution, they live in a Theocratic society and as humans that is their right.

Why did you bring 9/11 up? USA is democracy. Do you want me to believe that my country USA attacks the Middle East because they want to establish Democracy in the theocratic Middle East? Even if that is truth, if I’m ask I will obey to my president and go to Middle East

And kill or get kill, soldiers obey orders and thousands of young people have died in this war, that is the way that my country is, do you know how many Middle East civilians have died there? Hundred of thousands, those who are dead are better off of those who are among the living ones, their suffering is not a joke and for USA soldiers is a pain in our soul, so who are you to bring up an issue that USA soldiers will never question.

China which is the domicile of more than half the world’s population is communist. Atheist should go there to recruit people. You atheist are in your line of question totally immoral.

I do whish that my president George W. Bush wont let you come to America and I will tell him about your videos The God of delusion and the atheist debate, because in those videos you make fun of my president. Do not think that because our presidents did not claim the rights to the back bone of the net years ago, they will never claim it back.

Now you ask: why believers hate, homosexuals? Isn’t good to see two male’s holdings hands on the streets, and to girls kissing on the train? Maybe, because evolution is not only about natural selection, but about sexual selection. Are evolutionists teaching the children of America about sexual selection, “Sexual selection is a special case of natural selection Sexual selection acts in an organisms’ ability to obtain by any means necessary to successfully copulate with their mate or in groups” Sexual selection simple means I can chose anyone male female is ok. Can you see that your teaching has contaminated humanity?

Do you Atheist hold at what you believe?

Of course not Richard Dawkins has called himself, a cultural Christian. If he is against Christians how he dares to call himself a Christian of any kind, I do believe in God I will always say that I do love God as my Father. But your stamen’s shows that you are not firm in your believe rather, you are liar therefore immoral.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7136682.stm

Their line of question is groundless or they are carrying out and agenda. I think for old man as they are, it is normal to question everything as well senile to think they know everything. They think of themselves as modern scientist question everything even if they don’t know the subject. Because they live in the twenty first century they know better than those who live thousands of years ago. And why they are confused using the word religion as if it means the same as believer. According to the lexicon Webster dictionary “religion is a way to trying to reach or seek God” “a believer in God have already found Him and knows Him”. Why atheists don’t know the dictionary? Do they know Greek or at the least Hebrew languages what about Aramaic or Latin. In the bible there are tree different words in Greek to designated the word “life”

1. Bios referring to the biological life our body

2. Psycho referring to the soul logical means study. The word Psychology means the study of the soul, emotions, mind and will.

3. There is another word for life that is Zoe the highest life. Whenever the bible speaks of eternal life speak of Zoe. In a Greek dictionary you will find the distinction. I wonder what an atheist that only knows the bible superficially how will they explain that in the bible there is a word Zoe that was transliterated from Hebrew to Greek as Zoe.

They should not speak about the bible, because their knowledge is superficial, have they read the bible fifty times? have they read 4000 others books? What about the evolution of species how many times they read it.

For this reason, their whole argument is not worthy of consideration. The question is, "Are you qualified to claim that there is no God?" If your hope is merely hear something that isn’t knew, you have lost your ground already.
IS MAN THE GREATEST?
One day a young man came to me and said, "I do not believe in a so-called God. Man is the greatest. He is the noblest among all creatures. There is no God in this universe; man is everything." We were sitting opposite each other. After hearing what he said, I stood up, went to one side of the room, stooped down, and gazed at him intently. I said, "Do you know that in the past many Americans missionaries went abroad USA specially to China, they came with not support from their churches, during the boxer rebellion many of them died, but sow a seed of life “Zoe” that made of the idolaters Chinese genuine believers, when the communist took over China many were put on jail because of their believe in God, thousands of them died, the bible was taken away, a communist reform took place, everyone have to listen to Mao because communist in China as well Stalinism are base in the cult or worship of the personality of their leader. So believers were whipped out. Because they wont exult Mao over God , but today in china there are 200 millions of genuine believers, how this happen, God did it, can atheist recruit in America or in the world 200 million like them, of course not , so why you say that there is not God and you are greater than Him.
HOW VAST IS THE UNIVERSE?
I then said to the young man, "And here you are! You have not even walked through the whole earth, and yet you consider yourself greater than the whole universe. Let me ask you, do you know how vast the universe is? Take light for example. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. Try to calculate how far light travels in one minute, or one hour, or a day, or a year. There are some stars whose light takes three thousand years to reach us. Go and work out how far they are from us! And you think you are so great! I would therefore advise all atheists and young men alike to admit the incompetency of man not only morally, but intellectually and academically as well.
"CAN MAN EXTEND BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF TIME AND SPACE?
Another time when I was in Kaifeng, I met another one of those young, stout atheists. I walked up to him and patted him on the shoulder, saying, "I saw God today!" He stared at me in curiosity and demanded a further word. I replied, "You are God! If you know that there is no God, then you have to be God." He asked for an explanation. I said, "Since you are convinced that there is no God, you must have traveled over the whole earth. If God is not in Shanghai, He may still be in Nanking. You must have been to both places. That is not all. If God is not in Nanking, He may be in Tientsin. You must also have been to Tientsin. But you cannot draw this conclusion simply by being in China; God may be in another country. So you must have been to every country on this earth. If God is not in one place, He may be in another. Therefore, you must have traveled throughout the world. One never knows if God is hiding at the North Pole or the South Pole or in the woods or wilderness somewhere. So you must have combed through all those regions as well. If God is not found on earth, He may be found on the moon. You therefore must have been to the moon. God may also be on other planets or in outer space. This means that you have traveled through space and all the other galaxies as well. If you can say that there is no God, it must mean that you have traveled throughout the whole universe. If this is the case, you must be God yourself."This is not all. Even though you know that God does not exist in Shanghai today, how about yesterday? Perhaps God will come tomorrow. You say that you know there is no God today, but what about last year? And how do you know that God will not come next year? You say that there is no God this year, but what about a thousand years ago? Very well, you must be an everlasting one who knows everything about the past and future. You have to be a being beyond time and space. You must be in Tientsin and in another country at the same time; you must be omnipresent from the east to the west, from the North Pole to the South Pole. Who else but you can be the very God? If you are not God, you can never be qualified to say that there is no God.
"THE EVIDENCE”
Some will immediately step back and say, "I have never said that I know there is no God. One can never tell whether there is a God or not." Well, if you cannot give a conclusion, I will ask witnesses whom I consider trustworthy to present arguments to you and prove the existence of God. Again let me say this, you are the judge, and I am the prosecutor. I am presenting only the evidence before you. Decide for yourself if there is a God.
THE UNIVERSE
First, looks at nature, the world that is before our eyes and every phenomenon in it. We all know that scientific knowledge is the rational explanation of natural phenomena. For example, there is an observed drop in the temperature of a patient. The drop in temperature is a phenomenon, and the explanation for it is scientific knowledge. When an apple falls from the tree, it is a phenomenon. Why does an apple not fly into the air? The explanation for this phenomenon constitutes knowledge. A man with knowledge is a man who has the proper explanations.
ONLY TWO EXPLANATIONS
The universe displays countless phenomena of diverse forms, colors, shapes, and nature. We cannot fail to notice these phenomena before our eyes. The explanation for all these phenomena is known as knowledge. All thoughtful persons have only two explanations as far as the origin of the universe is concerned; there is no third explanation. You have to take one or the other of them. What are these two explanations? The first says that the universe came into being through natural evolution and self-interaction; the second attributes its origin to a personified being with intellect and purpose. These are the only two explanations presented by all philosophers of the world. There is not a third one. Where did the universe come from? Did it come into existence by itself or through chance? Or was it designed by the One from whom we derive the concept of God? You have to think and then make a decision about it. Everything that is by chance has certain characteristics. I would suggest you list all of these in a detailed way, the more the better, and then compare all the phenomena of the universe with your list. Alongside of this make another list of the characteristics which, in your opinion, would be prominent if the universe was created by an intelligent Being. Now by a simple comparison of nature with your two lists, it will be easy to draw a reasonable conclusion.
CHANCE EVENTS
What are the characteristics of things that come about by chance? First, we know that they are unorganized. At the most they can be partially integrated. They can never be totally organized. One can achieve a specified goal by chance once, but he can never achieve a specified goal by chance all the time. Anything that comes together by chance can only be integrated partially, never totally. For example, if I throw this chair to the other side of the room, by chance it may come to rest at a perfect angle. If I do the same with a second chair, it may also lie neatly beside the first one. But this will not keep on happening with the third and the fourth and so on. Chance can only provide partial organization. It does not guarantee total integration. Furthermore, all random interactions are aimless, disorganized, and purposeless. They are without order and structure; they are loose, formless, disorderly, and not directed toward any meaningful purpose. Briefly, we can say that the characteristics of chance events are disharmony, irregularity, inconsistency, purposelessness, and insignificance. We will write down these four characteristics on our list.
CONSISTENCY AND ORGANIZATION
Now let us compare the things in the universe with these characteristics. Take, for example, the human being. He is carried in his mother's womb for nine months and delivered; he grows up and eventually dies. This cycle is repeated for every single individual. Consistency can be observed. It is not a wild game of chance. Again, look at the sun above your head. It does not exist purposelessly. Rather, it has its purpose and significance. Look at the moon, the stars, and the myriads of galaxies through your telescope. Some stars have their own planets. They all follow definite tracks and patterns. They are all organized. Their manner of motion can be calculated and predicted. The calendar in your hand is derived from them. Even next year's calendar can be printed before this year is past. All these show that the universe is organized, consistent, and purposeful.
MICROORGANISMS
Let us turn to the micro-world. Take a thin slice of wood. Put it under a microscope and observe its grain and structure, all meticulously regular and rhythmic. Even a blade of grass and the petal of a flower are finely fashioned. Nothing is unorganized or confused. Everything is disciplined and functional. All these things witness one fact to you: the universe, with its macro and micro aspects, is purposeful and meaningful. Can you say that all these came into existence by chance? Surely you cannot.
IS IT OCCUPIED?
Once I was preaching the gospel with a co-worker of mine in a village. On the way back we were extremely thirsty. There was neither a teahouse nor stream for us to get water. In fact the whole area was uninhabited. After walking for a while we came across a thatched hut. We went to the door quickly and knocked. For a long time there was no answer. We thought that no one lived there. When we opened the door and went in, we found that the floor was swept clean. In one of the rooms was a bed with nicely folded sheets. There was a teapot on the table, and the tea in it was still warm. I said, "Surely someone must be living here. All the arrangements indicate beyond doubt that this place is occupied by someone. We should not drink this tea. We must get out quickly or else people will think we are thieves." We walked out and waited for the owner to return. By observing the arrangements of the house, we concluded that someone was living there, without having seen the occupant. In the same way, we know that God is there by the arrangement of everything in the universe, although we cannot see Him. Every single phenomenon of nature is so balanced, organized, meaningful, and functional. You may say that they come by chance, but it is impossible for me to believe that chance is its sole originator. The Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God." Only foolish people can say in their hearts that there is no God.
CHANCE OR DESIGN
The universe has to be created by someone with profound wisdom, vast knowledge, and intricate design. If you cannot accept the concept of random formation of the universe, you have to admit that it was created by such a God. There cannot be a third explanation. The choice is left to you. You have to decide if the universe came by chance or whether it was created by God.
A DEMAND AND ITS OBJECT
One witness may not be enough. I will call in another. This time we will consider man's heart. Before doing so, we should also observe one fact: wherever there is a desire, there must first be an object for that desire. For example, an orphan who has never seen his father naturally has a desire for a kind of paternal love. I have asked many people who were orphans, and they all have felt this irrepressible yearning. By this we can see that every desire of the heart arises out of an object in the world. As human beings we have a need for social belonging. We need companionship and mutuality. If you put a boy on a deserted island and he grows up alone, he still has the yearning for companions, for beings like himself, even though he has never seen a human being. This yearning or desire is the very proof that somewhere in the world there is something known as "man." At a certain age, man begins to think about posterity; he starts desiring children and grandchildren. This is not a mere fantasy. This desire stems out of the existence and possibility of offspring. Hence, where there is desire, there is an object for that desire.
THERE IS GOD IN THE HEART
Do we have any desires other than social identity and self-propagation? What other cravings do we have? Deep in everyone there is a craving for God. Whether they are highly civilized races, such as those among the Caucasians, or the ancient civilizations, such as the Chinese civilizations, or the African natives and uncultured aborigines, they all have a common craving --God. As long as they are men, they have a yearning for God, no matter what race or nationality. This is a fact. You cannot argue against it. Everyone is seeking after God. Everywhere man is craving for God. This is very clear. By applying the principle that we just mentioned, we can see that since our heart feels the need for a God, there must necessarily be a God in the universe. Since there is a need for God in the heart, there must be the existence of God in the universe. If no God exists, we would never have such a craving in our heart. We all have an appetite for food. In the same way, we all have an appetite for God. It would be impossible to live if there was only an appetite for food but no food. Likewise, it would be impossible to live if there was a capacity for God but no God.
NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT GOD?
Once an atheist rudely rebuked me in a loud voice: "You said that a man has the psychological need for a God. But there is no such thing, and I do not believe in it." I said, "Well, do you mean to say that you never think about God? In fact, even while you were talking, you were thinking about Him. This indicates that you do have a capacity for God. There is no one who has never thought about God. He may try not to think much about Him. Since this thought is in you, there must be such an object outside of you.
"THE WORDS AND THE HEART”
A young man once came to me to argue about God. He was vehemently against the existence of God. He gave me one reason after another for saying that there is no God. As he was enumerating the various reasons why God should not exist, I listened to him quietly without saying a word. Then I said, "Although you insist that there is no God and support yourself with so many arguments, you have lost your case already." He said, "What do you mean?" I went on to explain: "Your mouth can say as much as you want about there not being a God, but your heart is on my side." He had to agree with me. Although one can give all sorts of reasons in the head, there is a belief in the heart that no argument can defeat. A stubborn person may give a thousand and one reasons, but you can have the boldness to tell him, "You know better in your heart that there is a God. Why bother to look for evidence outside?"Now what would you say? After looking at nature and the universe, after checking with your inner feeling, it is up to you to decide whether or not there is a God. But you should not be irresponsible; your attitude must be sober because everyone has to meet God soon. One day you will all stand before Him. Everything concerning you will be laid bare. On that day you will know God. But now is the time for you to be prepared. We should all be prepared to meet our God

CONSIDER THIS
I shall begin by assuming that the issue of God's existence is settled. We all believe that there is a God. As those who desire to know the truth, we must go one step further to find out what kind of God He is. God is the greatest Unknown. We must spend some time to find out about this unknown One. The next step now is to know what kind of a God He is.

THE BIBLE
In the past few thousand years’ man has been inquiring about the nature of God. Is He kind or is He righteous? Is He indifferent towards us, or is He extremely interested in human affairs? These types of questions are the direct cause of all human religions. What is religion? Religion is man's inquiry about God and his explanation of Him. Through these explanations, different men have arrived at different concepts about God. What kind of God is He? This is a big question. It is also a very serious question. We have all given our thought to this subject at one time or another. The question might even have occurred to our little mind when we were five years old. All men, educated or ignorant, have been intrigued by this question. It comes naturally after some contemplation and observation.

But a person trying to speculate about God is like an ant attempting to understand a human being. It is extremely difficult for the little creature to try to realize our life, nature, and mind. In the same way it is impossible for us to try to comprehend God. For this reason, in the past few thousand years, all kinds of people, theologians and philosophers alike, have done much thinking about Him. What has God been doing all this time? Has He been indifferent to us or has He tried to reveal Himself to us? What is God's attitude? Do you think He would say, "I am God and have nothing to do with human beings. I do not care what you think about me. I shall stay in heaven as God. Let the mortals be ignorant!" Or do you think He has a desire to reveal Himself to man and visit him?
When I was in India, I saw some people lying naked on beds studded with nails. Some walked with bare feet on burning coals. These people devoted a great deal of energy to seeking after God. What has God done to them? Did He hide Himself and take no notice of them at all? Has He not kept Himself as a perpetual mystery? This is a great question. We have to consider it scientifically and objectively in order to find out what God is like.

A few years ago I spoke on a similar subject to some medical students in an auditorium in Cheloo University. I said that man is an organism with a life. God also is a life. Man's life is higher than that of the lower animals, and God's life is even higher than that of man. I asked the students, "Since we realize that all living organisms have some common laws and express some common traits, can you name them?" Different ones then started to bring up different points. At the end we summed up the discussion in this way: all living organisms contain two common characteristics. You can call these characteristics their common expressions or their common laws. First, every life wants to preserve itself. It tends to reproduce itself. There is the ability to produce posterity, to continue its own life. Second, every life wants to have fellowship with other lives. It cannot stand being by itself. When a man cannot find fellowship with another human being, he goes to dogs, cats, fish, or birds and makes friends with animals. All living creatures desire fellowship.
Based on these two characteristics of life, namely, the preservation of itself and fellowship with others, laws of human government are instituted. For example, the death penalty reflects a convict's desire to preserve his own life; punishment comes in the form of taking away and terminating such a life. This is the way to inflict suffering on a life. Imprisonment, as a less serious punishment, cuts him off from having fellowship with others. This reversal of the life principle becomes then a suffering for him. From this we see that punishment is applied according to the principles of life.
With these two chief characteristics in mind, let us turn to the life of God. God is an organism of a higher order than human beings. He is naturally governed by this law of life. We can know God by the characteristics and distinctive features of His life. From this we can deduce whether or not God wants to have fellowship with man.


There are two kinds of religion: religion based on natural concepts and religion based on revelation. Natural religion starts with man as the center. He is the one that is seeking after God and studying about Him. What then is revelation religion? Revelation religion comes directly from God. He is the One who comes to reveal things to us. Man's thoughts are often useless fancies. God's revelation alone is trustworthy. Christianity is different from all other natural religions in that it is a religion that comes from revelation. Christianity begins from God. It is God who comes to seek out man, rather than man who seeks after God.
I will not try to persuade you to believe in Christianity or to read the Bible. I will only make a few suppositions. We will treat the subject in the same way as if we were solving a problem in geometry. We will start from the suppositions and then deduce our arguments step by step. We will examine our reasoning’s to see if they are sound and if our conclusions are logical. As in mathematics, with some problems we work forwards, while with others we work backwards. At any rate, in the end we should be able to tell whether or not a supposition is justified.

We have to make a few suppositions. The first one is that God exists. This in fact has been covered by us already. We have agreed that there is a God. He is a Being who has a purpose.
Second, we assume that God has a desire to reveal Himself to man. If God wants to reveal Himself to man and if He wants us to know Him, how does He do it? In what manner can He be made known to us? If He speaks to us through thunder or writes to us through lightning, we will not be able to comprehend His message. How then does God make Himself known to us?

If He is to reveal Himself and if He wants us to know Him, He necessarily must do it through human means. What then are the common ways that men communicate with one another? First, they do it through speaking and second through writing. All means of communication, whether telegraph, telephone, sign, or symbols, are all included in these two categories. If God is to manifest Himself, these are the only two means for Him to do so. For the present we set aside the aspect of speaking; we will see how God communicates with us through writing.
If God reveals Himself through writing, of all the volumes written by different people throughout the centuries, there must be one book which is divinely inspired. This is a very crucial test. If such a book exists, it proves not only the existence of God, but it contains His written revelation to us as well. Is there then such a divinely written book?
In the search for such a book, let us first mention a few basic principles. Suppose I want to order a book from a publisher. If I can tell him the name and author of the book, there will be no trouble getting it. If, however, I forget the name and author of the book, I can describe the characteristics of it to the publisher, such as the contents, size, color, binding, etc. The publisher will then search through all his books and locates the volume I want. God has one book in this universe. How do we find it? We have to know its characteristics first. If there is any book that has been written by God, it must meet certain conditions or have certain qualifications before one can say that it is from God.


Let me put forth a few propositions. If there is a book written by God, it must first of all mention God. It must tell you that it is from God and that its author is God. This is the first qualification. Second, it must carry a moral tone that is higher than what we commonly know. If it is a fabrication, it can at the most be on the same level as man. Third, if there is such a divine book, it must tell us about the past and the future of this world. Only God knows clearly what occurred in the past and what will happen in the future. Only by telling us these matters will we know Him as God. Fourth, this book must be simple and available so that all may be able to secure and understand it. If there were only one such book in the world, then only a very few people would be able to see it. It would not pass the test unless it is a book accessible to everyone. In the United States there is a group of people who claim to have a book from God. It is engraved in gold and contains only twelve pages. Such a book then would not be accessible to the Chinese. God would never write to us a book at which we could not look.
Now the matter is simplified. Let us repeat these four conditions once more. (1) If such a book exists, it must tell us explicitly that its author is God. (2) It must carry a high tone of morality. (3) It must give a detailed description of the past and the future of the universe. (4) It must be available. Let us pick out some of the more important writings throughout human civilization and check them against these qualifications to see if any meets our requirements.

We will start from books that are generally considered to be good. Let us take the Chinese classics of Confucius. They are immediately disqualified under the first requirement, for none of them claims to be written by God. They do have a high tone of morality, but they fail to give the origin and destiny of the world, the universe, and man. This does not mean that they are worthless books; it means that they do not contain the qualifications we want. They are not what we are looking for.
Let us go to the classics of other cultures. There are numerous volumes of famous writings, but none of them passes the first test. They are all clearly written by man. They may be masterpieces in philosophy or morality, but they are not written by God, nor are they divinely inspired. We have to set them aside.
There is a book in India called the Rig-Veda. It once dominated Hinduism. However, it does not claim to be written by God.
Another book called the Avesta, written by a Persian named Zoroaster, is also extremely influential in the Middle East. It does not claim to be from God either. Moreover, its moral tone is not especially commendable.
Let us come to the Koran of Mohammedanism. This is the closest one we can find. It tells us that it comes from God; it meets the first requirement. However, it does not fulfill the second requirement, for its moral tone is too low. The heaven it describes is full of lusts and flesh. God could never write a book with such licentiousness and immorality. Hence, this book does not pass the test of morality.


After searching through all the books, you have to come finally to the Bible. If God desires to communicate with man, and if He does so through writing, then this is the only book that can pass the four tests. Hence, this must be the book God has for man.
What does this book say? In the books of the law in the Old Testament, it says, "Thus said the Lord," at least five hundred times. Other books in the Old Testament repeat the phrase about seven hundred times. In addition to the references in the New Testament to the speaking of God, the Bible has more than two thousand claims of divine origin. If God has no intention of communicating with man, we can forget about this book. But if He does communicate with man through writing, then this book has to be of immense value. Can you find another book where God is claimed as its author that many times?
We have to see if the Bible meets the second qualification. Let us take a look at its moral tone. Everyone who has studied this book confesses that it carries the highest moral standard. Even the sins of the noblest persons are recorded and condemned without mercy. Once a strong opposer of the Bible was asked by his son, "Why are you so strong against the Bible?" He answered, "If I do not condemn it, it will condemn me." This book does not let us get by easily. The human concept is that all sexual acts outside marriage are considered as fornication. The Bible, however, says that even an evil thought is fornication. Human morality condemns an act of killing as murder, but the Bible condemns a slight hatred in the heart as murder.
We consider a man who lets his enemy get by without paying vengeance as forgiving. But the Bible charges man to love his enemy. How high is its moral tone and how low we are before its standards! You cannot help but admit that it presents the best ethical code for humanity.

Furthermore, this book describes in detail the past and future of the universe. Once a friend told me that he could believe in everything the Bible says except the parts in Genesis and Revelation where it talks about the origin and destiny of the heavens and earth. I told him that if this is indeed a book from God, it must, of necessity, contain these matters. If the Bible did not contain Genesis and Revelation, it would be the same as any other book, and we would have to look for another book; it would not be the one we want. But the past condition of the world and its future destiny are recorded here. Hence, the third qualification is also met.


What is the circulation of such a book? Last year (1935), more than two hundred million copies were sold. Can you name another book that has such a high circulation rate? This statistic, moreover, is not limited to just last year; every year the number has remained approximately the same. In one sense this book is very popular. In another sense it is like a thorn in your hand; it pierces you. This book gives you a headache. It creates an unspeakable uneasiness within man. It even causes man to oppose it. In spite of this, its annual sales are still over two hundred million.
Furthermore, this book is translated into more than seven hundred twenty languages. In every country and among every race, there is a translation of this unique book. It is extremely easy for anyone to obtain a Bible anywhere in the world. If the Rig-Veda were God's book, then more than half of the world would perish due to a failure in obtaining it. Even if you put the Rig-Veda in my hand, I would still be unable to understand it. If only the educated ones can contact God, then I am destined to go to hell. If only the Indians have the opportunity, we Chinese, as well as other races, are out of hope. If God speaks through the Rig-Veda, then where can we find that book? Maybe we can only find the original copy in the London Museum. And even that may not contain the original meaning of God's revelation to man.

This is not all. The Bible contains sixty-six books and it is divided into the Old and New Testaments. It was written by no less than thirty people. The span from the time the first book was written to the time when the last book was finished is more than sixteen hundred years. The places where they were written are also different. Some were written in Babylon, some in Italy, some at one end of Asia Minor, others at the other end of the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the writers themselves differed in their backgrounds. Some were lawyers; some were fishermen. There were princes, and there were shepherds. All these writings by men of different backgrounds, languages, environments, and periods are put together. The amazing thing is that it is still a complete book.
All those who have had some experience of editing know that in order to put together a few articles written by different authors, it is necessary for the authors to be of comparable level of academic achievements and viewpoints. Even when the academic standard and viewpoints are similar, there will still be conflicts and contradictions when you put five or six articles together. But the Bible, though complex in contents, contains history, poetry, laws, prophecies, biographies, and doctrines and was written by so many different ones at different times and under different circumstances, yet when you put them together, they surprisingly run as one continuous volume. There is no conflict or contradiction. They are written in one breath.


If you read this book carefully, you have to admit that God's hand is behind all the writings. More than thirty people of varied backgrounds and ideas in different times and places wrote these sixty-six books. When you group them up, they link together as if they were written by one individual. Genesis was written about fifteen hundred years before Christ, and Revelation was written ninety-five years after Christ. There is a time span of sixteen hundred years. One talks about the beginning while the other projects the end of the world. Yet whatever begins in Genesis is concluded in Revelation. This amazing feature cannot be explained in human terms. Every word of it has to be written by God through man. God is the motivating One behind the whole composition.

There is another remarkable thing about this book. In itself it is a book that gives life. Yet countless numbers of people have lost their lives for its sake. There was a time when anyone who held this book in his hand would immediately be put to death. The most powerful empire in history was the Roman Empire. There was a time when this empire summoned all its forces to destroy this book. Everyone who possessed it would be inhumanly persecuted and later killed or burned. They wiped out thousands of people and burned countless copies of the Bible. They even set up a monument at a place where they killed Christians. On it was the inscription: "Christianity is buried here." They thought that when they had burned all the Bibles and removed all the Christians, they would see Christianity lying there beneath their feet. But it was not long after that when the Bible came back again. Even in a country like England, which has already accepted Christianity as its state religion, you can still find tombs of martyrs for Christ if you visit different places there. Here and there you can find places where the Bible was once burned. Or you may come across a tombstone that tells you that such and such a person tried so hard and wrote so many books in his life to oppose the Bible. One place may tell you that the Bible was once burned there, and another place may tell you that Christians were once killed there. One signpost may point you to a statue of martyrdom, and another may point to a site of Bible burning.
Why is it that so many people have tried so hard to oppose this book? Why is it that men would pass by other books, but would either oppose this book with every fiber of their being or would put their whole life to the stake for it? There must be something extraordinary here. Even if you do not believe that this is God's word, you have to admit that there is something unusual about this book.


This book seems to be very simple and easy. If you consider it from the historical point of view, it tells the origin of the universe, the earth, the plants, human beings, how they established their kingdoms, and how they will eventually end. This is all. There is nothing special about it. Yet it has been handed from generation to generation for centuries. Today it is still with us. Moreover, if you do not confess that it is truth, you have to conclude that it is false. You can disregard many books, but you cannot ignore this book. Nor will it ignore you. It will not let you go. It demands a verdict from you. It will not pass you by.

Another remarkable thing about this book is that almost half of it is prophecy. Among the prophecies, almost half of them are fulfilled. The other half is for the future and await fulfillment. For example, it predicted the fate of the nations of Moab and Ammon and of the cities of Tyre and Sidon. Today when people talk about big cities, they mention London and Shanghai. Then it was Tyre and Sidon. They were two chief cities of the ancient world. The prophecies concerning these two cities were all fulfilled. Once I was in the Middle East. For some reason I did not visit those two places. However, I bought two pictures of those cities. It amazed me when I looked at those pictures. I could not help but believe in the Bible. It was prophesied that if these two metropolitan cities did not repent, they would be destroyed and devastated. Their land would become hills of rocks and pebbles where fishermen would come to dry their nets. In the pictures that I bought, there was nothing but fishing boats and open nets on the shore. This is only one small fact that proves the reliability of biblical prophecy.
If you compare past events with the prophecies in the Bible, you will find that they all correspond one with another. For another example, take the birth of Christ. Isaiah prophesied concerning a virgin with child a few hundred years before Christ actually came. Later, He was born indeed of the Virgin Mary. The prophecy was accurately fulfilled. As the prophecies concerning the past have been fulfilled, so the prophecies concerning the future must also be fulfilled.

If God desires to communicate with man, He must do so through common human channels of communication. He must use the human language or human writings. In other words, there must be a book in the world that is a direct revelation from God. If such a book does exist, it must contain the four criteria we mentioned. Now we can say that such a book is found. This book tells us that God desires to have fellowship with us. He speaks to us through this book. Through it God is no longer an unknown Being. We can now know Him. This book is the Bible. I hope all of you will read it .

THIS IS A SERIOUS MATER, IS HE CRAZY? A LUNATIC? A LIAR? PLEASE YOU’RE VERIDICT

God desires to reveal Himself to us. He does so through means that are comprehensible to man. These are namely written and spoken language. We have seen how God reveals Himself through writing. Now we want to take a look at His revelation through speaking.
Suppose that you have had correspondence with a person for many years; however, you have never seen him. Naturally, you would want to know him more by having some direct acquaintance with him. Full understanding of someone cannot be achieved merely through writing. Direct contact gives a better chance. It seems as if communication through speech is of a more intimate and thorough nature than writing. When spoken language is added to written language, communication becomes enhanced. If you take away either of the two, you have a gap. Of course, if you take away both, communication is completely voided. Effective communication is always carried out by these two means.
If God's intention is to reveal Him to us, He must of necessity do so through speaking. But how does God speak? Does He trumpet from the heavens? If so, we would all be frightened to death. We would all run away. No one would dare to listen. There is a chasm between Him and us. He, being so high and great, would drive us away from His holiness. How then does He speak?
THE WINTER ON THE MOUNTAIN
let me relate to you a story. One winter I was staying on the mountain Lu-shan, recovering from an illness. It was immediately after the war, and there was practically no one living on the mountain. In the vicinity of my dwelling, one could hardly see anyone all day long. I am a quiet person by nature. This kind of environment was very appealing to me. Not only was it quiet there, but the weather was cold as well. From morning till dusk, all I saw was a boy who came three times to deliver my meals. At the beginning I was quite at ease. But after a while, even a person like me began to feel lonely.
One day after lunch I went to take a nap. There was a balcony outside my bedroom window. When I woke up I saw some little creatures gathering around the balcony. Bits of my meal had been dropped there, and the birds were busily chirping around them. As they hopped around, they chirped and made many cheerful noises. I said to myself, "All right. Since I cannot find any human beings, I will try to make friends with these little birds."
I rose up and went out to greet them. But in an instant they all flew away. An idea came to me. I took some of the leftover rice and began to arrange it in rows, with only a few grains in the first row and gradually increased them towards the entrance of the doorway. I hid behind the door and watched them coming. Soon they gathered around again. I said to me, "This is my chance." I walked out and began to make friends with them. But the minute they saw me, they all scattered. Some perched on the branches of the tree across the balcony and stared at me, as if trying to determine what my intention was. Every time I approached them, they flew away, and every time I walked away, they came back. This went on a number of times.
I wanted to preach to the birds. I wanted to tell them, "Little birds, I have no special intention in doing this. This is winter on the mountain, and food is scarce. I have enough food with me, and I just want to share it with you. Please be at peace and come down. I only ask that as you eat, I can sit among you. I want to listen to your songs and watch you playing. Come. Let us be friends..." But the birds would not come. They did not understand me. I had to give up.
Later I had a certain realization within. I began to preach to myself. I said, "This body of mine is too big. If I could shrink from five feet eleven inches to the size of a bird, and even change myself into a bird, they would not be alarmed by my presence. I could then tell them my heart's intention, and we could spend the winter on the mountain Lu-shan together."

We have a similar problem today. If God remained God, we could never understand Him. If He talked to us in His language, we would be altogether lost. If God wants to reveal Himself through speaking and have fellowship with man, He must shrink Himself to such a degree that He and we are the same. Only then would He be able to speak to us and tell us of Himself and of the mysteries of the universe. Only then would we be able to understand Him.
Has God become a man to reveal Himself through His speaking? Let us again use the method of supposition. What if God revealed Himself through the human language? What if He became a man and fellowshipped with man? The implication is tremendous here! It would mean that in this world, among all the human beings throughout history, one person was not merely a man, but God as well! If it is granted that God became a man, there must be a mortal who was also divine. We need to find out about this One.

This is a thorny task. But we will employ the effective method we have adopted—namely, setting down a few principles. Then we will search according to these qualifications and directions. We want to base our evaluation on what manner of life a person should possess and what qualifications he must have if he is God.
The first condition that this person must fulfill is that he must claim to be God while he is on earth. He cannot be apologetic about it. He must declare boldly that he is God. Only then can we know who he is. Without this declaration, we have no way to guess his identity. Hence, a declaration is our first qualification.
Second, the way this person came into the world must be different from ours. If I said that I am God and yet was born in the same manner as every other mortal, my words would carry no force. If on the other hand, I dropped down from heaven; my assertion would be taken seriously. The way this person comes into being must be extraordinary. He must come in an absolutely different fashion; otherwise, his words will not carry the necessary weight.
Third, this man must bear a moral standard that is far above that of all other human beings. He must have God's holiness, and his life must bear the mark of God's righteousness. For example, if I became a bird and lived in exactly the same way as other birds, without showing them anything extraordinary, I could not convince them that I was actually a man. If God is to become a man, His moral behavior must be of the highest quality. This is the only way that we could identify Him as God.
Furthermore, if a person is God, he must necessarily be able to perform things which no mortal can do. If he can achieve what we cannot achieve and know what we do not know, we can say that he is truly God.
Lastly, this person must be able to tell us the divine purpose concerning man. What was God's purpose in creating the universe and man? How does He take care of human pains and sorrows? What is the origin and ultimate solution of everything in the universe? What should our attitude towards God be? All these he must reveal to us. Unless this one shows us what we do not see, we cannot say that he has shown us any revelation.
We will set down these five conditions and put the whole of humanity to the test. Let us find out if someone meets the five requirements. Such a person would surely be qualified to be God.
The first person to put to the test should be you. Of course, you are not God, because you have never claimed to be God. Nor have I ever claimed to be. So that rules out you and me. Very well, now we will introduce Confucius. If you read his books, you will find that he did conduct a very moral and proper life. But he never claimed to be God either. Hence, he fails in the first step.
What about Sakya Muni, the founder of Buddhism? Not only was there an absence of the claim of divinity, but his philosophy itself is void of deity. He did not believe in the existence of God. Since he had no God, he cannot be God either.
Next, go to Mohammed. He believed in God. But he never claimed to be God. He called God Allah and himself the prophet of Allah. If you go through every person in history, you will discover that no one ever claimed to be God except One. That One was Jesus of Nazareth. He claimed to be the living God. No other person put forward such a claim.

How can Jesus of Nazareth claim to be God? Before going on, we have to pause for a moment to seriously consider the matter. It is not a light thing to claim to be God. A person who makes such a claim falls into one of three categories. He must belong to one of these three categories; he cannot belong to all three. First, if he claims to be God and yet in fact is not, he has to be a madman or a lunatic. Second, if he is neither God nor a lunatic, he has to be a liar, deceiving others by his lie. Third, if he is neither of these, he must be God. You can only choose one of the three possibilities. If you do not believe that he is God, you have to consider him a madman. If you cannot take him for either of the two, you have to take him for a liar. There is no need for us to prove if Jesus of Nazareth is God or not. All we have to do is find out if He is a lunatic or a liar. If He is neither, He must be the Son of God. These are our three choices. There is no fourth.
What did Jesus of Nazareth say about Himself? In John 10:30 He said, "I and the Father are one." We need some explanation here. In the Bible the invisible God is called the Father. The Son manifests and expresses the Father. What is hidden is the Father, and what is expressed is the Son. The Son is the One who can be seen and touched. Behind, you have the Father. In front, you have the Son. The two are actually one. They are the two sides of the same reality. When we talk about two, we refer to the fact that one is hidden while the other is revealed. When we talk about one, we say that the revealed One is just the hidden One in manifestation. This is the biblical interpretation of the Father and the Son.
Therefore, when Jesus of Nazareth one day said, "I and the Father are one," it was a statement that no one else could make. This man was saying in reality that He and the invisible God are one entity. He is God and God is He. God is the invisible Father, and He is the manifested Son. The Father and the Son are one! Who can this One be that made such a claim? Is He a madman? Is He out to deceive us?
After Jesus spoke such a word, what reaction do we see? "The Jews again took up stones that they might stone Him. Jesus answered them, I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these works are you stoning me? The Jews answered Him, We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, are making Yourself God" (vv. 31-33). The Jews understood very well that Jesus' words meant that He claimed to be God. After hearing these words they wanted to stone Him to death. A claim was made by Jesus, and an accusation was charged by the Jews, both of which concerned His divinity. Was Jesus insane? Did He speak pure nonsense just to cause people to kill Him? Or was He a swindler setting up some kind of a scheme? If so, what was He trying to gain? Was He trying to gain death?

Perhaps we will go back a little bit to the earlier parts in the Gospel of John and see what it says there. John 1:18 says, "No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him." Why has no one seen God? It is because God is invisible. Jesus said that He was the only Begotten of the Father; He expressed the invisible Father. When you see the only Begotten, you see the Father.
Again He spoke concerning Himself, "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven" (3:13). Have you ever heard anyone say such words? I cannot say, "No one has been to Shanghai, but he who comes from Shanghai to Tientsin, even I, Watchman Nee, who is in Shanghai." If I say so, I would be gibbering nonsense. But Jesus was speaking a heavenly language. He said that He came out of heaven and is still in heaven. What can a person be if he can be in two places simultaneously? Either he is God or he is a lunatic or he is a liar. If you have not yet believed in Christ, please give a verdict to this issue. Who is this man?
Let us read John 3:31-32: "He who comes from above is above all; he who is from the earth is of the earth and speaks out of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. What He has seen and heard, of this He testifies, and no one receives His testimony." He said that He came out of heaven and was above all. After a while He said the same thing again. Let us see what the purpose behind these words is. He came to preach the things of heaven, but no one received His words. He mentioned words like "heaven," "above all," "out of heaven," etc. What kind of man was He? Confucius never said this. Neither did Sakya Muni or Mohammed. Was Jesus of Nazareth a madman, a liar, or the Son of God?
John 5:17 says, "But Jesus answered them, My Father is working until now, and I also am working." He always put Himself in the same place as the Father. Verse 18 says, "Because of this therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." When we read His words now, we may consider them to be ordinary remarks. But the Jews knew what He was saying. They knew that He was making Himself equal with God. The words in fact meant that God is His Father and He came to express God. The invisible One is God, and the visible One is He. Therefore, the Jews sought to kill Him. What should we do about such an unusual person?

John 6:46 says, "Not that anyone has seen the Father, except Him who is from God, He has seen the Father." Here the word is clearer. He said that no one other than Himself has ever seen God. Only He knew what the Father is like. I can only say with soberness and reverence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. Read John 8:18. What did He say? "I am one who testifies concerning me, and the Father who sent me testifies concerning me." The question in verse 19 is most interesting: "They said then to Him, Where is Your Father? Jesus answered, you know neither me nor My Father; if you knew me, and you would know My Father also." Have you seen what He was saying? They had seen Him, yet did not know Him. Of course they would not know the Father either, whom they had not seen. If men knew Him, they knew God. Who is He then? If knowing Him equals knowing God, is that not the same as saying that He is God and God is He?
Read John 8:23: "And He said to them, You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world." The preposition "from" in this verse is ek in Greek. It means "out of." That is how it should be translated. He said, "You are out of this world, but I am not out of this world." This man claimed to be from above; He did not come out of this world. Who can He be?
The Jews were confused. They were totally bewildered. Who was this man? The ancestor of the Jews is Abraham. They boasted of being the descendants of Abraham in the same way the Chinese boast of being the offspring of Hwang-it. The name Abraham was highly venerated among the Jews. Now they brought out Abraham. Please read John 8:53: "Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too. Who are you making yourself?" How did Jesus answer them? Was He greater or smaller than Abraham? In verse 56 Jesus said, "Your father Abraham exulted that he would see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced." What is this? Even Abraham had to look forward to Jesus! Hence, verse 57: "The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?" Now please pay your attention to Jesus' answer in verse 58: "Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am." Tell me who this man is. If I told you that before Hwang-it was, I, Watchman Nee am there, you would immediately write me off as a lunatic. Some of you would say that I am a liar. The words Jesus spoke made Him a madman, a liar, or God. There can be no fourth alternative.

We have to read on. In John 10:37-38 Jesus said, "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works so that you may come to know and continue to know..." Know what? The clause following is very crucial. It is a big statement: "...that the Father is in me and I am in the Father." Who then is this man? He said that He was in God and God was in Him.
Passages like the above are numerous in the Bible. I shall mention one more. Read carefully John 14:6-7: "Jesus said to him, I am the way and the reality and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known My Father also; and henceforth you know Him and have seen Him." It says clearly that if you know Jesus of Nazareth, you have known the invisible God. Why is this so? It is because He is God.

One of the disciples was confused. John 14:8 says, "Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us." Philip was asking to be shown the Father who had been mentioned again and again by Jesus. Verse 9 says, "Jesus said to him, have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father?" Here Jesus made it very plain that to see Him is to see God. He made no apology about it. He is God. There is no need to see the Father anymore. If you see Him, you see God!
Who is Jesus of Nazareth? What would you say? Is He merely the founder of the Christian religion? Is He merely an example of self-sacrifice and humanitarianism? Is He a social reformer? Is He an advocate for universal love, peace, and freedom? Listen to what He said about Himself. He said that He is God. What is your conclusion? Is He a lunatic or a liar? Is He a hoax, or is He God? This is a vital question.
Can He be a madman? If you read His biographies in the Gospels and observe His life and manner, you will realize that not only was He sane and sound, He was very sober and firm. If there is a perfectly sound person in this world, He has to be the One. His mind was clear, and His mentality was alert. If you study His deeds and words carefully, you have to confess that His thoughts are very logical and consistent, and His manners are most comely and appropriate. To opposing ones He only needed to reply a few sentences, and their arguments against Him were defeated. He did not have a trace of madness in Him. A madman could never have done what He did.
Then is He a liar? A liar always lies for a profit. If there is no profit to be gained, what is the purpose of lying? Why was Jesus crucified? For no other reason than that He claimed to be God. At the last judgment, the hour when His release or crucifixion was to be deliberated, He was examined as to who He was. What was His answer? He said that the Son of Man would be seen sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high, descending on the clouds in glory (Matt. 26:64). Even then He claimed to be God. As a result, He was crucified on the cross. Is there a liar who would sacrifice his life for his lie?

Once I met a person who wanted to talk with me about our faith. He read some books about Jesus and admitted that Jesus had a high standard of morality. He could consider Jesus as a perfect man, a model for humanity. But he could not believe that Jesus is God. I said, "If you admit that He has a high standard of morality, then He at least is not a liar. If you agree that He is not a liar, then you have to accept His claim of divinity as truth. He repeatedly asserted that He is God. If you admire His morality, you have to recognize His divinity as well. Jesus of Nazareth is God!"

Please read John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Verse 14 says, "And the Word became flesh and tabernacle among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality." What is the "Word" mentioned in verses 1 and 14? Verse 1 speaks of the relationship the Word has with God. In reference to when, the Word was there from the beginning. In reference to where, the Word was with God. In reference to what, the Word was God. Today the Word has become flesh; He has taken on a human body and dwelt among men. As to how He dwells, it says that He is "full of grace and reality," and "we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father." Who is this One? He is Jesus of Nazareth.
Here we have only seen one of the five qualifications mentioned earlier. Only Jesus of Nazareth meets this first condition. This proves that He is God. We shall go on to see the four other conditions or qualifications. Jesus of Nazareth must meet all the other four qualifications before we can conclude that He is God.

GOD COME INTO THE WORLD
If God is to be a man, He must come into the world in a way that is very different from all other mortals. We come into the world through our parents and are conceived by our mothers. To ascertain whether Jesus of Nazareth is an ordinary person or the incarnated God, we need to examine His birth. If His birth was no different from ours, we have to conclude that He is nothing but a man. Not only does He have to pass the first qualification, but He needs to pass the second one. Do not hastily believe in a person simply because he claims to be God; we have to test him by our second criterion. If he is indeed God, he must be born in an extraordinary manner.
If we study the birth of Jesus, we will find that it was very different from ours. He was born of a virgin. Both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament tell us this fact. Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary.

Before we go on, we have to realize that there are two ways to know God: by natural speculation or by revelation. According to natural speculation, one meditates and conjectures about God. In revelation, God speaks to man. We want to look at the revelation of God. We want to know what God says.
The Gospels of Matthew and Luke show us that Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary. This important fact enables us to conclude that He is no ordinary person, and it justifies our being a Christian.
The natural mentality cannot readily accept this fact. Some years ago, a big debate was conducted in England. On one side were prominent leaders of modernistic schools of theology. On the other side was a famous Presbyterian pastor-theologian. Four major topics were raised. Twice a day, for four consecutive days, each side took turns delivering a long speech for a total of eight messages. One of the topics was related to our subject—the virgin birth. The modernistic theologians asserted that one reason alone was enough to disprove the virgin birth—the event was biologically impossible. According to the law of biology, it is impossible to have the virgin birth.
On the same day, their opponent gave the rebuttal. Let me briefly mention a few of his arguments. He said, "Our friends have denied the possibility of such an event on the ground of biological law. I am here to ask whether such an event happened. They asked, 'Can this happen?' They referred you to academic principles. I am asking, 'Has this happened?' I point to a historical occurrence. It is one thing to be academically justified. It is another thing to be historically recorded."
As he was speaking, he drew out a newspaper from his pocket. In the paper was an article about an accident that had happened a few days earlier. A man was driving on a winding mountain road. Due to carelessness, the car slid and tumbled down a deep gorge. The car was totally wrecked. Not even a square foot of the vehicle was left untouched. It was thoroughly damaged. But the man on the ground was absolutely unhurt. Later, he rose up and walked away. The theologian read the passage aloud and said, "This car tumbled down a thousand feet into ruin. You cannot even find a square foot of whole metal, and yet the man was unharmed. My friends would ask, 'Could this man live?' But my question is, 'Is this man alive?' He is alive! If you consider the possibility, there is none. But if you consider the fact, there it is!"
What we have is a historical fact. If we try to study the virgin birth from a scientific point of view, we may conclude that this is an impossible event. But my question is whether or not such an event occurred. The Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus was born of a virgin. So does the Gospel of Luke. At least you have to say that these records have said such a thing and that such an event was recorded in history. At least you have to believe that there is a historical event.
I am not asserting that Matthew and Luke were inspired by the Holy Spirit when they wrote their books. Whether these books were divinely inspired or not, we will set aside for a moment. We are saying that there were a few people who followed Jesus. They wrote His biography. Both Matthew and Luke were contemporaries of Jesus. Matthew followed Him for more than three years. Luke was not as close, but he "carefully investigated all things" (Luke 1:3). I believe that when he wrote his gospel, the mother of Jesus was still alive. What did they say about the birth of Jesus? They all testified that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. His birth was absolutely different from ours. Today, after almost two thousand years, some who never saw Jesus, never talked to Mary His mother, and never met Joseph His father; conclude that He was not born of a virgin. How can you say that He was not born in this manner? Are you ruling out the possibility of such an event and concluding that it did not happen because of some arguments you proposed in your study room or some theories you fashioned in the laboratory?

Perhaps we should read the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. There are forty-two generations in the genealogy. Beginning from the first generation, it repeatedly says, "So-and-so begot So-and-so." This phrase is used through verse 15, which says, "And Eliud begot Eleazar, and Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob." Verse 16 continues, "And Jacob begot Joseph." The surprising thing is that the next part of the sentence does not continue with "Joseph begot Jesus." Rather, it says, "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." When the line reaches Joseph, the pattern is dropped. This is because Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. His way of birth was very different from ours.

We have seen that His method of coming into the world was an unusual one. Now we want to look at His way of departing from the world. As we shall see, this was also contrary to our ordinary deaths. No one can ever predict the place, time, and manner he or she is going to die. A hundred years from now, all of us here will be dead. But no one knows how we are going to die. Jesus of Nazareth, however, foresaw His own death. He knew exactly when, where, and how it was to happen.

Once when someone told Him that He was going to be killed, He answered that it was not acceptable for a prophet to perish outside of Jerusalem (Luke 13:33). He knew that He was going to die in Jerusalem. One day, He told His disciples that the hour had come. Not only did He sense the imminence of His death; He told others that His death hour had come. He knew also how He would die. A number of times He mentioned that He would be crucified. This was recorded at least three times in Matthew. Not only was this man different in His way of entering into the world, but His manner of departure was no less extraordinary. Both His birth and His death were very unusual. Is this the Son of God? Let us consider the third qualification. What kind of morality did Jesus of Nazareth have? Was He the same as we are? Did He ever sin?
I like the sentence Jesus spoke in John 8. Many were opposing Him at that time. They surrounded and cross-examined Him. In return He asked, "Which of you convicts me of sin?" (v. 46). This was a tremendous challenge! Which one of us would dare to stand before everyone and challenge to be convicted of sin? Whoever dared do such a thing would be put to shame the minute his wife stood up to testify against him. Perhaps, in less than five minutes, seven or eight people would immediately rise up to expose his lies and unfaithfulness. But when Jesus made such a statement, no one was able to convict Him of sin. There have been a countless number of saints and sages throughout the ages, but none was bold enough to claim to be perfect and sinless. Why is it that Jesus alone dared to make such a claim?
All I can say is that this man is either arrogant to the extreme or holy to the uttermost. A proud person may talk in an outlandish manner because he does not know himself; he has no realization of what kind of person he is. But when Jesus challenged, "Which of you convicts me," there was no way He could be humble or polite about it. He is without sin, and He is holy to the uttermost.
Jesus of Nazareth is not like Confucius, who said that given some more time, he would be rid of big, moral flaws. Jesus is sinless. When He made such a statement, He made it before His enemies. If there had been a slight misconduct on His part, the Jews would have caught it right away. The Jews are not prolific writers; they have not produced many books other than the Holy Scripture. But after Jesus, many books were written by the Jews to contradict Him. All these books deny His divinity, but none touch His morality. Of all the opposing writings, none can prove that Jesus ever sinned.
Every philosopher or founder of religion, at one time or another, has said, "I repent," or "I regret such and such a matter. I will do better from now on." But Jesus of Nazareth never repented. A sinner must of necessity repent. But what does a sinless man have to repent of? Jesus never apologized to anyone; He never did anyone any wrong.
When I was in England, some British friends asked for my opinion concerning their people. I said, "Among you, once ever so often, I hear, 'Excuse me' and 'I beg your pardon.'" To the English, anyone who does not know how to make these two remarks has to be an extremely base person, for he knows not his own mistakes. Anyone can make a mistake, but when one refuses to admit his mistakes, he makes himself vulgar. For this reason we have to say, "Excuse me" and "I beg your pardon" all the time.
The amazing thing is that Jesus of Nazareth never said "sorry" to anyone. He never apologized. Could He be so evil as to ignore His conscience completely? Was He oblivious to His own errors? Or is He really sinless? If so, He cannot say, "sorry." It is not a matter of humility or politeness to Him, but a matter of maintaining His standing.

I love the story about Jesus once walking down a road. Many people were gathered around Him, hoping to see the resurrection of a dead person. It was so crowded that the people pressed upon each other. One woman, who suffered from an issue of blood for years, thought that Jesus would surely be able to heal her since He had performed all kinds of miracles. She did not come to the Lord directly. All that she did was touch the fringe of His garment, and the sickness was immediately healed (Mark 5:25-29).
Jesus felt something, turned around, and asked, "Who touched me?" How did the disciples respond? They said, "You see the crowd pressing upon you and you say, who touched me?" (v. 31). He should have asked, "Who pressed me?" instead of "Who touched me?" If I were Jesus, I would have said in a gentlemanly fashion, "Excuse me." But Jesus did not need to say that. When He said that it was a touch, He meant that it was a touch and not a pressing against. The disciples only knew that many thronged around Him. But He knew that someone "touched" Him. He knew what He was doing. There was no need for apology. He knows no sin because He is without sin.
Let me mention another story about Jesus. One day He came to the synagogue in His hometown. Someone handed Him the Scripture, and He started to read from a passage about Himself. The people there, however, despised Him. He remarked that a prophet is always despised in His own place. For this reason, God would not choose them but would rather go to someone else. After they heard this, they were very indignant. They carried Him outside and tried to throw Him down a cliff. I like very much what Jesus did then. He passed through their midst (Luke 4:16-30). If someone tried to push us over a cliff, we would struggle to escape. But He was no ordinary person. He simply passed through the persecutors' midst. They could do nothing except let Him pass by! He is without sin.
Again, you see the same Jesus preaching to a ruler at midnight in a house (John 3:2), while choosing to converse with a woman beside a well at midday (4:5-7). Everything He did was very proper. No one can say anything against Him. You cannot find fault in Him.

Another time some opposes came to tempt Him. They asked whether or not it was lawful to pay tax to Caesar. The Jewish nation, as you know, no longer existed then, and Caesar of Rome was their king. If Jesus said "no" to the question, He would have been involved in a political issue, and the opposes would have had an excuse to condemn Him. If He said "yes," all the Jews would have counted Him as siding with the Romans and hated Him. The result, of course, would have favored the opposes. This was a question that could not be answered "yes" or "no."
How did Jesus reply? He said, "Show Me the coin for the tribute" (Matt. 22:19). He was wise. He even had the opposing ones draw out the money from their own pockets. Then He asked, "Whose is this image and inscription?" (v. 20). They had to admit that it was Caesar's. Jesus gave an excellent reply: "Render then the things that are Caesar's to Caesar and the things that are God's to God" (v. 21). With that He dismissed the whole case. This is where His majesty lies. He never made a mistake. You cannot get a case out of Him.

I cannot enumerate all His deeds. Everything He did bears such a mark of nobility that there is absolutely no flaw in His behavior. I will briefly mention His betrayal as a final example. It was very late in the night, and men armed with torches, spears, and swords came to arrest this empty-handed Jesus. He asked them, "Whom do you seek?" They said, "Jesus the Nazarene" (John 18:7). He replied, "I told you that I am" (v. 8). At that very word, the band of rogues whose minds were set on capturing Him fell back to the ground. If Jesus had not voluntarily given Himself over to them, they would never have been able to seize Him. Such calmness and majesty can only be seen in Him!
As to the traitor, Jesus knew from the first day of his intention. Yet He allowed the same to follow Him and even let him be the keeper of the money. All the time Jesus knew that money was being stolen by him. Who can demonstrate such forbearance and uprightness? Here is a man who is absolutely different from all others. In every respect, He has been proven to be the Son of God.
The fourth qualification we mentioned is that one who claims to be God incarnated must be able to perform what an ordinary person cannot. Has Jesus of Nazareth performed any supernatural acts? We are not His contemporaries; it was almost two thousand years ago that He walked on earth. Naturally, we cannot be His witnesses. But one thing is sure: the apostles who followed Jesus recorded, preached, and testified the things concerning Him. The four Gospels were all completed within thirty years after His departure. Most of the Jews who were then alive had seen Jesus. If the apostles' records were false, they would have been repudiated long ago. However, the Jews only argued that Jesus is not the Son of God. They never denied His deeds, for the deeds were all facts.
Today, when we read the four Gospels, we have no apprehension about their authenticity. If there had been a slight error when they were written, there would have been grave problems because many of the contemporaries had actually seen and heard Jesus. There was no chance for any fabrication. Hence, these books cannot be a hoax. If the Jews could not attack these books, there is even less of a basis for an attack today.

Let us examine some of the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth. Matthew 11:2 and 3 say, "Now when John heard in the prison of the works of the Christ, he sent word through his disciples and said to Him, Are You the Coming One, or should we expect another?" John wanted to make sure that Jesus was the Christ sent from God. If He was not, John would wait for another.
Verses 4 and 5 say, "And Jesus answered and said to them, go, report to John the things that you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; and the dead are raised and the poor have the gospel announced to them." Jesus answered neither "yes" nor "no." He only asked the messenger to tell John of the things heard and seen. He wanted John to think about them and decide for himself if Jesus was the Christ. Jesus proved His divinity by the miracles He performed. Here is a man who accomplished things that are impossible for human beings. You cannot help but confess that He is God.
John 7:31 says, "But many out of the crowd believed into Him and said, Will the Christ, when He comes, do more signs than this man has done?" Many people testified that He performed all kinds of miracles which no man could do.

John 10:24 says, "The Jews therefore surrounded Him and said to Him, How long will you hold our soul in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." On the one hand, the Jews hardened their hearts and refused to acknowledge His divinity, and on the other hand, they were puzzled by the many supernatural miracles that He performed. They gathered around Him and pressed for an answer. There is one thing in which Jesus never gave in: His claim to divinity. He performed what mortals could not. These acts testify to His divinity. He told the people clearly, "The works which I do in My Father's name, these testify concerning me" (v. 25). On the one hand, He made His claim, and on the other hand, He performed miracles to justify His claim.
In John 14:11 He said to His disciples, "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me." This is the same as saying that He is the invisible Father. "But if not, believe because of the works themselves." If He had not done anything impossible, this word would have had no value at all. If He had not performed any extraordinary acts, they would have asked back, "What works have you done? We do not know what you are talking about." But the disciples knew of the acts He did. All these acts prove that He is the Son of God.

We have to check Jesus of Nazareth against a fifth qualification. If He is God, He has to show us what He is. Is He kind, or is He severe? Is He gentle, or is He fierce? What kind of a God do we have? As a matter of fact, Jesus did show us what God is.
This is a most wonderful thing. The eternal, invisible God is now seen by us. There is no need to conjure up an untouchable and far transcendent God or imagine what He is like; He has revealed Himself to us. He has dwelt in our midst and walked among us. Jesus of Nazareth is the very God dwelling among and with man. He has manifested God's nature and attributes to us. There is no need to search for God anymore because He has revealed Himself. Our mentality is too limited. Our hands are too short, and our viewpoint too narrow. If we were left to ourselves to study and search for God, we could only conclude that He is the unknown One. Now we know that God desires to reveal Himself. In fact, He has revealed Himself to us already.

We have said that the two means whereby God communicates with us are the written and spoken language. For this reason, the Bible and Jesus of Nazareth are the two indispensable factors in our faith. When you take away either one, God becomes the gravest problem in the world. Hebrews 1:1 says, "God, having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets." These speaking constitute the Bible. "Has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son" (v. 2). This is Jesus of Nazareth. Whoever is in Christ now may know Him. To have heard the words of Jesus of Nazareth is to have heard the words of God.
Dear reader, what is your attitude towards Jesus of Nazareth? Thomas confessed, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28). Peter proclaimed, "You are...the Son of the living God!" (Matt. 16:16). Martha said, "I have believed that you are the Christ, the Son of God" (John 11:27). Even a Roman centurion exclaimed at the sight of Jesus hanging on the cross, "Truly this was the Son of God" (Matt. 27:54b). I hope you will make the same confession


Our Christian faith is based upon the revelation of God. It is different from all other religions which are attained through meditation, conjecture, and searching. We believe that the Bible is God's revelation to us. In other words, it is His spoken word to us. We also believe that God has become a man, who is the very Jesus of Nazareth. God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ constitute the basis of our faith.

Let us begin by looking at the position that Christ occupies in our faith, or we may say, in Christianity. However, Christianity has been altered and is not what it ought to be. At the present we will not mention what Christianity ought to be. Rather, we will only draw a comparison between Christianity and other religions in order to see the distinctiveness of our faith. We will not try purposely to exalt Christianity and debase other religions. We will only draw an objective comparison between them.
First, let us consider Confucianism. Actually, followers of Confucius never formally assert that theirs is a religion. Confucianism merely exercises great influence on Chinese culture, education, ethics, and philosophy. One thing, however, is certain: the teachings and doctrines of Confucius are of foremost importance, while the person Confucius is not as crucial. I do not mean that Confucianism has no concern for Confucius. The man indeed was an extraordinary person. However, in order to be a part of Confucianism, one only need to understand the doctrines of Confucius, abide by his teachings, and be thoroughly acquainted with his books. It does not matter whether one understands the man Confucius or not. The principles, doctrines, and teachings of Confucius are the essence of the religion.

Next let us consider Buddhism. The founder of Buddhism was Sakya Muni. Once he preached to his disciples about evil persons being reincarnated through the Wheel of Rebirth after death. This is something that attracts man's attention. But in all of Buddhism, the point of emphasis is doctrines and theories. Concerning the man Sakya Muni, although he has a history and biography, they are something parenthetical. They do not form the crux of Buddhism. The center of the religion is not the man Sakya Muni. Whether there was such a person is unimportant to today's Buddhism. All that is needed are the doctrines and teachings.
Other religions such as Taoism and Mohammedanism are all of the same principle. After each founder set up a religion and left his teachings, doctrines, and regulations as the content of his religion, the founder himself was disassociated from the religion and had little to do with it.
But our faith is entirely different. From its outset, Christianity is built on the man Christ. It is not built on the doctrines and teachings of Christ. It is amazing that when you open the Bible, you will not find too many chapters of doctrines. Passages where pure doctrinal issues are expounded are rare and of less concern to people. What concerns one the most is the man Himself and what kind of person He is? All who have read the Bible know that the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth are not outstandingly voluminous. His person draws our attention. He alone is the foundation of our faith.
The word Christ came from Greek, meaning the Anointed One. According to the Chinese, when a man takes up a task, he is given a letter of employment. The Jewish equivalent of this is anointing. When God summons a person for a work, He pours oil on the person as a seal of commission. Christ is the very God who was set apart to come to earth to be a man for the manifestation of God, in order that man may know God. Christ is the Anointed One. He is commissioned to such a task.

Due to this basic distinction, Christ is different from the founders of other religions. Once He asked His disciples, "Who do you say that I am?" Over and over again He demanded that His disciples believe in Him. He said that he who believes in the Son has eternal life. Again He said, "He who loves father or mother above me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter above me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:37). Unless a man loves in this way, he is not worthy to be His disciple. Words such as these have been uttered only by Him. No other religious leader ever said anything like that. Confucius never said to Yen-weh or Tze-lu, "Believe in me," nor did he ever say, "Love me." Neither did any of the other leaders, such as Sakya Muni or Mohammed, demand of their disciple’s faith in them. All it takes to be their disciples is to believe in their doctrines.

Hence, the true Christian faith is based on a person. It is built on Christ and not on some doctrines. The crux of the true Christian faith is a question of who Jesus is! Is He merely a Jew? Is He only a prophet? Or is Jesus the Son of the living God? The whole matter hinges upon who Jesus of Nazareth is. The difference between a genuine Christian and a false one lies not in the knowledge of the doctrines of Christ. Rather, it lies in the knowledge of who Jesus is!
Who is this man from Nazareth? Since this is a crucial question related to our basic faith, we have to find the answer in the Bible. We will pay more attention to the Gospel of John and discover that only Christ Himself is the center of the Bible and the focus of the whole of Christianity.
Before taking up the Gospel of John, we have to take a look at the background of the book. Prior to the coming of Christ, a forerunner was sent by God to prepare a way for Christ that men might be ready to acknowledge Christ. The forerunner was John the Baptist. Because of his powerful preaching, many people were convicted. As a result, many thought that he was the Christ who was supposed to come.
But John 1:8 says, "He was not the light, but came that he might testify concerning the light." The light means Christ. He is called the light because light reveals and manifests. John was not the Christ. He was only bearing witness to Christ.
Concerning this light, verse 9 says, "This was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man." In this dark world, if a person has Christ, he will know all about God. When this light shines forth, man will say, "Here is God." They will recognize the light as God.
Up to verse 9, we still do not know who this light is. Read on from verse 10 to verse 15: "He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, yet the world did not know Him. He came to His own, yet those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name, who were begotten not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and tabernacle among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality. John testified concerning Him and cried out, saying, this was He of whom I said, He who is coming after me has become ahead of me, because He was before me." Have you realized, after reading the above verses, that all that is recorded here are actual facts, rather than many doctrines?

What did John the Baptist say about Christ? He said, "He...is...after me." And yet He who was after John would be before him. This is because Christ was before him in the first place. This is the beginning of the testimony of John the Baptist.
John 1:27: "He who is coming after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." The preaching of John is the beginning of our faith. He came just to tell others who Jesus of Nazareth is. Not only was Christ before John, He was so much greater than John that he was not worthy to untie the thong of His sandal and be His slave.
John 1:29: "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world?"
Verse 30: "This is He of whom I said, a man is coming after me who has become ahead of me, because He was before me." When John introduced Jesus, he said, "This is He"! (v. 30). The Gospel begins by showing us who Jesus is!
This is the word of the forerunner. But what about Christ? What did He say? We admit that in the Bible there are a few basic doctrines. For example, regeneration is one of the basic truths. Buddhism and Mohammedanism also talk about regeneration. In their teachings they teach that whatever is past is considered as dead yesterday, and whatever is hereafter is considered as born today. But what did Jesus say about regeneration? Let us look at the record of John 3.
"There was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews. This one came to Him by night" (vv. 1-2a).
Nicodemus was a ruler. He was also a learned and aged person. He came to Jesus to discuss some problems with Him, and Jesus brought up the matter of regeneration.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (v. 3).
Jesus showed Nicodemus the matter of regeneration, telling him that he needed to be born again. After Nicodemus heard this, he was confounded. He wondered how an old man could be born again. Did that mean that he had to go into his mother's womb and come out again? Jesus told him that this is not a birth of the flesh, but a birth of the spirit. If a man is not born of the Spirit, even if he could go into his mother's womb again, the flesh would still beget flesh. Only the Spirit begets spirit. Here you can see that even in such a basic and fundamental matter, Jesus did not expound much doctrine. He only mentioned a very simple fact—the need to be born again.

No wonder Nicodemus asked, "How can these things be?" Jesus told him that this is not an earthly matter. It is something heavenly. That is why he could not believe. How can a man be born again? "And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that every one who believes into Him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that every one who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. He who believes into Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed into the name of the only begotten Son of God" (vv. 13-18). Have you seen this? This is regeneration!
Jesus was saying that regeneration is not a doctrine. It believes into Him. To be born again is to believe into Him. If a man does not believe into Him, he cannot be regenerated. After saying so much, it all comes back to "Him."
What is our concept of regeneration? We think that if one was a thief yesterday and returns his booty to the owner today, that this is regeneration. Or, if one thought of having a mistress yesterday, but gives up that idea today, that this is regeneration. We think that as long as we quit doing whatever was bad in the past, considering it as dead, and strive to do well hereafter, we are born again. But this is man's concept. This is not the regeneration that Christ gives.
The way of Jesus depends on whether you believe into Him or not. He who believes into Him has eternal life! God gave His only begotten Son that every one who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life. He who believes is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned. This is not a doctrine. It is a matter of the person. It is a relationship between Him and man.
Besides regeneration, there is another crucial matter, which we call Christian satisfaction. A genuine Christian feels that his hopes are fulfilled, his aspirations attained; he has no want; he is absolutely satisfied. But this satisfaction is very different from the contentment that people commonly talk about. Contentment is to see things in an optimistic way, to let things come and go by as they are without insisting on anything. There may not be much wealth or position. There may not be much honor or renown. But as long as one can live in peace and be left unbothered, that is good enough! This is contentment. But this is not satisfaction. When a person is satisfied, he feels that he has what he wants and that he has no more desires.

There is an excellent record in John 4. What did Jesus say to a Samaritan woman there? "Everyone who drinks of this water shall thirst again" (v. 13). If you desire worldly glory, renown, wealth, position, etc., you will never be satisfied. When you have ten thousand dollars, you will want a hundred thousand, and when you have acquired a hundred thousand, you will start dreaming about a million. There will never be satisfaction. He who drinks of this water will thirst again.
How do you quench this thirst? The Lord Jesus said, "But whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall by no means thirst forever" (v. 14). An amazing fact is that neither Confucius nor any other religious leader ever said such a thing. The teachings of Confucius and Mencius only tell you to be content and to abide in your poverty. The person Confucius or Mencius has nothing to do with your contentment. However, the person Jesus has a great deal to do with your thirst-quenching.
Naturally the woman desired to drink of this thirst-quenching water. When she asked Jesus for this living water, "Jesus answered and said to her, If you knew the gift of God and who it is who says to you, Give Me a drink, you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water" (v. 10).
Was Jesus preaching a doctrine? No. There was no doctrine. The only thing He did was point to Him, as if to say, "Well, if you know who He is, you will ask of Him at once, and He will give you living water, that you may never thirst again." Have you seen this? The whole question is who Jesus of Nazareth is.
The Samaritan woman was not a decent woman. The fact that she had had six husbands showed what kind of woman she was. She must have been dissatisfied with this one and that one. One husband could not make her happy; another could not make her satisfied. As a result, she changed from one husband to another, and then to a third and a fourth, until she came to the sixth. One day she came out to draw water, a symbol of her being one that drinks and is still thirsty. The remarkable thing is that on that day, her life was changed. She became satisfied! What did she do? She did not do anything! On that day she realized who Jesus of Nazareth is and she was saved. Let us look again at the process through which she came to know Jesus.

"The woman said to Him, Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet" (v. 19). Because Christ told her everything that she ever did, she perceived that this was no ordinary man. He must be a prophet. Jesus said something more to show her that He was not merely a prophet: "Believe Me" (v. 21). The woman said, "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when He comes, He will declare all things to us" (v. 25). What did Jesus answer her? He said, "I, who speak to you, am He" (v. 26). The first thing that a sinner needs to do is not to repent and change his behavior, but to realize who Jesus is. All will be well if he realizes who Jesus is. Later the woman returned to the city and told the people, "Come, and see a man who told me all that I have done. Is this not the Christ?" (v. 29). I do not like the words, "Is this not." Since she knew that this man was the Christ, why did she say, "Is this not"? At any rate, she believed and went to tell others that Christ had come. You can see clearly that the whole issue is not about doctrine but about a person! Our basic concern is not doctrines. Rather, it is seeing who Jesus is! Once we have the Lord Jesus, we will have real satisfaction; we will be filled with the sense of having acquired everything. We will see a little more from John 5. It seems that in chapter five the Lord Jesus spoke some doctrines. But actually not much was expounded. It was once again an invitation to receive the knowledge of who Jesus of Nazareth is. He spoke some words, but they were to lead us to believe into Him. The Lord Jesus said that the Jews searched the Scriptures. But the Scriptures, the Lord pointed out, are a witness to Him. What is written there concerns Him. It is important to know the Scriptures. But more important than that is the knowledge of who Jesus of Nazareth is. The question is not what kind of teaching He teaches, but what kind of a person He is when we come to John 6, the matter is brought out in an even clearer way. "Jesus said to them, I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall by no means hunger, and he who believes into me shall by no means ever thirst" (v. 35). He did not preach any doctrine. He just said, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall by no means hunger." Have you seen the implication here? If I say that I am your bread of life and that he who eats me shall never hunger, you will surely say that Mr. Nee is a madman from Shanghai. Religious leaders can only give doctrines to others. They cannot give themselves to others. But Jesus is different. He is the bread of life. He is also the thirst-quenching water. The problem is in the people's unbelief in Him. When anyone believes in Him, everything will be all right."I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven that anyone may eat of it and not die" (vv. 48-50). These are words that no other can speak. Only Jesus can say this. He is neither a madman nor a liar. And whatever He says always points back to Him. This man is the bread of life. He who eats of Him shall not die! Hence, our Christian faith is based on the issue of who Jesus of Nazareth is. We are not spending time merely to study His teachings. We are only asked to answer one question: who is He? What Christ proclaimed persistently on the earth was not His doctrines but Himself. The focus is not on the doctrines but on the person. As far as doctrines go, the books of Confucius and Mencius are filled with philosophies, ethics, and morality; they far exceed those in the Bible. But there is only one issue: who is Jesus of Nazareth? Do you know? Who is this Jesus of Nazareth? Let us read on. John 6:51: "I am the living bread which came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread which I will give is My flesh, given for the life of the world."Here His words become more and more peculiar. It is strange enough to say that He is the bread of life which came down out of heaven. Now He says that he, who eats Him, not only will not die, but will live forever. This is extraordinary. Even more intriguing are the words that say that the bread He gives is His very flesh. No wonder the Jews at that time said that it was a hard saying. Who can take this? It is right! We never heard such words before. We never heard them from Confucius, from Mencius, from Lao-tze, from Chuan-tze, or from any other sages. We never heard them in China or in any other country. No man has ever spoken such words. After Christ spoke such words, verse 52 says, "The Jews then contended with one another, saying, how can this man give us His flesh to eat?" What doctrine did Jesus preach? None. All that He said was to eat His flesh. Verses 55 and 56 say, "For My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and me in him." You can see that He is only emphasizing Himself. This is not a set of doctrines. Rather, it is the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His blood. Those who eat and drink will live forever. When we come to John 7, we see the last day of a great feast. Jesus spoke some words in front of those who were attending the feast. "On the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, if anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. He who believes into me, as the Scripture said, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water" (vv. 37-38). Just imagine: on one of our busy festive holidays, I, Watchman Nee, stand up in the midst of a crowd and shout, "If you are thirsty, come to me and drink. He who believes in me, out of his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water." What would you say? You would surely say that I am a senseless fool from Shanghai who is talking nonsense. But that was exactly what Jesus did and said. There was really no doctrine; there was just the person Christ. On that day when Jesus spoke those words, a dispute arose among the Jews. Some said that this truly had to be the Christ. Others reasoned how Christ could come out of Galilee. In trying to answer who this man was, an argument arose among the Jews. The argument centered around one thing: who was this Jesus of Nazareth? A genuine Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the Christ. Further on in John 8:12, Jesus told the crowd, "I am the light of the world; he who follows me shall by no means walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." You can see that again His words are not doctrinal. The emphasis here is the "light" and the "I." It is not the practice of His teachings that makes a Christian. Rather, it is a relationship with Christ that qualifies us as one. Only by believing into Him will we receive the light of life. Only by receiving Him will we not walk in darkness. John 8:21-22 says, "He said therefore again to them, I am going away, and you will seek me and will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come. The Jews then said, He is not going to kill Himself, is He, for He says, where I am going, you cannot come?" The Jews were confused again. Where is the place He is going that we cannot go? They thought that perhaps He was going to commit suicide. Actually if that place could be reached by committing suicide, the Jews could still get to it by killing themselves. How could the Lord go to a place to which they could not go? Verse 23 says, "And He said to them, you are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world." It is because of this that where the Lord was going they could not go. Furthermore, they did not die in their sins because they were murderers and adulterers. Verse 24 is crucial, especially the latter half: "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." The King James Version added the word "he" after "I am." Let us quote the words of the original text. The Lord said, "You will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins." The question is whether or not you believe that He is. What does this mean? It means that of the millions of people in humanity, you can pick out one and say, "This is He! This is God!" We want to examine Jesus of Nazareth to see if He indeed is! If we believe that He is, we will not die in our sins. Many believe in a distorted Christianity, but we want to believe according to what Christianity really is. The first question we must ask is whether or not Jesus of Nazareth is. Once again the Jews retorted by asking, "Who are you?" (v. 25). Jesus' answer seemed to say, "This is not the first time that I tell you who I am. Concerning this matter I have never given in. I told you that I am; I am the One." Time after time He proved to others that He is; He is the Son of God. If we read the Gospel of John through, we will find that every passage concerns this one point: Jesus is the Christ. In John 10 the Jews surrounded Him and said, "How long will you hold our soul in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly" (v. 24). The question still hung on this one point. How did Jesus answer? He said, "I told you, and you do not believe...You do not believe, because you are not of my sheep" (vv. 25-26). All who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He is God incarnated as a man, is not Christians. Those who do not recognize Him as the Son of God do not have the life of Christ in them; they are not His sheep. Upon this issue stands the whole basis of the Christian faith. In John 11 Jesus said again, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes into me, even if he should die, shall live" (v. 25). Can a common mortal utter such words? In John 12 Jesus cried out aloud, "He who believes into me does not believe into me, but into Him who sent me; and he who beholds me beholds Him who sent me. I have come as a light into the world, which every one who believes into me would not remain in darkness" (vv. 44-46). You can see that the One who sent Him hinges on Him. To believe into Him is to believe into the One who sent Him. To see Him is to see the One who sent Him. The light also hinges on Him. To be in the light is to believe into Him. Everything hinges on Him. Then in John 14 the Lord said, "Do not let your heart be troubled; believe into God, believe also into me" (v. 1). He wants us to believe into Him in the same way that we believe into God. The one thing He always insists upon is the demand to believe in Him. John 15 speaks of some who hate the Lord. He said, "He who hates me hates My Father also" (v. 23). Once again He reveals that He and the Father are one. In John 16, the Lord said that one day the Holy Spirit would come and convict the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment. Why concerning sin? The explanation is in verse 9: "Concerning sin, because they do not believe into me," because they do not believe that He is the Son of God. This is a sin, a very serious sin. When the Holy Spirit comes, He will convict men, and they will realize how serious a sin it is not to believe in Jesus being the Son of God. One further passage in the Gospel of John will suffice. 17:3: "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Him whom you have sent, Jesus Christ." Here we are shown what eternal life is. The Lord's definition of eternal life is to know God. Believing in the eternal God and believing in His sent One—Jesus Christ—is eternal life. Eternal life hinges upon this person. I hope that we would all realize who Jesus of Nazareth is. Our faith does not have any empty doctrines. It is based on the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. To receive Jesus Christ is to receive God.

THE DIFERENCE BETWEEN A PERSON AND TEACHING

We have said that Christianity does not emphasize doctrines. Rather, it emphasizes the person Christ. Even when some doctrines are mentioned, they are few in number, and when you go about expounding them, they always point back to a person. If you turn to the four Gospels you will be amazed to find that everything recorded is just a description of Jesus of Nazareth. There must first be the knowledge of who He is; doctrines come afterwards. We have ascertained the person of Jesus Christ. Now we want to take a look at the doctrines of our faith.

You cannot find many doctrines in the four Gospels. Neither are there many doctrines in the Acts of the Apostles. One finds doctrines only after coming to Romans. This is exactly what we have said before; that you have to know who Jesus Christ is before you can understand what His doctrines are all about.
Concerning doctrines, there is also a vast difference between those in Christianity and those in other religions. I would like to mention again that the fact that I am a Christian does not mean that you have to feel and see things as I do. I will not take such a presumptuous attitude. I will only present the facts again, showing the difference between Christianity and other religions. I will not decide what is good or bad. You are asked only to examine the facts. If you think that this is right, then believe in it. Otherwise, take your choice. Emotional words are unnecessary here. I will, therefore, make no plea or invitation.
Observing all the religions that are before us, you will see that all of them emphasize doctrines, not a person. Whether Confucius or Lao-tze, who they are and what they teach are two different things. They are two separate entities. Their doctrines do not have much to do with their person. You can take the person away from the religion, and it will not make much difference. The person only preached the doctrines, but he became disassociated from that which he preached.
This is not the case with our faith. When did Christian doctrines come into existence? It was after the death, resurrection, and departure from the world of the person Christ that the doctrines began. All doctrines came later. Moreover, all these doctrines are centered upon Christ. The doctrines and Christ are inseparable. First you have Him, and then you have His doctrines.

For example, there is a doctrine in Christianity that speaks of the union of God and man. It is a very important doctrine. If you open the Bible to see how this can be, you will see that the source of such a doctrine is the fact that God became a man—Jesus. He is God mingled with man.
The Bible does not present a doctrine of God becoming one with man. Rather, it shows Jesus of Nazareth, who is a sample of God being one with man. Originally, God and man were separate; there was a wide gulf between them. There was no possibility of union. But the Nazarene came. He was God coming to be a man. He was the bridge between man and God, joining the two into one. This is not a doctrine that teaches people to be one with God. Here is the fact: henceforth, when a man is in Christ, he can be one with God.

THE SOLUTION
Another very important doctrine in the Bible concerns death. The Bible depicts man as being totally corrupted, without any possibility of being reformed. The only solution is death. A man is like a piece of worm-infested wood with no chance of being carved or shaped. The only destiny for him is the fire. Death is the solution. Only dead people will not be proud if you praise them a thousand times. Only dead people will not be angry if you rebuke them repeatedly. Only dead people will not be tempted by sin and will not sin. Death solves all problems concerning sin.
But how can we die? How can such a death occur? A religion will exhort you to die. Be dead! If you are dead, sin will no longer have an object to work on! But how can one die? By committing suicide? By throwing oneself into the sea? Or as the old Chinese scholars have said, by considering everything that is past as dead yesterday? No! All these are methods of common religions. They are not the Christian teaching.


EXPERIENCES BASED ON A PERSON


The doctrine of death is absolutely related to Christ. His person determines His doctrines. Jesus died. What does the Bible say about this? It says that the world died with Him (2 Cor. 5:14). His death was to sin; hence, the whole world is dead to sin. Originally, the whole world was in sin, being dead in it. Only Jesus was not affected by death. He did not die of sin; He died to sin (Rom. 6:10). If we are one with Him, we are also dead to sin by His death (v. 11). Sin will not have an object to work on. All the problems of sin in us will be solved.
This is the doctrine of Christianity. It is a fact that is absolutely tied to the person Christ. It is not an exhortation for people to conduct a moral life and repent from their wrongs. These are not Christian doctrines at all. Since Christ has died, whoever is in Him is also dead, thoroughly dead, to sin. Sin has no more grips on us. If Christ had not died, there would not have been any doctrine. All experiences and doctrines are based upon this person Jesus Christ.

Another fact we have is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He died and was resurrected. Hence, on our side, we are not only dead to sin, disassociated from it; we are regenerated and a new creation in the resurrection of Christ. All these are bound to the person Jesus Christ. No accomplishment is by us. Everything depends on Him.

The Bible is not completely void of teachings. However, all the teachings rest on the person Christ Jesus. Only when He has a certain experience can there be a certain doctrine or teaching. Every single doctrine or teaching is bound to His personal experience. His incarnation is the basis of the union of God with man. His death is the basis of our dying to sin and self and the foundation of a life of holiness. His resurrection is the basis for receiving our new life. Everything we have obtained is based on what He has attained. The doctrines are absolutely based upon the person and bound to the person. This is genuine Christianity. This makes our faith different from all other religions.

MAJOR RELIGIONS DEMAND TO BE HONEST
Once when Christ Jesus was about to leave the world, He spoke of a very amazing doctrine. Of course, this doctrine is again closely related to Him. He said, "I am the way and the reality and the life" (John 14:6). Perhaps you have heard others quote this passage. He said that He is the way. He is the way to overcome sin. He is the way to overcome the temptations of the world. He is His own teaching! All the ways to victory are Him.
He also said that He is the reality. We have often heard people say that there is reality in So-and-so's words. Sometimes when someone puts forth a theory, we call it reality. In geometry, when we have proved that this equals that, we say that we found a truth. But the reality that Christ Jesus speaks of is He. He is the reality.
Moreover, He is the life. He does not merely preach a doctrine and ask you to work it out yourself; He is the very life-power to perform what He preaches. Religion tells you to be honest and not to lie. Maybe someone has come and told you, "Exercise yourself not to lie. Every time you lie just bite your tongue once." I think that if we were able to recognize every lie we told, our tongue would be in two pieces before the day was over! Since our life is a human life, there is no possibility for us to not lie or sin. The life of man is absolutely impotent in this respect. Merely to give you some nice, lofty doctrines, while leaving it up to you to work them out, is not the way of Christ.
The Bible says that He makes you able. That ability is of Christ. As long as you are in Him, He is your life. He can make you not lie, no matter what kind of a person you are!

No other founder of a religion is great enough to uphold these three items: the way, the reality, and the life. All of man's experiences are included in these three things. Whenever you do something, you always have to decide whether or not it is worth doing. This consideration is a weighing of the reality. After the decision is made, you have to find a way. And after the way, you must have the power. Whenever you set out to accomplish something, you always have to pass through these three steps: the way, the reality, and the life.
All three are inseparable. You are not given reality first, then the way, and then left to yourself to find the life. Every one of these three items is found in one person. When you have Him, every problem will be solved. This is Jesus. This is our faith. As long as there is a way to Him, everything will follow.
TEACHING USSELES WHITHOUT HIM
when we look at a few passages in the Bible, we easily discover that when the Bible mentions a doctrine, it always says that it is "in Christ." The words "in Christ" are constantly mentioned. Some passages say, "By Christ." But "by Christ" is not the best translation. It is better in those instances to translate them as "through Christ." God does not give things to us directly; they have to go "through Christ." In addition, there are phrases like "with Christ" and "together with Christ." They show the position Christ occupies in the Bible. Everything has to be through Him. Receiving Him is receiving His doctrines. Without Him it is useless to have any of His doctrines.

NO RELATIONSHIP IN THEIR CREEDS

The above cannot apply to all other religions. You can be a devotee of other religions, abiding by their every creed, without having anything to do with the founders themselves.
In arithmetic, there is a table called the multiplication table. You can find the product of any two numbers from one to nine from the table. Everything is arranged neatly. Do you know who formulated this table? I am afraid that millions who use this table never know who made it. But you can use this table without knowing the person who made it. All common religions are like this: you need not have anything to do with their founders, but you can apply their doctrines. The doctrines and those who preached them have no relationship with each other.
In Kaifeng I met a foreign missionary. He had heard my preaching. I discovered that he was related to the doctrines of Christ but not to Christ Himself. He told one of my former classmates, who is also now my co-worker, how to practice the teachings of Christ and expound the theologies in the Bible. My co-worker asked him, "Can you touch people by these? Has anybody repented, forsaken his sins, and had his life changed by your preaching? Do you have such power?" He was dumbfounded by my co-worker's words.
RELATIONSHIP
The source of our faith is Christ. If we have no relationship with Christ, we have no power. The doctrines of Christ are absolutely joined to Christ. The gem of the doctrines lies in Christ. It is useless to merely infer and discuss in an outward way.
Let us now look at the book of Romans in the New Testament. I will not give many explanations. Rather, I will merely present the facts to you. We want to see what the Bible says.
Romans 3:22, 24: "Even the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ to all those who believe, for there is no distinction; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus." These verses say that a man receives forgiveness of sins and justification before God by the redemption of Christ Jesus. They are based on a relationship with Christ. Without redemption, the sins of man cannot be forgiven.
ALL IS RECIEVED
Romans 5:1: "Therefore having been justified out of faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Verse 2: "Through whom also we have obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand and boast because of the hope of the glory of God."
Verse 10: "For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled."
Verse 11: "And not only so, but also boasting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation."
Everything that we have received, such as justification, reconciliation, standing in grace, salvation, joy in God, etc., is received through Jesus Christ. Simply by going through Him, we inherit all these.

THE GIFT
Romans 5:15: "But it is not that as the offense was, so also the gracious gift is; for if by the offense of the one the many died, much more the grace of God and the free gift in grace of the one man Jesus Christ have abounded to the many."
Verse 17: "For if by the offense of the one death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will rein in life through the One, Jesus Christ."
Because of Jesus Christ, the grace and gift of God can be bestowed upon all men. We can also reign in life due to Him. Verse 21 says, "In order that just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." The receiving of eternal life is through Him. It does not depend on the good behavior of man.
THE PERSON
Romans 6:6: "Knowing this, that our old man has been crucified with Him in order that the body of sin might be annulled, that we should no longer serve sin as slaves."
Verse 17: "But thanks are to God that though you were slaves of sin, you have obeyed from the heart the form of teaching into which you were delivered."
This is a vital doctrine in our belief: that by faith, we are crucified with Christ, and the old man is annulled. I do not crucify myself. When Christ was crucified, I was crucified with Him. By this I am set free from sin, being no longer a slave to it. In this way I can reckon myself dead to sin and alive to God in Christ. This is a big doctrine that hinges on the person Christ.
LIBERATED
Romans 7:24-25: "Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death? Thanks are to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then with the mind I I serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin."
Here is a man who was constantly defeated by his own fleshly lusts. When he was at the end of his hopes, crying for deliverance, he saw the way of salvation: liberation by the Lord Jesus Christ. The power of liberation is also in the Lord.

Romans 8:1: "There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus." There is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus. "Condemnation" does not refer to any ordinary kind of condemnation. According to some recently discovered old manuscripts of the Bible found in Egypt, this word has two meanings. The first is a legal term; the second is a common daily expression. In the legal context it means condemnation as a verdict. But in its ordinary usage it means impotent, powerless, bound, etc. For this reason I will translate this portion as, "There is now then no impotence..." There is no more weakness and inability.
Verse 2: "For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death." Here are two laws. Originally, we were all bound by the law of sin and of death. Now the law of the Spirit of life has freed us; we are no longer under the control of the law of sin and of death. The law of the Spirit of life is in Christ Jesus. Have you seen this? Once again, our relationship with Him sets us free.
Verse 10: "But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness." Since Christ is in me, I can live.
MORE THAN CONQUERORS IN HIM
Romans 8:35, 37: "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or anguish or persecution or famine or nakedness or peril or sword? But in all these things we more than conquer through Him who loved us." Although there is so much trouble outwardly, we are still more than conquerors. Strength is obtained by going through Him. Not that we are able in ourselves. It is all by Him and through Him.
In the same manner, verses 38 and 39 say, "For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels nor principalities nor things present nor things to come nor powers nor height nor depth nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." Why can nothing separate us from His love? It is not because of our virtues, but because this love is "in Christ Jesus our Lord"! Love is tied to the person Christ. When we are in Christ, we are in this inseparable love.

Posted by: rafael | December 30, 2007 4:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I went to UC Berkeley - and I expect more from my professors than this. Mr. Dawkins has written a convoluted mismash of unlogical diatribe. He does no justice to himself nor those he takes issue with. The believers of the "Cult" of Yahweh have plenty of evidence to point to their God's existence - both Jews and Christians.
If anyone is interested to see some of that evidence they simply have to go to France and see scientifically verifiable anomalies of corpses that haven't deteroriated for over hundreds of years.
There is evidence in Mexico of rather strange events as well. Huge staged events witnessed by thousands at Fatima, Portugal - atheists reporting and shuttering during the event and then claiming mass hypnosis after the fact. Blood suddenly boiling in a chalice every year with no explanation in Italy. Scientifically verified cures at Lourdes. Need I go on? I personally have seen most of the corpses by the way.

Posted by: Jack | November 29, 2007 9:32 AM
Report Offensive Comment

c746t

Posted by: ma591zda | November 17, 2007 12:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As far as I am aware god had no contempories. Who then adised us of gods exsistence?

Posted by: mr c pearce | November 13, 2007 12:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As far as I am aware god had no contempories. Who then adised us of gods exsistence?

Posted by: mr c pearce | November 13, 2007 12:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

flshc tkva zwvdru ajiyhxkl qwfnjuph mwvyftceu wpefnh

Posted by: fkxnyt muzq | November 13, 2007 10:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

flshc tkva zwvdru ajiyhxkl qwfnjuph mwvyftceu wpefnh

Posted by: fkxnyt muzq | November 13, 2007 10:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

DANY: Why are you so astonished? It isn't hard to comprehend that a being which knows everything, has existed forever, and cannot be destroyed will not agree to humanity's terms of "good" and "evil". Human beings are afraid of death and pain, and therefore we attach the stigma of "evil" to that which we fear. Maybe we're being immature. Maybe we just can't accept reality for what it is. So Epicurus' dilemma doesn't apply to that person who can accept, and even love, reality for what it is, death and pain included. Evil does not exist for him.

Besides, the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent being is worthy of consideration whether that being is malevolent or not.

To Dawkins: One major difference between Thor and the God of Abraham is that there is no conceivable means of knowing that God does not exist, whereas Thor, as Thor is described, can conceivably be known not to exist. For instance, if we simultaneously monitored all of the globe's storms and never once spotted a viking with a hammer, it would be safe to assume that Thor does not exist. Thor is not said to be invisible, and Thor is said to be responsible for thunder.

In order to maintain Thor's existence, one would have to recreate Thor time and time again as his/her wealth of information about the universe increased. Until, eventually, either Thor is discovered, or his description becomes so vague that his existence cannot possibly be disproved, at which time there will be no point in distinguishing Thor from God.

When you're talking about the God of Abraham, you're really just talking about an omniscient, omnipotent being. Which can be construed as the same thing as the simple belief that the universe is alive: It possesses all the information in the universe (it knows everything) and it possesses all of the power in the universe (it is all-powerful). In my eyes, what you really want people to believe is this: that being, intangible being, is simply something that arises when particular combinations of matter occur.

But why should this be so, and how can it be proven? There is no reason to believe it is the case, and (coincidentally I suppose?) it cannot be proven to be the case. There is no bit of evidence to suggest that one viewpoint is any more reasonable than the other. So it is very important that both points of view be given their due respect, since what you believe about reality carries a great deal of weight as to what you are permitted to know about reality.

So, mind you, when you speak out against Christians in denouncing the existence of "an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being", you also happen to be ridiculing the beliefs and the intelligence of many pantheists and panpsychists. I think it would be more advantageous, if you're really a crusader for truth and against barbarism, to attack the virtues and the precise doctrines of those religions you are opposed to, rather than the concept of God in general.

It really is a battle for a vision of the future. Atheists could win the battle and still be wrong, with dire consequences. I agree with JEF waaay up above, who proposed a middle ground.

Posted by: Andy | November 6, 2007 1:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

uywxtsvmb baurszyqj xnstbfoj ctwypmku ixaonmbg qcdoyi lnzouec [URL]http://www.dwrqkfjn.vkpsc.com[/URL] uomlh klhwo

Posted by: galsnixq qehp | November 5, 2007 8:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

qmrlzjbwk dkhnase xdjor imdwbscqu tdzian lktb wdnxa [URL=http://www.nzuoa.vrftgwb.com]mlhe zexts[/URL]

Posted by: ivozwestx kmetajos | November 5, 2007 8:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

imcpxr jaqhflti zwpd xzvp ydhu xmpz gsbjt http://www.mqpbk.djln.com

Posted by: qgfuvnoa iycrzxg | November 5, 2007 8:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

dwpcmzs cmtbj qrdwjilsn dvqwgt avbzyk yurh kpqlosi

Posted by: bukipqvo cmyepf | November 5, 2007 8:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I am astonished, that humanity still needs to clarify the point: Is there a God or not. The relevance of this discussion was in my opinion already dismissed by Epicurus ca 300 years before Christ:
"Is a God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he neither able nore willing? Then why is he called God."

Why should any society be influenced by religious beliefs? I accept the historic fact that almost all societies have been influenced by religion and a lot of our morality was based thereon. But by no means exclusively. Otherwise, these religions would not have evolved from Judaism to Christianity and more recent offsprings. Atheism is the next step in mankinds thinking, but hopefully we do not have to go through crucification, before people accept us for who we are.
Faith and Believe are emotions, not a facts. Like all emotions they can lead to good or evil behaviour. The rules of human interaction based on Faith can not have a higher authority or morality than the rule of law based on social tolerance and human rights.

Posted by: Dany | October 22, 2007 2:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dr. Dawkins,

You make one big point: religious belief sometimes causes people to do evil things, while adherence to atheism does not. Thanks for that insight, but what should your readers do with your point? Abandon their faith (if they have it)? If so, then that is hardly a good reason. There will always be some individuals in any religion who distort it.

Also, please note that you assume 1) those who do evil things in the name of religion (such as the 9/11 hijackers) sincerely believe in their religion and 2) these evil doers are not motivated by political, economic, or social factors.

By the way, what's with the Washington Post giving so much air time to atheists? There aren’t even that many of you out there.

Nevertheless, thanks for any response you may have.

Good day.

Posted by: Dan | October 2, 2007 3:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: cheap levitra | September 27, 2007 6:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy xanax | September 27, 2007 4:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy xanax | September 27, 2007 4:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy cheap xanax | September 22, 2007 2:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy cheap xanax | September 22, 2007 2:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy cheap xanax | September 22, 2007 12:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy cheap xanax | September 21, 2007 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy cheap xanax | September 21, 2007 1:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy cheap xanax | September 21, 2007 1:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy cheap xanax | September 21, 2007 11:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 9:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 7:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Anonymous | September 20, 2007 6:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: cheap viagra | September 20, 2007 4:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: cheap viagra | September 20, 2007 4:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: cheap levitra | September 19, 2007 11:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: cheap levitra | September 19, 2007 5:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: cheap levitra | September 19, 2007 5:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: cheap soma | September 19, 2007 10:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy meridia | September 18, 2007 10:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy meridia | September 18, 2007 10:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy ultram | September 18, 2007 8:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy ultram | September 18, 2007 8:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy meridia | September 17, 2007 11:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy meridia | September 17, 2007 9:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy meridia | September 17, 2007 9:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy meridia | September 17, 2007 5:14 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy meridia | September 17, 2007 5:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: buy xanax | September 17, 2007 12:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment


As an atheist I would find it difficult to join an organization of atheists. That, I think, is the major hurdle to atheist influence. I just can't imagine "organized atheism". It would require a hierarchy and "trappings" of office would it not? Perhaps even sects of atheism.

I'd entertain an "I'm an atheist and I vote" bumper sticker and seeing how it caught on.

Posted by: Vinson Nash | September 12, 2007 12:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

cnbxaemhk maileznt rvfqlhap bcazg yegxrk yemokuhpl uxqzvwr http://www.kefnm.snajqvdt.com

Posted by: wymxocsa mtjrbszg | September 4, 2007 11:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

cnbxaemhk maileznt rvfqlhap bcazg yegxrk yemokuhpl uxqzvwr http://www.kefnm.snajqvdt.com

Posted by: wymxocsa mtjrbszg | September 4, 2007 11:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

cnbxaemhk maileznt rvfqlhap bcazg yegxrk yemokuhpl uxqzvwr http://www.kefnm.snajqvdt.com

Posted by: wymxocsa mtjrbszg | September 4, 2007 11:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

cnbxaemhk maileznt rvfqlhap bcazg yegxrk yemokuhpl uxqzvwr http://www.kefnm.snajqvdt.com

Posted by: wymxocsa mtjrbszg | September 4, 2007 11:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

etjcbuilo kdnahlrmb oeatqjwiv xpwgecthl zjoiacy hcisgybm hrvjzni

Posted by: eypc fnyierj | September 4, 2007 11:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

cuizhg xnjoegzf fgal cymnbqj rmjkx xqsepc kbqoi

Posted by: utflxs shwq | August 30, 2007 3:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

viagra online online pharmacy,sexual life
viagra online
http://viagra_online_buy.socialbookmarking.org/
[url=http://viagra_online_buy.socialbookmarking.org/]viagra online[/url]

Posted by: viagra online | August 16, 2007 8:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm part of the choir that you are peaching to, Mr. Dawkins, so I enjoyed reading and agree with your article. But when you say that in the U.S. Atheist outnumber Jews, I wonder if there is some level of double-counting. Most of the Jews that I know whom I have ever discussed religion with have turned out to be Atheists.

Posted by: Bill Dubay | August 10, 2007 3:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Anonymous | August 9, 2007 12:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Frankly, I think it's people like you who don't have anything to live for. They're scared by the very thought of there not being a god because it would take away what little meaning their life has. That's why they hate people who can find meaning in life itself. Bottom line, it's YOUR life, YOUR choice. No right or wrong in a game of chance.

Posted by: Lynn | July 27, 2007 2:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous, life has no meaning without god? Time and time again I've heard theists ask the question "Why did god put us here?" Just because there is a middle man in your version doesn't mean the question is answered. Why did god put YOU here? And if you come up empty, by all means go slit your wrists.

Posted by: Lynn | July 21, 2007 4:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

So, let us suppose that Religion is man-made. Does that mean that we necessarily toss it out as somehow 'unnatural'? That seems somewhat intolerant.

Why no do with it what we do with other man-made things, namely, use it for what it is useful for. The obvious use would be to reveal to us a little of the workings of our own minds.

Religion is one part of the fun of being a human ... including the fun of poking fun at religion.

(By the way, a challenge - can you tell by this post whether or no I am 'religious'? If you can, please let me know.)

Posted by: ALEX | May 24, 2007 5:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

News Cynic :

Gerry, Fate, Acrapist, Mr. Mark, James, Joseph A., A Hermit, Falk Steinle and the rest:

THE CHALLENGE!

(Go to the main thread on "Why Atheism")

One exercise that I do for myself is to try and argue the various sides of a debate and attempt to give (what I would consider) a fair and “winning” accounting of each one. There are several benefits to doing this: you keep yourself sharp, you are better able to anticipate what must necessarily come next in a systematically consistent logical construct, you waste less time dueling with straw men, and it’s just plain courteous to try and understand where another person is coming from without putting words in their mouths or claiming that you know what they “really mean”.

So here is what I propose. I would like to see the various people in our circle of friends that frequently post here attempt to define the strengths of Christian thought on morality (pick your brand) and also the strong points of whatever Atheistic take on morality you choose to define. The contribution to this entire discussion could be huge (if done well) as we would could prove to each other that we might in fact understand the other position. Then the field would be clear to explain WHY we find a particular view lacking! Sounds fun right? So what do ya say?

Posted by: News Cynic | March 2, 2007 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sense of morality is a hard one for atheistic thought systems.

Of course Atheists are just as moral as anyone else. Most all of us have a desire within to be good and loving people. We seem to agreee that selfishness is wrong and that we need to see the big picture. But where does this sense of good and evil come from? Why do we see some acts as sinnful?

On the main "Why Atheism" thread I wrote the following post to a few good friends.

Fate Acrapist and Gerry

Here are a few points for discussion on Fate’s post:

* “the limits they (animals) apply to their actions, are not arbitrary”. When you use the words “they apply” it is too anthropomorphic for my tastes. It is possibly true in some species but nothing I see compels me to believe they are not acting instinctively. Which animal did you have in mind? I think a possible example is that of the young bull elephants in Africa that had been removed from an elephant culture and became very violent and began to kill other animals. After the park brought in mature bull elephants they put the young guys in their place and they learned to be less violent. Would you say they were immoral and just needed spanking?

* Then you wrote: “A social animal cannot survive if the morality they display is arbitrary.” Agreed but I wonder if you understood my point? I have never argued that animals are immoral or that their actions are arbitrary. They are designed to better the chances for the survival of their kind. I think you will find few people to argue that with you. The question is - if animals behave so well why don’t we? And the second question that would arise at this point is, can the totality of human morality be defined as simply what betters our chance for mere survival? (Note: I’m NOT saying that you are saying that. I’m asking WHY you’re not saying it.)

* You wrote: “Does a new mother need to be told not to eat her newborn? To kill it so she has less of a burden?” We both know that many animals (esp. the males of some species but also in rare cases the mothers) cannot be trusted around the young of their kind. I have always felt this was part of the natural order and never thought to label it as immoral. The bizarre situation arises when human parents do kill their offspring. Many cultures have practiced both infanticide and abortion. In fact when Christianity was on the rise in the Roman empire pagan philosophers (I use the term to label them as adherents to the old Greco/Roman gods) remarked that the Christians were making them look bad because they cared for the sick and the dying and the discarded babies and elderly better than the Romans did.

* You wrote: “where did all of these capabilities to make these same decisions in different individual chimps come from? The bible?” Nope : ) I will let you choose between God (if you are a Theist of some stripe), evolution (if you are some brand of Atheist) or both (if you are a Theistic Evolutionist).

* You said: “Humans have qualities that are human”. OK! Here we are getting to the center of it. Ants do as ants do. Chimps as chimps do. Penguins act the way penguins are supposed to! Now imagine if a tiger killed for sport (as they sometime do) the last animal of it’s kind. Would you consider that tiger immoral? Of course not! Because it is acting within the parameter of what tigers do! And how do we know what they do? Because they do the things that they do. Now how about a heard of water buffalo that over graze an entire plain and turn it to desert over a period of time. Are they “bad buffalo”? You wouldn’t say that and neither would anyone else. But why is it that we don’t define human “qualities” (your term) by what humans do? Why are we the only bad ones? Could it be that morality is a word best reserved for human behavior? Because we have an intuitive sense of good and evil (injustice etc.)? Humans seem to have a unique ability to “misbehave”. We can do all sorts of things that most cultures and most people would think are bad - esp. when other people do them! : ) (This gets to the heart of the whole thing doesn’t it.)

* You: “Humans do not kill their children.”
Me: “Humans should not kill their children.”

* Your wrote: “What is different with humans is we can speak and we can write. Both of these allow humans to form a code of morality that is communicated verbally or in written form to all of societies members.” I think you should have said, “this is one aspect in which animals and people differ.” But regardless of that correction a good question here would be, why do we NEED to write about and talk about morality? Why isn’t it all innate in the sense that it is with the animals. (Some of it is - no incest, parents should love and protect their kids etc.) But other aspects of our sense of morality appear to be things we need to work out and discover. It’s like we have a compass within use (I think Russell had an idea like this) but instead of being computers we need to use the sense of goodness within us and reason to arrive at morally acceptable conclusions. So. Is the best explanation for that compass within us that it is an unintentional gift of natural selection?

* You: “if God is THE source of our moral code why is it that in every country the same basic laws apply? Murder, stealing, assault, etc are all crimes. Did all the religions of the world just happen to agree on these points or is it human to have these laws?” Ok. I’ve learned about the different takes Atheism has on this. Now it’s time for you to learn something. I’m serious! : ) Because intelligent Atheists keep misunderstanding what Theists are saying here. If you can relax and hear what I’m saying it’s gonna save you the effort of dueling with straw men later.

My post to Fate a few days ago: “Not all atheists believe morality is innate in human beings, but all Christians do (or should).

As a pervious post noted: “from a Christian perspective one would expect all humanity to have both because the Bible says things like:

“So God created human beings in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.” Genesis 1:27


“He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” Eccl 3:11


“(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)” Romans 2:14-15"

If humanity had a Creator (let me beg the issue for a moment) we would expect that his/her mark would be upon us. That’s why C.S. Lewis argues that morality is the “thumb print” of God on the human soul. Food, dress, and cultural mores may vary but the basic concepts of morality are held remarkably in common.

So is morality something that arises from the certain evolutionary path we followed? Are we then "free" with our highly evolved minds to alter our sense of right and wrong to fit our times? (For example: if Nazi Germany had won the war would we have less of an emphasis on human rights today? If Japan had won the war would we have more of an emphasis on duty and obedience to authority today?)

Thoughts?

Posted by: News Cynic | March 1, 2007 1:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

jwpvmxk rojnlx thwxjnfmp uzxkig rgbi hsprj dtsrl http://www.rfpem.kwysmfin.com

Posted by: gbvmto mfrxji | February 18, 2007 6:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

wtedv abhne rpenykuxj bfeqm frznxto wfartzig dyxum

Posted by: rctnd xaqbckfoh | February 18, 2007 6:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Theists’ current disbelief in past theistic claims diminishes theism’s credibility only to the degree that scientists’ current disbelief in past scientific claims diminishes science’s credibility.

Scientists used to believe one could, at least in principle, know precisely the state of a system and therefore predict its future behavior into infinity. They know longer believe that. Is current belief in quantum mechanics ridiculous because elements of classical physics are now dismissed?

My challenge to atheists is this: Explain universal, abstract, non-material entities in a strictly material universe. I’ll pick just one: the ethical obligation to tell the truth. Is there such a thing? If so, how’s an obligation possible in a universe that’s strictly material? If no, then how is science possible?

Science entails an obligation on the part of the scientist to tell the truth. If he or she lies about the research, science hasn’t taken place. How does a universal obligation – a non-material moral law – fit into a strictly material universe?

Kyle

Posted by: Kyle Henderson | February 17, 2007 6:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Garry, you raise some very good points. However, I would disagree with you somewhat on Dawkins' approach (at least in this particular column). He was trying to get at the point that some religious people feel like asking questions about or making inquiries into faith should somehow be off limits. I agree with Dawkins (and others) that we should rightfully ask why such topics are off limits while atheism is often considered to be without morals or just plain wrong.

I too am agnostic, although I was brought up a Christian. I applaud anyone who raises possibly uncomfortable issues, even if I do not agree with all they say. And as you seem to suggest, there may have been many benefits from those religions of the Abrahamic tradition. But there have been negative effects as well.

Whichever way the net effects may point toward, the question will remain: what does that mean? If it can raise consciousness within the church, then perhaps the criticism from the atheist side will allow much-needed reforms to be implemented.

Posted by: Puzzled | January 28, 2007 5:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dawkins is an intellectual yokel, a midget if you will. I don't see what the big deal is with this short-sighted windbag. What he says is so childish and sophomoric that the opposition is so flabbergasted that he doesn't know where to begin. It's like claiming the Sun revolves around a cheesecake. What the hell am I supposed to do with a statement like that??

By beginning with a philosophically retarded statement like "Oh, well you don't believe in Thor, hmmm? Hmmm?" it shows that Dawkins is naive to what distinguishes the Abrahamic faiths from pagan counterparts (although there is something to be said of the presence of *some* validity of Thor et al. in the context of religious history). Oh, and I especially loved the ditty about using the word Jew in place of atheist. Very subtle. Very rich. The discrimination card goes a long way, doesn't it.

Linda, you are so stereotypical of the dumb feminist that it hurts. How do you lump in education and female reproductive rights into one group and religion and superstition into another? Why don't you just go ahead and say that something like "I believe in freedom, liberty and men having the right to be circumcised." Apples and oranges? I think so.

Oh, and I'm an atheist, but I treat it as a personal decision. I recognize the great merit of these faiths, their immeasurable impact on civilization, science, ethics, you name it (alas, the ignorance of you, the masses, is appalling, as it may come as a shock to you), and I also recognize that I may be quite wrong, that indeed I am missing the point, that my understanding in this area is stunted. But at least I don't parade around like an idiot spouting nonsense like this. Why don't *you* guys get an education.

Posted by: Garry von Wurtemberg | January 27, 2007 3:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Overdose deaths can be intentional or unintentional, and they can result from both licit and illicit drug abuse. Drugs commonly implicated in overdose must be in public lists! WBR LeoP

Posted by: Chemist | January 21, 2007 6:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To suggest that our species is on the verge of extinction with the global population at 6.6 billion and growing is short sighted. Human activity contributes to climate change and for this very reason the issue of over-population must be addressed. Who stands in the way of discussing population while promoting a sort of gluttony why it’s Islamists, Roman Catholics and sundry other religious fundamentalists.

Earth is a small planet and we are depleting natural resources at an alarming rate. Over 2 billion people live without clean water and or electricity. How is that equitable? I think everyone deserves a reasonable quality of life that includes the opportunity for meaningful work and decent home and family life.

I’m going to attack the USA on this problem with a direct look at Afghanistan a nation that could have been helped with just a few dollars but instead violence was the motivation of the Bush and Blair governments. Is it that their respective hordes of WMD had upcoming sell-by dates and hence had to be used up? For a few dollars a day the people of Afghanistan could have been fed, given opportunities for education and to modernize their country. The Taliban were never ousted that was a lie and that backward, mean men continue to harm the people of Afghanistan. The fundamentalist military madness of GW Bush doesn’t include helping people achieve self-sufficiency or intellectual progress. Superstition, religion is a great way to keep a ready supply of human slaves. Education, human rights, and reproductive freedom for women is the only way forward.

See also “God's Hostages” by Sam Harris, On Faith
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/01/women_are_property_1.html

Bush is most likely an A-theist too but in terms of what sells to the gullible, superstitious US public he must pose in public with a bible seeing this as simply a ‘noble lie’ as inspired by manifesto of Leo Strauss. I bet back stage he does what every other powerful exec does and that swear like a sailor and make jokes about the stupidity of the masses.

Posted by: Linda | January 20, 2007 11:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Re 90 percent of the top scientists and intellectual elite are atheists.

But the same applies to support of immigration. Yet immigration causes genetic extinction in target countries. Search on "Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic" for the math, or the above link.

So these intellectuals support the ethnic cleansing of the Archie Bunker cave men who lurk outside their university common rooms, with a thick protection of police.

If you want credibility to attack the God of Archie Bunker, you need to stop ethnically cleansing him.

Quick summary of math: Suppose US population is stable at 300 million, people live 75 years so 4 million die per year. If 2 million enter, that leaves 2 million births. So we get 2 /4 as the genetic survival ratio per generation. Go 3 generations, and you fall to 1/8. If its 25 years from birth to parent, its over in 75 years. So all these smart people are for genetic extinction, and at the same time say that people who believe in God are stupid cave men.

Posted by: Old Atlantic | January 20, 2007 10:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

quote

Of those scientists distinguished enough to be elected to the National Academy, more than 90% do not believe in any kind of supernatural God. Needless to say, many of them are likeable, friendly and far from obnoxious, as well as being intelligent, well-educated, happy and productive citizens.

An equally high proportion of atheists has recently been disclosed among the Fellows of the Royal Society, and it is plausible that distinguished Academicians in philosophy, history, economics, literature and other disciplines, coming from the same educated and intelligent echelons of society, would yield similar data.

end quote

But the same applies to support of immigration. Yet immigration causes genetic extinction in target countries. Search on "Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic" for the math, or the above link.

So these intellectuals support the ethnic cleansing of the Archie Bunker cave men who lurk outside their university common rooms, with a thick protection of police.

If you want credibility to attack the God of Archie Bunker, you need to stop ethnically cleansing him.

Quick summary of math: Suppose US population is stable at 300 million, people live 75 years so 4 million die per year. If 2 million enter, that leaves 2 million births. So we get 2 /4 as the genetic survival ratio per generation. Go 3 generations, and you fall to 1/8. If its 25 years from birth to parent, its over in 75 years. So all these smart people are for genetic extinction, and at the same time say that people who believe in God are stupid cave men.

Posted by: Old Atlantic | January 20, 2007 10:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous,

You have been fortunate. I was raised in a Christian household. I know a lot of pastors and theologians (my own dad is one). I have seen good people, I'd say the majority, who are faithful believers. However, I find it especially hypocritic that so many other believers I have seen, both first-hand and in the media (who say they want to emulate Jesus), tend to push a rigid dogmatic view on the others. It seems inevitable that the fringe (but the most vocal) elements in Christianity (and other monotheistic religions) aggressively push notions like "we have the monopoly on the THE TRUTH." That must be bcause the entire belief system is based on ONE god.

Perhpas it is unfair to single out religious organizations as they are just like any other secular organization: they have internal politics, power struggles, and a lot of people who want to hijack the organizational agenda for their own private purposes. But religion also has a speicial place in society (notably, exempt from crticism out of "respect for faith," etc.) and therefore must be held to a higher standard than, say, a company or a secular non-profit organization.

Personally, I am agnostic. On the one hand, I can understand why some people feel the need to believe, and I agree with your criticism that atheism (although not a monolithic single entity) can still become a kind of dogma as well. But atheists for the most part should do a better job guarding against it then religious people do, I would expect.

Posted by: Puzzled | January 13, 2007 2:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Puzzled, it was a good-faith question because that isn't my experience at all. And I must say that, on the evidence of these fora, there are plenty of self-identified atheists and wannabe-skeptics who are amazingly content to sleepwalk through life, asking no questions whatsoever.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 13, 2007 3:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pam says, "Why would anyone need 'empirical proof' of their own perceptions?"

Cute. You don't need proof of your perceptions, but I find that it can be quite useful to seek a rational basis for "believing" that one's perceptions comport with reality. But that's just me.

Pam says, "I don't tell myself stories to cope with the 'problem' of my existence." Of course you do. Here's one: "It isn't a problem for me. This would be a good description of a religious outlook - not mine. I don't make things up."

Here's another: "MY existence is not pointless to ME." Because I say so, and I take my word for it! Because I decree there will be no other thoughts.

Believe me, I envy you your charmed, uncomplicated and unreflective life. It's just that some people have more restless intellects.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 13, 2007 3:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous,

You have to ask? Some religions say that it (and only it) is THE TRUTH. Some are not as particular.

Posted by: Puzzled | January 13, 2007 2:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

OK, now you're sounding more like Jason Bradfield then Canyon - no matter - all cut from the same cloth.

You wrote: "Whether or not you would use the characterization, the fact is that both of these are statements of faith. They convey a strong belief, without any evidence or empirical proof, that life is a good in itself."

This is such a load of BS. Why would anyone need "empirical proof" of their own perceptions? That's redundant in the extreme. Do you even know the definition of "empirical"? I suggest that you look it up.

You wrote: "Pam goes on to say that in reaching conclusions she relies not only on facts and evidence, but also on perceptions and common sense (which of course an empiricist absolutist would reject)."

Well that's OK, since I'm not an "empiricist absolutist." And I didn't say "facts and evidence", I said "facts IN evidence." It's different, but I'm not surprised that the sublety escapes you.

And you wrote: "The point is that faith is simply the stories we tell ourselves to cope with the problem of our existence. And therefore it's impropabable that any living person actually lacks faith, even if it's one he made up yesterday."

More BS. I don't tell myself stories to cope with the "problem" of my existence. It isn't a problem for me. This would be a good description of a religious outlook - not mine. I don't make things up.

Posted by: Pam | January 13, 2007 12:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Puzzled, thanks. I wonder if you have first-hand knowledge of a branch of religion that "does not like a lot of questioning"?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 8:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes. We all make a leap of faith at some point. So we're just guessing. However, I nevertheless see a distinction between guessing with eyes shut and an informed guess ("guesstimating" for lack of a better word).

Perhaps it is a matter of degree, and indeed subjective, but it serves everyone well to be able to be honest and say "I don't know, but I am making a conjecture based on such and such" rather than "I know because god told me so."

I am not saying all religious folks are like that. A number of columnists have been quite reasonable (Bishop Spong, among others) in this regard. But religion has a tendency to push dogmatic elements and usually does not like a lot of questioning.

Posted by: Puzzled | January 12, 2007 8:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pam says, "MY existence is not pointless to ME." Obviously this by an unsubstantiated assertion, one that Pam acknowledges is subjective and not empirically verifiable. We have to take her word for it — because she says so. For that matter, she has to take her own word for it.

Puzzled echoes Pam to say that "we all go by what makes sense to ourselves."

Whether or not you would use the characterization, the fact is that both of these are statements of faith. They convey a strong belief, without any evidence or empirical proof, that life is a good in itself.

Pam goes on to say that in reaching conclusions she relies not only on facts and evidence, but also on perceptions and common sense (which of course an empiricist absolutist would reject).

The point is that faith is simply the stories we tell ourselves to cope with the problem of our existence. And therefore it's impropabable that any living person actually lacks faith, even if it's one he made up yesterday.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 8:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

WOW ... i love this "canyon" person.
Just amazing !
This response to Pam is priceless :

"As for your opinion that there are transitionary fossils, I guarantee you that there are not. You cited lucy earlier, but I thought you were kidding. Lucy is a chimpanzee and has been since her birth, death, fossilization, and discovery. Saying she is more than a chimp doesn't change the fact that she is a chimp. She may be related to you, but not related to human beings."

Please talk to me canyon person .. please ?

Posted by: michael grasso | January 12, 2007 4:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I would like to toss another point in the debate, if I may. Or rather let it all boil down to one word: Curiosity.
Actually Pam and Puzzeled said it already, it's learning, exploring, finding out.
But if you want to focus I'd say it's curiosity.

I mean, if your watching a movie and enjoying yourselfe, will you get up and leave, just because you think that the film won't have a deep meaning at the end. Or will you say, 'Hey, let's see what happens next.'

By the way, I never understood why people thought they'll find more meaning in a god.
Okay, it answers who placed us here. But why did he do it? To which purpose?
So one way or the other, sooner or later there will be an unswerable question.

In the end I'd say this:
Some of us try to find the answer in one of god's books, and some of us try to find the answer in god's work.

In god's words I found many contradictions. But nature, god's work is all around us, for everybody it's the same, and these laws don't change over the time.
Choose your pick. I go for his work.

Posted by: Falk Steinle | January 12, 2007 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous, I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I suppose you were trying to be provocative asking about suicide and all that, which is fine.

You make a good point. We do not know. I would venture to say no one knows but we all go by what makes sense to ourselves.

I think (and am still in the process of thinking) that "life is what we make it to be" may be a better answer than "god has a purpose for us." The reason, as you ask, is the plausibility of the various schools of thought. To me, I tried to think: "What is more plausible?" Is there a god as written in that book, the Christian Bible? Or, is there a god at all? And even if there is a god, is that god the one written in the Christian Bible, or something else? (Would it be too much of a cosmic irony if some extinct civilization in the past had it most accurate?)

So my sense is that "believers" make the leap of faith that god sets one's purpose in life and it is a process of discovery of god's intentions for you. Atheists discover this purpose in a different way, without god. The retort that believers may have is this: "how can you find an answer if there is no answer to begin with?"

I think that question shows a lack of imagination. We are so used to having questions asked by authority figures with a "correct answer" in mind. How many tests do you have to take to finish college, starting from 1st grade? But once we get to grad school and beyond, classes are more like seminars than lectures, and instead of exams, there are papers. "Why are we here?" is the ultimate question, and there may not be a silver bullet answer to this. I think that many atheists reject religion not only for its (to them) implausibility, but also because of the worry that religion has (and we have seen instances in history) the potential to create "false idols" due to the dogmatic elements that are inevitably intertwined with organized religion. I think also that many believers feel this in their own hearts as well, as evidenced by the waves of reformist movements throughout history. Just looking at Christianity, we had Martin Luther, John Calvin, and many others pursuing reformist agenda. A few decades ago, the Catholic church undertook a fairly radical re-thinking of their teachings as well. Maybe that is why many believers draw a sharp distinction (as they should) between faith and religion.

Look at those Eastern "religions" like Buddhism and Taoism. There is no place for god. They set up exemplars (who are people who have attained enlightenment through meditation and deep study) to follow. So, that is why I think it may well be what we make of our lives that is important. And religion can help. But I tend to think the dogma gets in the way too much.

Posted by: Puzzled | January 12, 2007 1:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous Canyon wrote:
"You say you 'don't consider my existence pointless at all.' But is that something that you 'know', or something that you simply choose to 'believe'? If the former, how do you know, and if the latter, how does that differ in any meaningful way from a leap of faith?"

Bear in mind that it's subjective. MY existence is not pointless to ME. To that extent, it's knowledge, and I know the same way I know any other subjective thing.

My existence is also not pointless to those who care about me, and that knowledge is based on evidence.

I find your second question oddly worded: "...choose to believe." A Seventh Day Adventist friend once asked me "Why would you want to believe that you descended from an ape, when you can believe that God made you special?"

I was quite flabbergasted by the question. I don't see belief as a choice - you believe what seems closest to the truth, based on facts in evidence, your own perceptions, and your common sense. I can't imagine doing it any other way.

Posted by: Pam | January 12, 2007 1:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pam,

I sincerely appreciate your reply, but I don't quite follow. You say you "don't consider my existence pointless at all." But is that something that you "know", or something that you simply choose to "believe"? If the former, how do you know, and if the latter, how does that differ in any meaningful way from a leap of faith?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 8:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

You say, "Thinking on one's own is a hallmark of maturity..." Exactly my point. Atheists aren't exempt.

You say that I "think that if there is no purpose to life, then that life is not worth living." Well, if you perceive a distinction, please help me understand it.

You then ask how one discerns a purpose. Well, of course, that's one of the "headaches" you yourself say goes along with thinking for oneself. And no, no one else can decide for you (although anyone who can read or communicate can stand on the shoulders of giants).

Nothing wrong with the "notion of this life being what we make it to be" — just help me understand how you arrived at that notion. Did you demand empirical evidence and conduct repeatable experiments? It's an honest and sincere question that I will be happy to drop if there's an honest answer. And if there is no answer, then in precisely what sense is that notion not faith?

You ask, "isn't religion just another way of making sense of the world in some way?" Couldn't have put it better myself.

For the record and by way of reply, I did not advocate suicide, did not say atheists are sinners, and did not say anyone is beyond redemption.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 5:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I would think that in order for something to have purpose, it must have sentience, i.e., a sense of self-awareness. Does the "universe" have a purpose? Or, if "universe" is just too big, then does earth have a purpose? Why can't an object just "be"? Why do we assign purpose to objects without conscience? Did Katrina happen to punish sinners? Katrina was a matural phenomenon, and a "disaster" because we have defined it to be a disaster, not because rain or wind or any other natural forces are good or evil.

Anonymous seems to think that if there is no purpose to life, then that life is not worth living. Well, how does one figure out (1) whether one has a purpose, and (2) what that purpose is? And even more fundamentally, who are you or anyone else to say whether my life or anyone else's (besides your own) is worth living or not? I thought god did that?

As a believer, if you think atheists should commit suicide, are you saying that there is no possibility of redemption for atheists? Are some sinners just past redemption? I think Jesus would say "no" to that.

Finally, the crux of the matter, at least as it seems to me: Why do we have to reject the notion of this life being what we make it to be? After all, isn't religion just another way of making sense of the world in some way? Why does purpose need to be given by someone or something?

When in grade school, and even into high school, we were always told what to do by authority figures (parents, teachers, other adults,...). In college, we had to learn to figure it out on our own (sometimes with help from others). Thinking on one's own is a hallmark of maturity, even if there are headaches to go along with it.

Posted by: Puzzled | January 12, 2007 4:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon, hiding behind the "Anonymous" label doesn't make you unrecognizable. All of these questions have been answered in this thread and others, and some answers are obvious from my post above, but one more time...

"Is what you describe faith, and if not, why?"

No. Faith is belief in that for which there is no evidence.

"Can you propose a single purely rational argument for not killing yourself now, since your existence is in fact pointless?"

I don't consider my existence pointless at all. Rather, the reverse should be true - why don't *you* kill yourself, since that's a quick trip to paradise according to your thinking? If this is the only life I believe I'll have, why would I want to end it, rather than enjoy it to the fullest?

"And if you can't but choose to go on, what do you call that?"

Living. And enjoying pretty much every damn minute of it.

"Is the unexamined life worth living?"

Who says it's "unexamined"? Whether examined or not, the answer is yes.

Posted by: Pam | January 12, 2007 1:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pam,

Is what you describe faith, and if not, why?

Can you propose a single purely rational argument for not killing yourself now, since your existence is in fact pointless?

And if you can't but choose to go on, what do you call that?

Is the unexamined life worth living?

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 7:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Barb,
I don't think you're a fool, just very human.
What you're feeling is probably a large part of how religion got started. We're the only animal on Earth that knows it's going to die some day, and that's a powerful and terrifying knowledge.

To ascribe a "point" or "purpose" to existence perforce supposes a higher power, so no, I don't think there is one. From a strictly natural viewpoint, your purpose is to pass on your genes, but that's pretty basic.

All this doesn't mean that you can't set your own goals, or try to leave a legacy.

For me, the great joy in life is simply found in making one's way through it - the things you learn (and I never get tired of learning), the people you meet, those you love, those who love you.

You can enjoy things, without them being infinite. When you eat a great meal, you can't go on eating it forever. When you listen to a great concert, read a great book, see a great theatrical production - all of these things come to an end. Possibly the savor is all the sweeter for that knowledge.

Relax and enjoy the ride, instead of worrying about what happens when it's over. You've already "experienced" non-existence - the first half of eternity before you were born. It's not painful.

Posted by: Pam | January 11, 2007 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Barb,

No, you're not a fool at all. In fact, you're much more logical than most self-identified atheists.

When pressed, they acknowledge they cannot produce a single purely rational argument against their own immediate suicide. BUT they always come up with some kind of tap-dancing to justify their hanging around: Life is what you make of it, they say, or some variant thereof. (If that is not a statement of blind faith, what is it?) But WHY? Don't ask, they tell you. We don't need to ask or know. All we know is that we don't need God. Atheism is our reason for being. We choose not to commit suicide but we have no idea why. But it's not faith — because we say so!

How rational is it to suppose that one's own puny existence has purpose and value but the universe as a whole does not?

And then of course, what about children? How can it be moral to bring a child into an existence and a universe that you know to be pointless? Everyone knows in her or his heart that bringing a child into the world is in fact the greatest act of faith there is.

But for God's sake don't call it that, because we're atheists, and we have very fragile egos.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 7:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

All of these posts are extremely interesting to me and, like many of you, I no longer can follow a "religion". I certainly appreciate the wonders and beauty of this world and value each and every day, but......I still can't get over a sense of pointlessness. Is "being" the point? We live and then we die. What for? The whole thing seems kind of cruel. Seems to me we'd be better off not knowing that when we die, that's it. The truth is, of course, that no one really knows what happens when we die. I don't believe in a God that comes down and stirs our coffee, etc. but if there was at least another "dimension" of awareness.....or something....I really would feel better. So what do you think? Am I just a weak fool?

Posted by: Barb | January 11, 2007 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"All of the world religions should be taught with subjectivity for the betterment of our human understanding; not completely removed for the loss of a great portion of our national identity and culture."

Canyon, I agree with you about the importance of religions in the world's cultures. I would amend that to say "taught with objectivity." Meaning that when teaching about comparative religions, no doctrine should be favored over the others, and no attempt should be made to proselytize for any particular doctrine.

"As for Hell, it was not my intent or objective to judge you for who you are. It is my agenda and objective to inform you, if God exists, He has promised to judge you."

While your intentions may be good, you are still using your worldview to define me as a person. The message I get is that I'm worthy of love and approval only if I do what you want or meet your expectations. I get that message from all dogmas to a certain degree, and I get that message strongest from the dogma of eternal damnation. For me, that dogma is the emotional equivalent of being told repeatedly while growing up that I'll never be worth anything.

I'm not trying to prove that any religious dogma is right or wrong. I'm just trying to protect my right to evaluate those dogmas for myself. To me, eternal damnation sounds exactly like a dogma someone would create to emotionally manipulate people into obedience. And I have a horror of being controlled and manipulated by anyone, in religion or out of religion. When someone who believes such a doctrine claims to care about my happiness or welfare, that sounds to me like a cruel joke.

Posted by: Tonio | January 11, 2007 11:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The propensity of have more or less children may have religious influences (i.e., attitudes or rules regarding contraception). It may also be an indicator of the level of education. A married woman who has an advanced degree, and therefore likely has a professional career, might not be able to have many children. Which would lead to a hypothesis that atheists are better educated than their counterparts, on average. I would conjecture that this relationship will be even stronger if you measured religiosity not as self-reported 7-point scale but the number of times someone went to church or to temple (actions speak louder than words).

It seems like there has to be studies on this kind of topic somewhere? Sociology?

Posted by: Puzzled | January 10, 2007 1:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

James: ---Atheism is natures/life-forces way of preventing over population.---

Well now you have a hypothesis. Run with it and dig up the evidence to support it until it becomes a theory :^)

Posted by: Sully | January 10, 2007 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sully,

Why do religious people have more children? Why do atheist tend not to reproduce as much? Here is a suggestion. Atheism is natures/life-forces way of preventing over population.

James

Posted by: James | January 10, 2007 12:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Ann O:
---So, Sully, when you say, "I think the real challenge is to respect truth, tolerate differences and demand justice" I have to second what you say loudly, adding only that we have to be very careful when we make universal statements about all the people within a certain religion or about all the non-believers. It is so very easy to be wrong.---

Amen!

Posted by: Anonymous | January 10, 2007 12:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

James,
By your logic we should all be worshiping Jupiter since the Romans spread themselves over Europe. But what happened? Did the small number of christians in ancient Rome out reproduce the believers of Jupiter as well as the pagans in the other parts of Europe?

You also assume religion is somehow genetic. I was raised by devote catholics but am not a catholic. Maybe a genetic defect? And where did all those buddists in America come from?

And just a little clarification - "survival of the fittest" is not really how evolution works. It should be more appropriately termed the "death of the unfit" because it is the weeding out of unfit genes through death before procreation that drives evolution, not the maintenance of the fit genes alone.

Posted by: Sully | January 10, 2007 12:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

SULLY tells us: I think the real challenge is to respect truth, tolerate differences and demand justice. These things are not taught in the christian religion I am familiar with. Evolution, a truth, is quashed by some faiths because it does not agree with the bible. Tolerence of other religions is usually a neutral subject though I know some baptists who want to know a kid's religion before they decide whether their kids can play with them or not

ANN replies:
Good morning, Sully. ISTM that one of the big problems in discussing a religion (as with discussing any sort of human institution) is that we tend to personify them and treat them as if they were persons with one mind and one will. But human institutions are historical complexes with many elements (people) whose minds and wills are often in conflict about what they supposedly hold in common. As a Roman Catholic I'm particularly sensitive to talk about "the Church", as if "the Church" is only one person (often thought by many to be whichever pope is in office), and sometimes statements about "the Church" condemn the many for the sins of the few (e.g., the American bishops who did the cover-ups).

Perhaps the greatest change to come out of Vatican II was the clear understanding of "the Church" as a complex of *all* the people in it, not just the hierarchy or the pope. But even many of us Roman Catholics continue to talk of "the Church" in the old way, and very often these people speak of "the Church", "the Pope", and "the Faith" as if they were one identical object. So for them to "believe in" the Church is to believe in the Pope, a heretical notion.

You comment on tolerance of other religions and acceptance of evolution by "the churches". The offical teachers of the Roman Catholic Church (the bishops, especially the popes) now accept evolution as compatible with the faith, and they participate and encourages ecumentical dialogue (or they're supposed to). But it is also true that there are some -- lay people and possibly some bishops for all I know -- who are not disposed to respect other religious beliefs or at least those who hold them, and there might even be some who reject evolution on religious grounds. However, the official teaching of the Church is that ecumenism is good and evolutions is acceptable.

I might add that evolution has not been an issue in the RC Church in a couple of generations, and neither has the literal interpretation of the Bible been an issue. So when I hear unqualified generalizations on this blog about "the" Christian belief in literal interpretation of the Bible and
"the" Christian rejection of evolution it makes me cringe. Even to talk about "the" fundamentalist Christian theory of interpretation of the Bible and "the" fundamentalist rejection of other faiths is, from what I've been reading lately, not at all accurate.

True, our interpretations of statments are largely determined by their contexts, and we do understand that many statements are not intended as universal statements but only as general ones (e.g., Americans love to watch the Academy Awards). But still, I find that often on these threads statements are made about who believes what which seem to be universal statements, not general ones.

So, Sully, when you say, "I think the real challenge is to respect truth, tolerate differences and demand justice" I have to second what you say loudly, adding only that we have to be very careful when we make universal statements about all the people within a certain religion or about all the non-believers. It is so very easy to be wrong.

Ann O.

Posted by: Ann O. | January 10, 2007 12:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

---if a person is an out of the box thinker and respectful of others- the introduction of religion wont make them a dogmatic close minded fool---

If the person lets the belief outweigh reality it will cause the mind to close a bit. To be an out of the box thinker means one would have to consider God not existing. If that is not possible, then the mind is closed to it.

Also, many people close their minds to evolution because it conflicts with the biblical belief. Others reject evolution because it conflicts with their sense of self, a sense that they did not have ape ancesors. This is not religion but it shows how belief, religious or otherwise, can close the mind.

Posted by: Sully | January 10, 2007 12:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

In an ironic way, atheism will die out based on survival of the fittest. First and foremost, atheist/humanist/secularist tend not to reproduce. Secularization has been on the decline in Europe for a few years now. Eric Kaufman, a senior lecturer in politics at Birkbeck, recently wrote in Prospect (http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7913), that “next to age and marital status, a woman's religiosity was the strongest predictor of her number of offspring.” Kaufman found in religious a 15-20 percent fertility lead over the non-religious. According to another study done by Brian C. O'Neill, a researcher at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, “"If the current fertility rate of around 1.5 births per woman persists until 2020, negative momentum will result in 88 million fewer people in 2100, if one assumes constant mortality and no net migration," the researchers say. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546441.shtml). Interesting, Muslims birth rate are not declining. In Europe, Muslims are 3 times as likely to have children. Expect Europe to become more religious in the future, with a more Islamic world view. In the future, “Eurabia” may replace the EU. The same thing in secular Europe will also happen here. A recent study showed how people in the Northeast, Calif, Washington, and Oregon are more likely to have a pet than a baby whereas people in more conservative place are much more likely to have a child rather than a pet. Kaufman quotes Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University who recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a 'fertility gap' of 41 per cent. Given that about 80 percent of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections." Secondly, unlike Europe, which has Islam to contend with, Americans have Hispanics migrating to the US who are deeply devoted Catholics. This wills only strength Christianity in the politics and social arena.

James

Posted by: James | January 10, 2007 12:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

there are many ISMs that people do weird and crazy things in the name of- theres too many to name-

if religion were removed from the mix- dogmatic people would find new ISMs to justify their dogmatism

if a person is an out of the box thinker and respectful of others- the introduction of religion wont make them a dogmatic close minded fool

i have been blessed to have much different experiences with christians- but ive found them in the service sector-
also athesits dad was one and mom was agnostic

i actually have consciously chosen my faith
its not christianity but i respect them until they prove that respect false

just like anyone
i just dont find people all that easily judged and categorized

you find what you are looking for
tolerance and respect for other beliefs is actually a tenet of my religion

Posted by: victoria | January 10, 2007 11:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Puzzled wrote:
---Can we hold on to "morality" with religion? If anything, unquestioning religiosity may be even more harmful than a society full of doubters?---

Thats a good question. I'd love to see any studies that show how religion lead to the peace and love that religions profess to strive for. My personal analysis is that questions of war and peace, hate and love, bad and good, rarely are resolved through religion. The middle east is one example, with faithful people killing one another. But here in the good ol' USA we have christians demanding the death penalty, christians forming hate groups like the KKK and bishops protecting pedophile priests and allowing them to continue their sick trade. In Poland we just learned about a bishop who was an informer under the former communist government. The real question is what would our society be like if organized religion did not exist. I really don't think we'd see much of a difference. We'd still celebrate the secular holidays of christmas and easter with Santa and bunnies everywhere except in the bible.

---Yes, maybe we need to believe in hope (or optimism, but does this hope have to be based on religion?---

I don't think hope is ever really based on religion. Religion is the last refuge of a scounderal, no the first refuge. When we're sick we exhaust all medical treatment before we call in the priest for last rights. Hope does not nor ever has required religion. Hope is usually based on reality. And I think it is something innate in humans. You only need to watch people risk their lives save other people to know that man has it in him. Consider the guy in NY City who recently jumped in front of a moving subway train to save a man who fell onto the tracks. Here in Washington DC I can still remember the guy who jumped into icy waters to save a woman after the Air Florida crash here or a guy who pulled a man engulfed in flames after a car wreck a year ago. There is reason for hope because these feats of altruism and bravery are not rare and all types of people perform them, religious and nonreligious.

I think the real challenge is to respect truth, tolerate differences and demand justice. These things are not taught in the christian religion I am familiar with. Evolution, a truth, is quashed by some faiths because it does not agree with the bible. Tolerence of other religions is usually a neutral subject though I know some baptists who want to know a kid's religion before they decide whether their kids can play with them or not. And if justice had been a priority blacks would not have been subjected to Jim Crow laws, which existed in states with very christian populations. Even today christians deny rights to people of other faiths and races. Justice is not a priority for them nor something they profess to hold dear. Maybe religions don't need to stop believing in God, they just need to start believing in mankind, and understand that morality is a real part of human nature, not something religion invented and so we need religion to maintain.

Posted by: Sully | January 10, 2007 8:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I agree. Perhaps not new religion per se, but possibly political ideologies? This is not necessarily behind us in the past like fascism or nazism. We can certainly have ideologues driving public policy today. However, is religion the answer? Can we hold on to "morality" with religion? If anything, unquestioning religiosity may be even more harmful than a society full of doubters?

Yes, maybe we need to believe in hope (or optimism, but does this hope have to be based on religion?

Posted by: Puzzled | January 10, 2007 2:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

SULLY tells us:

Dawkins should be careful what he is hoping for. A totally atheist society might be free of a belief in God, but will not be free of belief and the new religions that begin to pop up might not be based on a loving God.

ANN comments: Indeed. The old practical frying pan principle: unintended consequences can be worse than what we flee.

Ann O.

Posted by: Ann O. | January 10, 2007 1:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

---It is hard for me to accept the notion that it does not matter what people believe. Huge numbers of fundamentalist Christians believe utter nonsense about the earth being 6000 years old and reject the occurrence of evolution outright.---

Yes but there are also people who believe in non-religious nonsense, like UFOs and ESP (maybe that's out of vogue these days), and then there are the beliefs in racial purity that we think we have put behind us only to have it pop up when and where you least expect it. Belief is a multifaceted thing. Religion is only one facet of belief. And even within a religion, the people who follow the religion do not hold identical beliefs. I know of only one catholic out of many that does not use birth control. I know some evangelicals who do not believe the bible is literal. And we know that muslims are equally diverse. People join a religion based on the religion they grew up with or where their friends are. Very few people shop for a religion. Most people tend to cherry pick aspects of their religions. Only the fundamentalists seem to aspire to some level of total religion, taking the good with the bad, but even they twist it to their own purposes.

I guess my point is that whether you have dogmatic religious belief or not you will always have belief. I have known people, some religious and some not, who believed that aliens were visiting earth. These people never saw firsthand anything to convince them of it, they just believed it based on what they heard on TV and in books. This belief reached a fevored pitch in the 1960s and the government was forced to react. Today belief is in the form of such things as climate change. Few people understand the science so they listen to both sides and end up with a belief as to what is really going on though they really have no idea what the science is. I don't want to get into a discussion of climate change, just using it as an example. Some people believe in supersticious beliefs, black cats, spilling salt, etc. So, in the end, there is always belief and it can be organized and manipulated.

I would argue that all of the major religions have been stabalizing factors, focusing belief on the good in mankind while guarding against what mankind has proven in the past he is capable of such as the blood letting religions of Central America's past. I "believe" that if all major religions were to vanish tomorrow, new religions would quickly pop up and people would quickly flock to them. Its in man's nature I think. Dawkins should be careful what he is hoping for. A totally atheist society might be free of a belief in God, but will not be free of belief and the new religions that begin to pop up might not be based on a loving God.

As for those evangelicals in Kansas trying to get evolution out of the schools or "intelligent design" into the schools, it is worth noting that although the majority of Americans and vast majority in Kansas say they believe in a supernatural being, intelligent design is not being taught. Those pushing intelligent design were a minority. The majority understood that their own beliefs are not necessarily beliefs others *should* accept. That's tolerence and its good to see that the majority of Americans "believe" in a tolerent society. Now if we could only "believe" in national health care we'd be at that higher plane of existence you Canadians are living in :^)

Posted by: Sully | January 9, 2007 11:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Nice lively rejoinder Sully:

On a minor point, if you cut loose from IE and the monopolistic Microsoft empire and use a better browser such as Firefox (available for free) you get spell checking thrown in (up and running as I write this).

Now on to the more meaty issues. Perhaps you could agree with me that atheists tend to be non-dogmatic -- not just about religion but about other things as well. And whether it be religious wars -- ongoing right now as we communicate in Iraq (Shiites vs Sunnis)Sri Lanka and elsewhere -- or other dogmatic aberrations such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and so on it is undoubtedly the case that a dogmatic attitude to life does an enormous amount of harm.

So, reducing dogmatic lock-ins must surely be a good thing. It is hard for me to accept the notion that it does not matter what people believe. Huge numbers of fundamentalist Christians believe utter nonsense about the earth being 6000 years old and reject the occurrence of evolution outright. They are so far from facing the truth that there are millions of them talking seriously about the return of Jesus in what they refer to as the "rapture". This in turn means that they have little interest in being concerned about the horrible way in which we humans are despoiling our planet.

I agree that in the USA and even more so in Canada, where I live, I am in no way penalized by being an an agnostic (ditto if I was an atheist). That does not mean I don't agree with Dawkins that the world would be a better place without dogmatic religion.

And, whilst it is true that I like you don't usually enquire too deeply about the religious views of the candidates I vote for it certainly is the case that those in the party I usually vote for (namely the Greens) are far more likely to be agnostic or atheist.

Sure, life in Iran or Afghanistan under a mindless dogmatic religion is truly horrible -- especially for women. But is this not strong evidence that we would indeed be much better off without religion.

Thanks for the courteous interaction.

Posted by: Ted Swart | January 9, 2007 7:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To Ted Swart,

This lousy editor has no spell checker, so forgive my spelling (yes, athiests ask for forgivness too :^)

---Would you not agree that rejection of the existence of the God [...] creates a substantial difference between atheists and theists?---

Only in whether God exists. Morality tends to be very close in both groups. Both groups have issues with on both sides of even controversial subjects like abortion. So maybe you see a substantial difference because you are focusing only on the belief. I see little difference in people until we focus on the belief, just as hindus probably see little difference until the topic gets to belief (or food :).

---Only 1.1 percent of those in congress (I am taking USA) have been brave enough to openly declare that they have no formal religious affiliation.---

Of course they couldn't be lying could they. This has little to do with anything except getting elected. Maybe its just me being an atheist but I never knew the religion of who I voted for. I was more concerned with their positions on things I cared about. But even if atheists were marginalized as you say they are, what are they not getting from the politicians? Atheist schools support? That is a non-sequitor. Just what political support do atheists need as a group or individually?

---...there is a huge disparity between the presence and influence of Jews in the political world and that of atheists/agnostics.---

I guess if atheists declared Antartica an atheist nation and atheists flocked to it and wanted support from the US there might be more political organization and influence. The lack of it shows that atheists are not searching for it because they do not need it. The American constitution protects atheists in the same way it protects religion. Since I do not believe in God I do not need to have anyone protect my ability to not believe in the USA. Now if we lived in say Iran, then maybe there would be a need for atheists to become a political force.

---Sure freedom of religion needs to be upheld but so does freedom to be non-religious. And all Dawkins is really saying is that the latter aspect of freedom has been (and is being) receiving short shrift.---

Freedom of religion and to be non-religious are the same thing and both are protected by the constitution, which I agree has been bent by the administration and not just in the religious freedom area. But how is freedom to be non-religious being short shrifted? Are you being forced to go to church? Are you being forced to claim God as your savior in order to get a job? If you want to know what a lack of religious freedom is go live in Iran for a year, or Italy, its almost as bad.

Posted by: Sully | January 9, 2007 1:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To Sully:

(Why do so many of the participants to this study persist in spelling atheism incorrectly as athiesm?)

Would you not agree that rejection of the existence of the God (of monotheistic religion) ar the gods(of polytheistic religions) creates a substantial difference between atheists and theists? Sure atheists disagree among themselves -- as they should -- but right here and now they tend to be vilified and not accorded a fair hearing.

Only 1.1 percent of those in congress (I am taking USA) have been brave enough to openly declare that they have no formal religious affiliation. For the population as a whole it is 14.1%. So, despite what to you say, atheists and agnostics are very much marginalized in USA politics. There are in fact more atheists/agnostics in America than Jews. Yet there is a huge disparity between the presence and influence of Jews in the political world and that of atheists/agnostics.

Sure freedom of religion needs to be upheld but so does freedom to be non-religious. And all Dawkins is really saying is that the latter aspect of freedom has been (and is being) receiving short shrift.

Posted by: Ted Swart | January 9, 2007 12:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dawkins wrote:
---It is time for America's atheists to take courage from this, and from the books I have mentioned, come out of the closet, stand up, recognize each other, and work together to exert their rightfully proportionate influence on this great democracy.---

Mr. Dawkins,
As an athiest I cringed when I read this statement. Athiesm is not a belief. I doubt you'd be able to get 5 athiests together who agree on much, except that there is no God. What is an athiest lobby going to lobby for? By making this statement maybe you, like some in the religious community, think athiesm is a belief system, a belief in no God. It is not.

I suppose you are arguing for athiests to get politically involved to counter the religious involvement in politics these days. Who says they are not? And many religious people understand the value of separating church and state so countering the evangelical movement that wants to inject religion into government is not just an athiest's concern. I think it is a concern of a majority of Americans, religious and not. Your passion for defending athiesm needs to be tempered with the understanding that athiesm is not something that needs to be defended. The constitution needs to be defended, freedom of religion needs to be defended. When evangelicals inject christianity into government it threatens not only athiests but people of non-christian religions as well as the constitution. But defending athiests as a group and calling for them to organize a common defense around athiesm seems silly to me.

Posted by: Sully | January 9, 2007 8:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Stevens-Arroyo's quoted remark that
"I never met an atheist I could like. Surely, somewhere on this planet, there is a friendly atheist, but I haven’t bumped into one yet. The atheists who have crossed my path are obnoxious . . ."
seems to be belied by the participants in this thread.

The unfriendly, obnoxious contributions all seem to come from the believers rather that the non-believers. If I was a believer I think I would cringe in the face of the sheer boorishness of some of the comments. What is such utter negativity supposed to achieve?

Posted by: Ted Swart | January 8, 2007 5:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Another eloquent article from Richard Dawkins. When you substitute thor for the Judeo-Christian god and change the word atheist to jew when someone is insulting an atheist it paints a whole new picture. This of course should not be the case. Saying you have never met an atheist you have liked should be the same as saying you have never met a jew you have liked. It is a form or prejudice and just like racism is should cause a bad taste to appear in all those who value freedom.

Posted by: Steven | January 8, 2007 4:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Grumpy,
I tend to agree with what I think you're saying. I would put it as follows: Neither believers nor athiests "can prove" if a God exists positively or negatively so we only have believers and non-believers with belief not in any way being a proof but instead a feeling only each of us can hold individually and we should accept the belief in others.

Now, about evolution. Evolution is a fact, not a belief, just as gravity, nuclear fusion and star formation are facts. The facts for evolution are everywhere including inside your genes and those facts come from disparate sources, from the genome to fossils. Like mountains, there is the fact that they exist and the theory for how they formed. The "theory" of evolution is a theory for how evolution works, just as we have theories for gravity, nuclear fusion, mountain building and star formation. They are not perfect and new scientific observation tweaks them now and then, but evolutionary theory is a lot more solid than gravitational theory, nuclear theory or the theory of star formation and on par with mountain formation. No one really knows how gravity works, what the gravitational force really is, yet no one doubts that it exists. The theory of evolution is much more established and has been used to make predictions correctly including the prediction that genomes of species detemined to be closely related would be themselves close.

One recent discovery was the difference in people worldwide with respect to being able to digest dairy products. Dairy farming arose independently in east Africa and in northern europe where people have the ability to digest milk and a history of dairy farming. People elsewhere (e.g., China) do not have that ability. The gene for giving people the ability to digest milk has recently been found and it was assumed it would be identical in the africans and europenas but it was different and has lead to a little more tweaking of the theory of human evolution where the ability to digest dairy products arose independently in two separate populations. You can read more about it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html?ex=1323406800&en=6576a01a1bb4ce31&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Evolutionary theory is what is driving most biological science today. Its the basis for why you can plant a human gene for insulin in a bacteria and get it to make human insulin. But what really aggrevates me is that other scientific theories and disiplines are not attacked by some "believers" even though they have less observational support. So why is evolution so vehemently attacked? Why is the science of evolution attacked while the cosmological big bang accepted? Why is evolution attacked while rovers on Mars are showing signs of past water is not? That observation is as good as observations of evolution except evolution has a lot more observation and evidence. And to top it all off, some arguments against evolution use inaccurate information. When a believer lies to protect the belief, something is very wrong somewhere. Hopefully it is just ignorance, but the inaccirate information came from somewhere. Maybe believers in God trusting in other believers in God is a problem for us all.

Posted by: Sully | January 8, 2007 4:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Q, hi Grumpy

Giving sound advise after a desaster is like giving medcine to a dead. I`d wish you`d made your comments earlier.
I have benifitet greatly from both of them. They likewise irritated me greatly as well.

The central issue of this discussion is intelectual honesty and integrity, not evolution.
The spat over evolution ensured over the hopeful alebeit futile (and after some thought I agree sily) atempt to get the other side to reconsider if their way of reasoning and proof sorting is actualy pertaining to commen sense, or other stated: Conducted with intelectual honesty.

The choosen method of debate was clearly inadequat. More so as the mutual frustration lead to ad hominen attacks.
In that regard my appologie to Mr Shearer for the "poor sod" comment.

Why my insistens on intelectual integrity? There is ample reason to argue that to arbtrary believe what one likes to percive as true and ignoring anything which is contary is dangerous.
Not on evolution, yet it gets you - and society - in quiet a lot of trouble if you apply this line of reasoning to other areas of live.
Mr. Hovind was fine as long as he was battling evolution. Then he started to ignore the IRS with very much the same reasoning. You`ll notice that he meanwhile is in jail.

Evolution is indeed biology.
(Thanks AndySocial for this refreshing reminder.)
It is not an argument against any god. In fact, no one claims it is or tries to reason that way. (Note that in the above thread no one reasons along the line: Evolution therfor no god.)
Evolution has no issue with religion.
Unfortunatly, some religions have an issue with evolution. As to why I can only guess. Some evangelicals like the watch maker argument for conversion. With evolution as contestant it doesn`t work that well anymore. Maybe that`s why.
Atheism doesn´t relay on evolution nor does evolution relay on atheism. In fact atheism as such has no cogent implications at all.
It is one of many answers to the old question of: "Is there a god?"
Atheism means no and has the same quality of information as a no to the question: "Is there butter in the fridge?" That`s it.

I do not claim to poses the truth. Nor do I claim to be in any way supirior. Likewise I do not think to be inferior to anyone else.
As a person I have interests, as have my fellow citicens. They might and in fact offen differ.
Therefor I need a sensible way to compromise, the only mechanism I know is debate. Debate is futile if it dismisses arguments on gut feeling.
I have no quarrel with religion. I want to find a mechanism to solve disagreements with other people.
The question on the other hand is: Have religions a quarrel with me?

Churches in Europe are getting indeed emptier. Some Churches of the COE are no longer needed and have gone defunct. Meanwhile the buildings have been rededicated to other purposes. Likewise the protestant church of Germany is going to sell some of their real estate because membership declines.

Posted by: Falk Steinle | January 8, 2007 12:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Grumpy Grampa -

Although there are pitfalls in trusting experts without question, there is a certain value there as well. As modern humans, we specialize. None of us, I would wager, is capable of sustaining himself for long in the manner to which we've become accustomed, if not for the assistance of other humans. We can't all be car builders and house builders and hunters and butchers and computer engineers, etc.

So, it seems reasonable to believe a working biologist or evolutionary biologist or the thousands of working biologists who have been studying species for decades, when the vast majority of them say, "evolution is how species differentiate over time." Notice there is no definition of the origin of life, which seems to be a point that so many religious people misunderstand. Evolution does not discuss in any way abiogenesis. I realize that was nothing you discussed either, GG. I'm wandering afield now...

Anyway, for those of us who are not religious, theology is perhaps an interesting study, but it reminds me too much of phrenology. Sure, it's interesting to study nonsense, but at the core is still nonsense. The folks who say Dawkins is daft because he doesn't engage with theological arguments miss the point entirely. Why spend time dissecting individual points within a study of invisible pink unicorns?

Sadly, with the departure of the various Canyon Shearers, it seems this thread is moribund. Cheers.

Posted by: AndySocial | January 8, 2007 7:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi All,
Again, there is nothing wrong with religion. In the absence of human beings, all religions would be perfect. On the other hand, I am impressed by the fact that those who apparently have never done any science know so much about it.
I would like to suggest that Prof. Dawkins has likely left this conversation long ago.
For those who would like to believe that Darwin's work is a refutation of God/god, I want to hear how it is so. For almost 70 years, I have waited to hear how he did that.
Someone mentioned that most European churches are empty. Is that on Sunday or every day? Just thought I'd ask.
My unsolicited advice to all is that it is just a useless for an evolutionist who is not a scientist to preach its truth as it is for a feckless priest of any faith to preach that God is alive in all of us. The guiding principle should be to listen to those who know, and learn. If a scientist teaches that all parts of the creation story are wrong, then s/he is preaching about something of which s/he is very likely ignorant. Even in science, there are those who come to believe that those who do not know as much science as they are ignorant. That is factually not true.

It is simply not necessary for a cabinet maker to believe that the theory of evolution is true in order to be a better cabinet maker. Equally unnecessary is the need for a scientist to be a cabinet worker to be a better scientist. Either can decide what s/he finds attractive in the other's work, but their respective evoked opinions are of no consequence if they are both competent in their work.

I was once offered the opportunity to learn the correct story of creation by a bus driver who had discovered my background in science. After I listened attentively to his rendition, he concluded by asking me if I was now converted to the truth. I replied that I had always been converted to the truth, and that was why I was attending his church that morning. He was very friendly to me after that whenever he saw me.

If you want to know why religious humans kill one another, read this thread again, you will not be disappointed in the evidence that is placed right before your eyes.

My regards to you all and wishes for a most happy and safe New Year.

"Be excellent to each other!"

I will try, if you will.

Posted by: Grumpy Grampa | January 8, 2007 12:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

MR DAWKINS I SAW YOUR SHOW ON C-SPAN AND IT WAS A GREAT GIFT AND EYE-OPENER, THANK-YOU.
MOI LIKE TOI AM SICK OF ALL THAT GOD/JESUS BULL WE KNOW THAT SHE JUST DOESNT EXIST, ITS A SCAM RUN BY HOMOPHOBIC MONEYGRABBING PREACHERS.
OK PEOPLE OF AMERICA TAKE A LOOK AT EUROPE WHERE MOST CHURCHES ARE EMPTY EVEN IN ITALY AND SPAIN AND EUROPE HAS NEVER BEEN MORE PROSPEROUS, GO FIGURE. LOOK AROUND THIS WORLD LIKE AT IRAQ AND THE MIDDLE EAST AND YOU WILL FIND THAT RELIGION IS THE PTOBLEM AND not THE ANSWER.!!

Posted by: Willem kraal | January 7, 2007 11:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I recently read a working biologist's blog, wherein he says that there is no such thing as "Darwinism" or "evolutionism" - it's called "biology" and it's the accepted method of doing anything real within the biological sciences of today. To say one does not believe in evolutionism is like saying one does not believe in gravity or germ theory - it shows you have no grasp of how much work and supporting research goes into these theories. The argument for evolution that a layperson could understand is laid out in every high school science book (offer void in Kansas and Dover).

Posted by: AndySocial | January 7, 2007 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

i read this whole thing and all i have to say is wow. you guys really need to grow up, the name calling made both sides look like babies. canyon said “he that hates his brother is a murderer”, well canyon i think you need to look at that one.

i wasn’t a christian or an atheist when i read this, maybe you could call me a pagan or a pantheist or a deist, but i never really thought about it, maybe canyon would call me an areligionist. but i agree with canyon, i dont see any reason to believe in evolution anymore, i'm not an “evolutionist” anymore like canyon said. i’m not a “creationist” either, but since there was no argument for evolution that a layperson could understand, i am no longer going to believe in it.

you guys need to grow up.

Q

Posted by: Susan Q. | January 7, 2007 5:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

ROX:

Yeah, the point is well taken indeed.
I kind of feel sorry for canyon. Poor sod.

Have already seen Ray's vid :)
Poking holes in creationism is unfortunatly not the point. As long as the fundies are in the name of god ready to forsake any intelectual integrity they'll continue unabashed.

Posted by: Falk Steinle | January 7, 2007 4:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I agree... it's bad form. Not that you don't have a point about parodies and actual posts being nearly indistinguishable.

BTW - it's "The Way of the Master" and the banana stuff is pure freakin' comedy! It's a big "oops" on the part of Ray Comfort to have failed to research the origins of "God's" perfect creation when in fact it's clear proof of forced genetic mutation based upon evolutionary science. That sort of sloppiness just makes it easier to poke holes in the so-called "evidence" offered by creationist Christians for their beliefs.

Posted by: Rox | January 7, 2007 2:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bah:

Dang, I have been falling for your post.
This however should have warned me:
'between 40 days and 11 months. The bible is inerrant about this.'
Even Canyon wouldn't have written that.

Anyway, he's right: Stop stealing somebody's identity. It's not funny.

Posted by: Falk Steinle | January 7, 2007 2:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

You can always tell a real Canyon Shearer post, because the grammar will be incomprehensible. It's telling that the real Canyon Shearer is so much a caricature of the religious apologists that parodies of his posts are nearly indistinguishable from real posts.

For more hilarity, be sure to check out that "Voice of the Master" page he references so frequently. Apparently the banana was designed to fit into our hands. Too bad the banana we eat in the USA (Cavendish) is so thoroughly bred by humans that it can't even reproduce naturally. So, it was designed, but not by any invisible friend.

Bye, Canyon. Have fun with your motorcycle and your killing. Try not to think too much about that commandment.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer BAH | January 7, 2007 1:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This is the last post from the real Canyon Shearer to this post. The majority of the previous multitudes of posts have not been mine.

But rather someone who love evolution so much as to attack its oppressors than defend it in any way shape or form with itself.

Charles Spurgeon once said, "When a Tiger is under attack, seek not to defend the Tiger, rather loose it from its bonds."

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 7, 2007 12:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon: "Brachiopods don't exist"

Dang! You'd better call the State of Kentucky and tell them their official state fossil is a myth.

http://www.uky.edu/KGS/education/didfossil.htm

Is Google a sin, too? 'Cause searching on "brachiopod" before making such an easily refuted claim and making a fool of yourself would've been the smart thing to do.

Posted by: Rox | January 7, 2007 12:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hiho Canyon.
Sigh, why did I expect this reaction?
Don`t get so worked up, man.

Wouldn`t you think it to be wise, to at least wikipedia the word, before you accuse me to be a liar?
(Isn`t that against the 10 comandments? But hey, what do I know.)

To your benefit and the other readers here the first sentences of the artikel.

Brachiopod
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brachiopods (from Latin bracchium, arm + New Latin -poda, foot) make up one of the major animal phyla, Brachiopoda. Also known as lamp shells, they are sessile, two-shelled, marine animals with an external morphology resembling pelecypod mollusks (i.e. "clams") of phylum Mollusca to which they are not closely related. Despite cursory resemblance, Bivalves and Brachiopods markedly differ in many ways.

Next time, don't be so lazy on your research.

regards, Falk

Posted by: Falk Steinle | January 7, 2007 8:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Aha! When you're caught in a lie about clams, you just invent some other species that you just named right now. Brachiopods don't exist - there were brachiosaurs on the Ark, but they were just babies so didn't eat much during the voyage. Remember, the Ark was afloat for somewhere between 40 days and 11 months. The bible is inerrant about this.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 7, 2007 12:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Clarification:

On January 6, 2007 3:35 AM I wrote
- The "clams" on Mount Everest are most likely bivalvia. -

I'm sorry, I mixed the name up. It should read
Brachiopods, not bivalvia.

Posted by: Falk Steinle | January 6, 2007 10:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Look what I found, isn't this guy ridiculous?

Open Air Gospel Sermon
Canyon Shearer
© Dec 2006
For circulation with or without permission; in part or in whole

I only have one sermon, I’ve tried to write others, but I always come back to this one. It’s the one I open-air with, it’s the one I e-mail to friends, it’s the only Sermon I have committed to memory. In my opinion, it’s the only Sermon worth preaching.

I always start with my favorite Bible Verse, that verse being Psalm 19:7, “The Law of God is Perfect, Converting the Soul.” The importance of this verse is the law that it is talking about. In the beginning, there was one law, and that law was, “Don’t Eat the Fruit of that Tree!”1 As we all know, that law was broken, and with that transgression came a new law, a law found written on your conscience2, but also in the 20th Chapter of the Book of Exodus.

That law is the 10 Commandments, and I’d like to go over a couple of them. The easiest of the 10 Commandments to remember and to break is the ninth, which says, “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness”, in other words, Don’t Lie! Proverbs 12:22 says that Lying Lips are an ABOMINATION to the Lord, Revelation 21:8 promises that all Liars Shall Have their Part in the Lake of Fire! In the 9th Commandment we can see the Holiness of God, because if you lie to a child, you might get away with it, if you lie to me, I might get mad, if you lie to your spouse, you might end up on the couch or divorced, if you lie to a police officer, you’re obstructing justice and you’ll go to jail, if you lie to a judge, it’s perjury and you’ll go to prison, even more strict still, if you lie to your government, you’re guilty of treason, and the punishment is death18! The offense of a lie to God is so much more injurious and so much more condemning that the only just punishment for lying is eternal suffering. But wait! You say, “I’ve told lies, but I’m not a liar.” Lets consider this; if I rape one girl, I’m a rapist, if I murder one person, I’m a murderer; in the eyes of God, if you’ve told one lie, you are a liar, and will face the consequences as such.

Now I know what you’re thinking, you’re thinking, Thou Shalt Not Murder! Now that’s a commandment I know I have kept! But listen to this! Jesus said, “He that hates his brother is a murderer, he that calls someone an idiot is in danger of eternal Hellfire!”3 God is so Perfect and Holy that He sees the intentions and condition of your heart, and on this will you be judged.

Murder is the 6th commandment, lets move onto the 7th. You’ve heard it said of old, “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,” but Jesus said, “He that looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart!”4 Once again, God is concerned with the condition of your thought life, not just the actions that you pursue in the flesh.

The 8th, and final Commandment I’m going to preach says, “Thou Shalt Not Steal.” Consider this, every tiny thing you have stolen has distanced you from God, be it a paperclip, a pen, a piece of gum, or a song on the Internet, all of these constitute larceny and require punishment!

Now just wait one minute, aren’t the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament? Aren’t we under a new Covenant now? You’re exactly right! In the Old Testament, the punishment for thievery, according to Deuteronomy 24:7, was death! In the New Testament, the punishment for thievery is eternal suffering5! God has taken in the reigns, made His laws MORE strict, not less.

Based on these four, of ten, Commandments we have examined, it is clear to see that the whole world has sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God6, and God cannot just let a transgressor go, because He is a good judge, and a good judge will see to it that law-breakers are punished. The Bible says that the depraved nature of our sins has made us a child of wrath7, of disobedience8, of the devil9, an enemy of righteousness9, separated from God10, and doomed to Hell11. This punishment have we earned, and only by the Love of God is it possible to be redeemed and to escape the fire to come.

God became flesh, came to this world which He created, born of a virgin12, lived a perfect sinless life, and was sacrificed for your sins on a Cross overlooking Jerusalem13. In a beautiful, incomprehensible showing of love, Jesus Christ substituted Himself for you, took your punishment upon Himself and died a terrible, painful, humiliating death. Death could not Hold the God of the Universe, and He rose on the Third Day, and Delivered your Soul from Hell14.

In a worldly courtroom, a Judge can let a perpetrator go if his fine has been paid and if he promises not to repeat the crime. In front of the Great White Throne of God, you can be absolved of your crimes, as your fine has been paid in Jesus Christ; repent now of your sins in order to receive the gift of Life so richly given.

Repent, Apologize and Turn from, your Sins today, and trust in Jesus Christ to save you from Hell, like you’d trust in a parachute to save you from Gravity15, don’t wait until tomorrow, the world is a dangerous place and you could die tonight! It is appointed once for a man to die, and then the Judgment16, it is a fearful thing to fall into the Hands of the Living God17.

Please, get yourself a Bible and read the Book of John, it was written by one of Jesus’ closest friends, and it will reaffirm everything I’ve said today.

References
1- Genesis 2:17
2- Romans 2:15
3- Matthew 5:22
4- Matthew 5:28
5- Revelation 20:12-15
6- Romans 3:23
7- Ephesians 2:3
8- Colossians 3:6
9- Acts 13:10
10- Isaiah 59:2
11- Revelation 20:14
12- Matthew 1:23
13- Luke 23:34
14- Luke 24:76
15- Ray Comfort, “Hells Best Kept Secret”
16- Hebrews 9:27
17- Hebrews 10:31
18- Todd Friel, “Way of the Master Radio”

Posted by: From the Files of Canyon Shearer | January 6, 2007 9:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One more (ill-advised) bit of meat for the lion:

Canyon:

You say: "If I could substitute myself for your brother(if he is in hell, we can't be sure, many a man has converted on his death-bed),"

I say: Your skills at seduction are very sharp, and I name you Samael. I would love to believe...well, *some* of your fairy-tales, anyway, especially the ones about the Samaritan and the guy from Galilee, and this one most of all. Fact is, he died in mid-shoot-up. Overdose; dead before his head hit the pillow. Go ahead and tell yourself he saw God if you want; but then, please, ask yourself what you mean by that. To me, you're saying God is death - negation - the absence of consciousness, the absence of life.

That you would try to comfort me by saying "we cannot know" annoys me more than a little, because I knew my brother very well, and I can assure you there was no thought of redemption or confession in his mind. He's dead. I can deal with it, though it pains me; and you, someone reading text on a screen that you don't even know is true, should be able to deal with it as well.

But you go on: "I would be worried that he would simply spit in my face and smash the cure on the ground once again..."

Then I assert that if you are worried, you lack commitment. Does God want a man who plunges his head in the water and gulps, Canyon, or a man who looks around as he sips? Consult your scripture carefully before you answer.

You would *not* trade places in hell with my brother, and you have confessed as much. To worry is to fear; and fear is what governs you. Fear of Hell, and who knows what else. Being misrepresented on the Internet, apparently. Good grief.

Sorry, I just thought there was something about "love" in the Book somewhere. Got confused. Apologies; another four-letter word, like fear.

"...it is not a worthy gamble, because it will assuredly put you in Hell and possibly him again as well."

I'm not talking about a gamble, but a certainty. I would trade places with my brother or anyone, anyone at all, even mass-murderers like Mao and Pol Pot etc etc amen. Know why? Because I think Hell is absurd, and I'd do anything to prevent anyone from going through that. I don't think anyone deserves it. When I see suffering, the last thing I want to do is increase it. I try to decrease it, I don't know, Gehenna tag-team or something, let's not suffer alone. Just as I'd give a bum a quarter, knowing he's gonna spend it on booze, just as I'd stop for someone stranded on the side of the road even though my mother-in-law wants me to fear the latest Internet fables of highway robbers, just as I'd shelter any poor fellow who came knocking on my door in the rain, even though I have a young child to protect.

I will not let fear govern me. Period.

I don't *care* if you think the changing-places-in-hell deal is a worthy gamble - to me, it's not a gamble, but a second chance. I'd do it, period, for anyone. You don't think it can be done; but neither do I, because I think Hell is extremely unlikely to be real in the first place. I mean, maybe it's the Rokkr goddess Hel. I hear she's got a wicked side, but she's also *seriously* hot.

I do not delude myself that you will listen to me; you don't seem to listen to anyone at all, but merely to react. On the merest fraction of a chance that you will pay attention, I highly recommend you ask yourself whose words you are really following, and really, really think about it.

Because, when I was a kid, they told me it was about love; but I didn't always see as much of that as I saw of fear.

Oh, and thanks for the comforting citation: not only will he roast and roast (and so will I, and presumably many other nice-seeming people here), but no one can do the slightest thing about it.

There's a name for those who use terror to achieve their ends. Can you help me out here?

Posted by: Cocytus | January 6, 2007 6:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Nafi -

You say: "There is no concept of heaven and hell in Buddhism, only to reach a state of nirvana, be it Therevada or Mahayana Buddhism, the main braches of Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism elevate Buddha somewhat to divine status for prayers as merits."

I say: that's a serious oversimplification. Some versions of Buddhism incorporate not only one hell but many; but unlike the 'Christian' hell, these are not permanent states but rather places along the wheel of samsara. All things are headed to nirvana, if the Bodhisattvas are to be believed; and some Buddhists will tell you that Buddhism is not a religion, but a philosophy.

Despite my combative tone with Canyon, whom I regard as nothing more than a troll, I am not actually very antagonistic toward faith or people of faith. But I was once a religious man myself: and I find myself losing patience with those who pervert the religion of my fathers with hate-speak and terrorism (HELL!). I have many friends who are Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, and even the odd neo-pagan and traditional Taoist. I respect their right to believe what they want, because I am an American, and supposedly religious freedom - which, I argue, includes the freedom NOT to be religious - is guaranteed by our constitution. Canyon might not die for my freedom to be an atheist or volunteer to take my place in hell, but I would die for his right to believe the crankpot stuff he posts here. Freedom is what I am about; and respect is nice when it is to be had.

I realize my characterization of the god of the Book in such combative terms may offend many people, such as yourself, some of my Jewish friends, and Jeff R., who only wish people peace and mean no harm. I wasn't aiming my language at you, and I am sorry if it disturbed you. However, when people want to tell me the Bible is literally true...well, I have no small amount of education in the Book, in two languages and change, and I am always tempted to be mean and diabolical and challenge them on textualist grounds.

I realize, also, that many people of faith are reasonable; I would venture to say most. I do regret the air of hostility that so frequently arises between skeptics (atheists) and believers, and I would bridge it if I could.

But there is no talking to some people, and I wasn't talking to you, or to Jeff, or to any of the other rather reasonable-sounding people who have posted here: I was making the classical mistake of fight-fire-with-fire, and I must confess I did it out of sheer spite and personal animosity. Because, my dear Nafi, do you see, from Canyon's perspective, my brother most likely *IS* roasting in hell - the Buddhist cosmology his nonsense to him at best and demonology at worst.

You say: "Don't give meat to the lion Canyon Shearer."

I say, as ironic as this sounds coming from an atheist, "Amen"; and also, to you and any others I offended, _mea culpa_.

You say: "I read through and find that may atheists and agnostics don't really read up on religions to see the differences in them."

I say: Please do not underestimate us, madam (?). I am an avid, if amateur, scholar of religions of all sorts, and have been all my life. To my eternal dismay, when trying to make polite conversation with new Muslim friends, I asked (thinking I was so smart and cultured), I asked: are you Shi'a or Sunni? There followed a very awkward pause; and they confessed, very hesitantly, that he was the former and she the latter! So, do not think that all atheists are _____, if you please, and I shall return the courtesy to all people of faith. Again, my inflammatory remarks were aimed directly at the troll.

You say: "Not that notions of God or Divinity matters to you..."

I say: to the contrary, they matter very much to me, and I find each and every one of them both fascinating and important. The difference between you and me, it seems, is that I cannot feel or see any evidence of Allah; and the irony of this is that when my Muslim friend complains, I taunt him with the phrase: "It will be as Allah wills it." I believe that, on some level: some things are beyond our control. Que sera, sera. You dig?

You say: "I remain a believer and most comfortable being one regardless of how you regard or perceive us as delusionals and/or moronic."

I say: To the contrary, I find that many of you are very intelligent. That is one reason why I think discourse with the likes of you is so important! Delusional is a strong word; I would offer 'wishful' as a substitute. I would *like* a loving, infinitely merciful God to be watching over us all; but the only God I find evidence of is in people. When a stranger helps me out for no reason, I see Jesus, and it doesn't matter that I don't believe in the Resurrection or even a historical Jesus. There is some truth in the writings of most myths, I think; but, as I said to Canyon, it is heavily obscured by primitive superstitions and wrong-headed thinking. Tell me: if I have read this forum correctly, you are a woman. Now, I am perfectly willing to admit to being ignorant or underinformed, but it has been my understanding for some decades that Islam teaches women have no souls. Tell me: is that true? And if it is not, please, tell me: what is a Houri?

You say: "God works in mysterious way :) Can't stand the phrase?"

I say: I like the phrase. My point of contention with you is that I think 'God' is no longer an appropriate word to use. There are things mysterious about the universe (to my stunted intellect, anyway), and many things that are very, very beautiful: but I don't see any need for, to say nothing of evidence of, a cosmic consciousness to explain it all. From where I'm standing, it's beautiful as it is. Religion may give us some gorgeous and even useful metaphors, but metaphors and symbols can be very dangerous (just look at what the Nazis did to the fire-drill), and with the beauty and insight comes a lot of baggage.

I say, lose the baggage. I believe in freedom, and I believe you are free - wherever you are, and whoever oppresses you - and that is very important to me, that you be respected, no matter who you are, what your gender, or what you say and think. Because isn't that what freedom means?

You say: Peace be with you.

I say: And also with you.

Posted by: Cocytus | January 6, 2007 4:40 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon
My, my, you are a buisy man.

Hard to reckon which of the canyon posts are genuine, but anyway...

I guess there might be a few points that need to be adressed.

The "clams" on Mount Everest are most likely bivalvia. Looking a lot like clams from the outside, but are internaly built completly different. They are closed, when they die.

Now, your speculations what god might have done besides bringing the flood is not backed by scripture. That is, you are expanding the myth. You are writing some fan fiction. Not that I realy mind, expand the bible any way you like. Not that other people haven't done before.
And that essentially is why I don't think the bible is inerrant.
Is this a proof? No.
Does it make sense? Yes.

Not that it makes a lot of difference to me. However, while I'm sitting here and start musing about it, I'm not that shure that your not getting yourselve in some trouble right now.
That is, if you're right and god exists and he is the way you think he is.
You seem to recreate him the way you like. Kind of making yourselve a new god and therefor creating another god befor god.
Which would be a sin.

Which is one of my reasons I prefer to think that this universe makes do without a god.
I would have trouble keeping the god I'd believe in consistent.
These mindgames would get me to far.

However, believing that Noah was living on Pangaea (one landmass) is posing a bit of a probleme.
We should expect to find remains of the animals that lived there. That is, several strata with fossils of all the creatures that live today seperated in different corners of the world mixed with the dinosaurs.
No such strata exists.
By all means, don't believe me. Go out there, look for yourselve if you find dinosaurfossils mixed with anything that lives today.
That would be a sensation. From that very day on you'd be famous.
And believe it or not, I'd stand in amazement and awe. I'd have a hard time swallowing it, no doubt. But I would not shy away from it. That is my promise to you.
Start your search at dinousaur national monument. Or go to the Grand Canyon. Lots of different, undesturbed strata. That is where I'd start my search.
The truth is out there - go seek it yourselve.

But for now, I will stick to the geology I was taught and that I've looked at with my own eyes.
Why? Not to mock Christanity.
But simply because it is used for engineering, prospection and the protection of our watersupplies. Those guys in the fieled relay on the geology and the methods that you mock. Locating ore, coal, gas, oil and water.
Observable
Repeatable
Measurable

Flood geologist do no such thing.

Posted by: Falk Steinle | January 6, 2007 3:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

So real Canyon Shearer with the awesome motorcycle. And an admitted killer for a living but believe in he will go to hell for killing.

Have you been killing my fellow Muslims to "save" them? I am not an American, I am not a Christian. Want to kill me too? To save your soul but go to hell anyway?

No wonder Jesus died for your sins.

Posted by: Jihadist | January 5, 2007 8:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hey, whoever is pretending to me be, stop it! I can defend my superfriend all by myself, wtithout your help!

Did I mention that I kill people for a living but believe the commandment against killing means that I'll go to hell? And my motorcycle is awesome. You all just wish you could be me. I'm so certain of my religioun that I have to spend days telling rational people to believe in the same superfriend I do.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 5:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

That was not me imitating you but I will say that for all I care someone can use you bible for toilet paper and if your god jesus comes back I will be the first with the hammer and nails.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 5:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon your water inundation is just a total lie and I don't know where you got that but it is a facrication.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 5:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bill, I assume that is you. If you are going to pretend to be me, give due reverence to the word Bible.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 4:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bwahahahahahahahahaha,

No, crayon is not necessary, remember, I am the one that has had an intelligent argument for this whole debate and haven't ignored the question for a day. More importantly, look up the criticisms of your transitionary fossils; the true is always more correct than the original hypothesis. These fossils are merely animals which came from similar animals and brought forth similar animals; no evidence whatsoever for magical species change. A few on that list are BLATANT lies and most evolutionists blush when you bring up the fact that they were once offered as proofs for evolution.

Nice try at your scientific attempt, but I'm afraid you're wrong. Evolution is not science. Let me rephrase your argument so we both definitely understand it.

1. Observable - Fossils
2. Repeatable - Lots of Fossils
3. Measurable - Depth of Fossils

No one can prove than any fossil ever had children, let alone other children, and it is impossible to say that a fossil brought forth beyond its own species. Fossils simply show that there was a catastrophic event that killed a lot of stuff in just the right way.

That brings me to number 2. Do you know how fossils form? No, I didn't think so, most evolutionists don't. The majority(not only) way that fossils are formed is by water inundation. It is very difficult to fossilize something on accident; yet we have a beautiful record of water inundation in fossils. Many of these fossils are in the middle of bodily functions, such as giving birth, eating, excreting, fighting, and buried alive(clams). This is inconclusive with a slow sedimentation.

Finally, the depth of fossils is how evolutionists determine the age of the strata layer. Do you know how they determine the age of the fossil? By which strata layer it is in. That isn't science.

You know how you can disprove Creation? Cows on Neptune. What a stupid argument your guy brought up. You know what would be a better disprover for evolution? If no scientific evidence existed for it!

Your religion HAS been discarded by all rational people, only the ones desperate to disbelieve God still believe in it.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 4:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Evolution isn't true because a majority of Americans don't believe in it. Science is all about consensus, so if the majority doesn't agree with something, it isn't true.

The earth didn't orbit the sun when the ancient astronomer Aristarchus did the math. The earth began orbiting the sun as soon as a majority of the uneducated public agreed with the theory.

Duh, people! Science isn't about reality and measuring or predicting reality - it's about consensus.

Read your bible, it has all the science you need in it.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 4:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Can I make it any clearer? Should I write it in crayon?

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 4:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon,


Evolution is a scientific theory because it is testable. The theory of Evolution is an explanation for a massive body of evidence which has been found in nature. Scientists observe objects (fossils) and phenomena in reality and produce a theory as an explanation. The theory will make predictions to which future findings of evidence should conform. If the future finding do not conform then the theory is discarded. Until then it is accepted as true. John Maynard Smith was asked what would disprove evolution and he replied "Fossil rabbits in the Pre-Cambrian." So far no one has found fossil rabbits in the pre-cambrian geological stratum and further no one has ever found a single fossil which was out of place in the fossil record, upon dating and classification. There are other ways the theory has been confirmed but this is one of the more famous.

Oh and great way to discredit my evidence Canyon. Just call it lies and its true because you said so and so did god. Real scientific, real critical, real believable you ignorant bigot.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 4:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Wow, proof that I've won; extremely hateful posts coming from the opposite side.

Bill I didn't ask for extremely unlikely transitional lies...I was asking for how evolution has anything to do with science. You can't give it to me, I forgive you, it isn't your fault that our terrible state religion has killed your ability to think.

Anyways, public opinion is not on your side, in a Harris Poll from a few months ago, 49% of America still believes in evolution.

That number is probably down to 48.8% now. You're losing. :D

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 4:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jef, posting above on 1 January says:

"...but no one calls for compromise with the Pastafarians..."

Well, I am calling for such now. It is long overdue.

- Aloysius

Posted by: Aloysius Horn | January 5, 2007 4:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

And yay verily I say unto you, I am a jelly donut.

My mother's name was Bill . . . and coo? St. Valentine's Day is the start of the breedin' season of the birds. All buzzards can coo. I'd like to see it pronounced buzzards rightly. They work hard. So do parakeets.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 4:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon:

As to who is losing the debate: I would say public opinion is firmly on my side here.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 3:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_fossils

Notable individual fossils

http://www.fossilrecord.net/


Database of the fossil record.


Isn't it odd how none of the people who constructed these sites claim that the government posesses UFO's or that flu shots are part of a communistic government takeover?

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 3:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon wrote: "I want an example of how evolution is:
1. Observable
2. Repeatable
3. Measurable"

Those are criteria for *experiments*, Canyon, not fields of study.

That's like me asking how theology is observable, repeatable, and measurable. Doesn't compute. Apples and oranges.

Go to that Web site I sent. Spend a lot of time there.

Posted by: Pam | January 5, 2007 3:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon wrote: "I want an example of how evolution is:
1. Observable
2. Repeatable
3. Measurable"

Those are criteria for *experiments*, Canyon, not fields of study.

That's like me asking how theology is observable, repeatable, and measurable. Doesn't compute. Apples and oranges.

Go to that Web site I sent. Spend a lot of time there.

Posted by: Pam | January 5, 2007 2:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Here is a list of some of the most notable transitional fossils.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 2:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I would like to know if you have stopped beating your wife yet?"


What the hell does that mean? You are clearly unstable.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 2:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bill, are you really serious?

Do you realize how hyperreligious and brainwashed you are? You are losing this debate with great haste.

I want an example of how evolution is:
1. Observable
2. Repeatable
3. Measurable

Until then, it is NOT science!

You ranted, "Canyon I would like to hear your explanation of why no credible scientist in the country will lend support to creationism."

I would like to know if you have stopped beating your wife yet?

Your loaded question is still easily thwarted.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

Pam, the reason you can't come to the playing field is because you are mentally retarded. Perhaps not in genetics, but you have forced yourself to be so.

Kent Hovind consistently beats evolutionists to dust and sweeps them out the door. Not because he is a scientist, but rather, because they are not!

For a brief moment, I thought this thread was going somewhere, but now I realize you can't argue with fundamentalist evolutionists; they are brain dead and closeminded.

Bill, there is a vast conspiracy towards evolution, but I assure you it is not amongst the 'elite' of the nations scientists nor of its tenured professors, but rather that of someone who desperately wants your soul in Hell. Only by Righteousness could such a religion as Christianity be written, and only by Hatred could a religion such as evolutionism be written.

Realize that you have not sold your soul to the devil, but rather given it freely to him.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 2:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Spend a little time at this site, Canyon.
www.kent-hovind.com/

Posted by: Pam | January 5, 2007 2:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks for the link, Bill C., that was rich!

I especially liked this part:
"Dr. Barbara Forrest, a critic of intelligent design, wrote that Hovind's lack of academic training makes it impossible to engage him on a professional level."

Sound like someone we know?

Canyon, There is NO playing field on which you would be my equal. Sorry to put it so bluntly.

There are small fossils in the top layers as well. Even VERY small fossils. How did those peanuts make it to the top of the can?

Posted by: Pam | January 5, 2007 2:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon I would like to hear your explanation of why no credible scientist in the country will leend support to creationism. Not a single member of the National Academy of Sciences and not a single researcher at a major university. Do you believe it is a conspiracy? That somehow these people get involved in science only to fabricate facts against Christianity? No article advocating creationism has ever been published in a peer reviewed journal and


Of course you do believe even crazier things.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 2:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"More importantly, when are you going to post how it has anything to do with science?"

Canyon Pam and others have done this ad nauseum, but you deny the validity of every method so irrationally that trying to discuss evolution with you is like trying to discuss physics without math though I am sure you deny the relevance of physics and the Big Bang as well.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 2:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 1:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bill C.,

For a moment I thought you might be becoming enlightened.

Kent Hovind has overexerted himself, rectifying the damage of evolution over 300 days a year; it is not unexpected that he is exhausted and if not in his right mind, has an excuse. His opinion on taxation has no bearing the credibility of his arguments. Evolutionists will never understand that.

Anyways, if you have not noticed, I am an expert in evolution theory. I have read many books, websites, and rants both for and against it, and I still don't believe it.

How many have you read?

More importantly, when are you going to post how it has anything to do with science?

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 1:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon just spouts off fabricated scientific principles which have been provided only by nut-bar organizations like AiG and demands specific refutations.

Well obviously not everyone can remember names and specific details of fossils or on demand give and accurate account of DNA mutation, much less untrained scientists, but when you make it up it is quite easy to do.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 1:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon:

It may be of some interest to you that Kent Hovind was recently arrested and convicted on tax evasion charges. His behavior during the trial and his answers to questions were so bizarre and insane sounding that the judge had to ask him if he understood English to which he replied "somewhat."

He holds no degree in science and his Phd. is from Patriot University, which holds no national accreditation.


Oh and Puzzled, Canyon's method is not new. Read the Wikipedia article for Duane T. Gish. Basically what they do is to rattled off made up facts and nonsense that while easily done takes much time, explanation, and background knowledge (although with the last one only a little background would suffice). They called it the "Gish Gallop"

Canyon my advice to you is to go read a real book on evolution. There are plenty besides those of Satan-incarnate-to-you Richard dawkins. Or hell just read Wikipedia. They list their sources. If you can't understand why you are wrong then please go to the nearest doctor and have yourself sterilized. For humanity's sake.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 1:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Damn Rox you're right. Although they could drive Broncos, but Satans henchmen would of course go in style.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 1:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Puzzled, the scientific method is wonderful; but an equally wonderful scientific method is that of Socrates.

In order to disprove my hypothesis, you would simply need to provide evidence for yours.

I am waiting.

And while I wait, since I am having so much fun answering your questions...the layer of earth that was call the crust is the evidence for the Global flood! It shows millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth.

The layers of rock are the way which they were hydrologically sorted. For an examination of how this could happen, take a look at the fluid sorting that occured as Mount St. Helens became a muddy mass sliding down a slope. When it came to a halt, and later water cut through it, the ash had magically formed itself into layers.

I cannot find the article on Google, it is driving me nuts, I remember Dan Miller published the article(I read it in the last two months) and I have found that he works for the Cascades Volcano Observatory. These layers are frequently used to prove hydrological sorting hypthesis in Creation Science...despite your contention that things cannot be proved, they can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 1:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bill:

"When the four horsemen of the apocalypse come will they be actual horsemen or since we have cars today will they maybe take a jeep."

Oh for God's sake... now you're just being silly, my friend. They're HORSEMEN, so obviously they'll be driving MUSTANGS!

Posted by: Rox | January 5, 2007 1:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pam, you are antiscientific nazi. There is no other way to say that.

Please defend your idea that evolution is in any way scientific! Which playing field would you like to use in order that you feel you are an equal footing with me? I am prepared to play on any one of them!

The measurement device that when water sorts things, or in fluid dynamics(such as in a can of mixed nuts), smaller things go to the bottom and larger things go to the top when mixed up. This is evidenced as easily as shaking a can of Planter's Mixed Nuts and observing that almonds come to the top and peanuts go to the bottom.

This measurement device is backed up totally in your evolution text books by looking at a map of the fossil record.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon cannot answer questions, so he resorts to unfounded assertions. He claims there are a lot of people (who?) working on creationism who are credible. But I only asked a simple question. If a mass, global death of animals occurred 4400 years ago, then fossil records should show a band at 4400 that is unlike anything before or after. I am not a paleontologist, but I am reasonable enough to understand that a flood that covered all the earth would indeed be catastrophic if it happened and there must be GLOBAL evidence. The alternative story might be that God made it happen, and then hide all the evidence so that only a select few faithful (who'd accept this story without evidence) would still follow. I don't think an omniscient, omnipotent God would be like a mean teacher asking trick questions. But that is more believable ("it's a test from God") than what you're trying to say.

At any rate, such evidence would not **prove** the story of Noah's flood, but we could only say the evidence **supports** it, and therefore give cause to do further investigation. That is how science works (you falsify hypotheses, not prove them). You really must first read some Karl Popper at the very least before making statements about the scientific method.

I think Jihadist above has an excellent point. And unless Canyon can answer my question above (citations please), I don't see the value of this conversation. He says there are people who study this. Then, someone must have published in peer-reviewed scientific journals that would address this issue in an intelligent way?

Posted by: Puzzled | January 5, 2007 12:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bill C. Thank you for your 11:46 reply if it was in truth. I hate to argue with everything you say; but evangelism is the act of sharing the Gospel of Christ(Sinners rectified by the death and ressurection); where as what I am attempting to do is prove that the Gospel is trustworthy. I don't know why I had the need to tell you that. ;) I also feel inclined to state that "my" 6:51 post was not mine, but rather someone else who chose to libel me based on my candid nature and not hiding anything about my personal self(except for my phone number, physical address and social security number). I feel so proud, that is my first libeling.

Onto your questions, the deception is that the world we live on with 7 Continents was the world that existed as Noah lived on it. This is unlikely because the valleys that 'sank' down were the valleys of the Atlantic, of the Mariannas(sp?), of the Pacific, it is my hypothesis that pre-flood, the world was dominated by land with small splotches of water; like an inverse of todays world.

That said, then the animals would not have to travel 23,000 miles in order to get to the ark, rather Noah could have found them in whichever part of the Earth He lived(and the Bible is clear that two of each to the ark...the Bible does not say that one was pink and one was blue...we have to assume that for our own). There is no evidence that He lived in Palestine or that the Garden of Eden is anywhere near Mesopotamia, rather that after much floating, Noah landed in present day Turkey, Georgia(exsoviet), or Armenia.

Therefore the distribution of animals we see today would have been incredibly different during Noah's preflood life. During the flood, when the effects of earthquake would not devastate the Earth because of water dampening, the effects of Plate Techtonics could(not science) have been considerably faster than we see them today. For example, in order for the Himalayas to form, one would assume(not science) that a great amount of energy was exchanged between plates; an energy which we don't see today along the same set of plates, nor along the San Andreas fault.

Post flood, there are some scientists, which I can neither affirm nor deny, who think that the new abundance of surface water would suck the temperature out the air, creating for an ice age. This ice age would have reduced the water level across the Indonesian islands, as well as bridging the Bearing Strait. This would make travel to Austral Asia and North America, and the many, many islands in the South Pacific, a simple trekking excercise. This does not explain why certain animals are found on either continent and not others, I personally like to believe the "God Did It" argument here, but am certain there must be a suitable explanation that we haven't found yet.

Remember the Australian mantra, "God Created Australia because He was tired of everything else being boring." That is not Biblical, but an interesting take on the grandeur that is that continent; coupled with its amazing species!

Your Pi question is a great one, and until recently has stumped many scholars. I will let you read the answer, as I am not qualified to try to explain it to you:
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=78

The Bibles estimation of Pi is actually accurate at least to five digits.

As for Jonah in a whale, that is difficult to believe without the help of God, but I always find that scripture to be interestingly noted when there are two other, more dangerous, situations that occured in the Bible, please read Daniel chapter 3(starting at verse 19) and Daniel chapter 6(starting at verse 16).

The answer is found in Daniel 3:25 - God was with them in all three occurences, protecting the faithful; for His Glory, not theirs.

Finally, my opinion on the apocolypse, I believe it will be actual heavenly horses(bigger than life), but that is not for sure, Jesus has a way of doing things extraordinarily and historically circumventing human expectation.

I am having a custom motorcycle patch made right now which says,

Revelation 19:11
Who's your riding buddy?

In all fairness, Bill C., I was just as hard to win as you are; if you are genuinely interested in the truth of matters, it is out there for the finding. I would encourage a YouTube search(blocked on my computer, or I'd look it up for you!) for Kent Hovind. Many people do not like him because he has a worse attitude than even me towards evolutionists, but most of his hypothesis are true, all of his evolution bashing is backed up by citation, and there isn't a hole that goes unplugged in the scientific attacks on the Genesis account.

I am just like anyone else, searching for facts, hoping to understand. I am confident that I have found the Truth in the Bible, and because of the stakes involved, feel it important to inform others that the truth is available.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 12:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The answers to all of your questions, Bill C., is, of course, MAGIC. The ultimate fall-back position when they just can't twist science any further.

Canyon is spouting complete untruths, and doing so at such a rate that no one has the time or energy to counter them all. Not that that would help. An example is "Small things go to the bottom, large things rise to the top, such is hydrological sorting, such is we find." Completely untrue. There are many minute fossils in the deepest layers and larger animals are found much higher. This is complete creationist nonsense, but how would Canyon know? He never cracks a heretical actual science book - he gets all his "knowledge" (and I use the term very loosely) from the lunatic fringe creationist sites.

It's fruitless to argue with him, he simply steamrolls over all logic, reason, and evidentiary truth, and trumps it all with magic.

However, Canyon is a good thing. He is the absolute poster child for everything that Dr. Dawkins' book is saying, and for the best possible reason for the separation of church and state. Just copy this entire thread and save it. If anyone with reasonable intelligence ever asks why you feel strongly that keeping religion out of public life is important, hand them the transcript, and rest your case.

Posted by: Pam | January 5, 2007 12:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I just want to know Canyon. You seem to be making a lot of sense. I am being evangelized.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Okay Canyon very nicely done.

But I was wondering how Noah got kangaroos to his Ark. I assume they did not sail themselves and I don't think that with the time Noah had to build the Ark he would have had time to go get them. And how did he get all the North American animals being locateed in Asia Minor as he was? Maybe the plates were together in Noah's time but they obviously don't move fast enough to have broken apart an created our current geography in 6,000 years. So if Noah did get kangaroos and North American species because the continents were together then how did they separate so much in such a short time?

Moreover if the Bible is perfect then why is it that they made such a poor estimation of Pi. Also Jesus birth is reported on different days and such things.

I also want to know how was it that Jonah lived inside a whale?

Moreover I would like your opinion on something. When the four horsemen of the apocalypse come will they be actual horsemen or since we have cars today will they maybe take a jeep.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 11:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Bill C. Once again, science destroys your arguments. More importantly, where is your description of evolutionary science.

You cited plate tectonics assuming that God doesn't know about them. That questions answers your other question.

The world was created largely flat, our understanding of preflood geology is sparse, but we know that there were only rolling hills before the flood based on first hand accounts.

Without the valleys of the oceans and the mountains of the land, there is enough water on Earth to cover EVERYTHING to a depth of two miles. Placing Noah at at max of ~10,000 feet. But based on the assumption that there must have been basis of water preflood we can assume that he was at a lower elevation. Even so, preflood, with more land, there would have been more foliage, for a denser atmosphere, so even if it would have been higher, Noah would have been ok.

Then, you don't even wonder where the water went? That is simple, the valleys sank down and the mountains rose up and the waters rushed from the land.

You've found a tool of God in plate tectonics. Yet you claim, "I see the crescent wrench, but I don't believe in the mechanic."

Moreso, considering atmosphere, this is the cause of the demise of dinosaurs, almost guaranteed. The bronchiosaurus(sp?) one of, if not, the largest land dinosaur had nostrils the size of a horses. The dinosaurs, in a new environment with fewer food sources, decreased lung efficiency, and shorter lives(reptiles never stop growing), the dinosaurs were doomed, just as God promised to take His sword to them in the book of Job.

There sure seems to be a lot of science and scientific projections coming from my corner.

Where is yours?

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 11:04 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"If there were a flood, indeed, we should find waterborn creatures all over the land...such as at the top of Mt. Everest...which is made of sedimentary rock and contains millions of clams in the closed position. Clams open when they die, unless they were buried alive...

The science is against you!"


Not that this will do a bit of good but Canyon I would like to know two things. But firstly there are fossils of sea creatures found at hig h altitudes because mountain ranges were formed by the merging of the tectonic plates of Earth's crust. The sections which merged were forced up from underwater and carried remains of the animal life with them.

Secondlly, if there really was a flood and Noah Carried all the animals on his boat then were did all the water come from to cover Nt. Everest? And then where did it go? I assume you will just say God did it.

Also if the water level was raised enough to cover Mount Everest and put all those clams up there then how did Noah survive when the water raised him to such a high altitude. Unless he had supplemental oxygen tanks he would have a hard time surviving for so long at such heights to say nothing of the animals.

I just would like to know how you account for this.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 5, 2007 10:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

To the Christians who may be following this conversation and asking themselves, "Why is this guy so insanely devoted to the Genesis account?"

Please listen to the sermon link, click on, "Canyon Shearer".

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 6:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I've got to go ride my motorcycle with the flag dragging on the ground behind me. Bye, morons.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 6:51 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Rox...

WHAT RESEARCH?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

WHAT EVIDENCE!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Most people are brainwashed because they don't know better.

You, ma'am, are brainwashed because YOU LIKE IT.

Jeff, I assure you that I am one person with an overabundance of time due to the greatest job in history, and my typist skills were honed solely for defending the Bible online.

Puzzled, thank you for proving that there is no science in evolution. If there were, you'd have posted it. Instead you went straight for my argument that you can't say Flood Science is not science; and completely failed to disprove it.

There are people that have devoted their entire ministry to the scientific research of the Flood. Rest assured that my responce was for brevity, as you asked me to use a few words. Please look up flood science anywhere(but at least at more than two sources).

As for your questions, why should I answer yours if you won't answer mine?

Anyways, in short, this evidence is GLOBAL, I just said that we find the same thing in two completely separate places, but the evidence is located everywhere, look down at the ground where you sit, there is evidence of a flood under you. Was it a global flood or a trillion local floods? It was a flood none-the-less.

If there were a flood, indeed, we should find waterborn creatures all over the land...such as at the top of Mt. Everest...which is made of sedimentary rock and contains millions of clams in the closed position. Clams open when they die, unless they were buried alive...

The science is against you!

Now the only thing for you to do is conceed that evolutionism has nothing to do with science.

I'm waiting.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 6:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Who is this Crusader, Canyon Shearer? Why is everyone afraid of him or mesmerized by him and appeasing him? One of him and all of you? Pathetic.

Posted by: Jihadist | January 5, 2007 4:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

This is just to prove that Canyon Shearer is a bunch of guys working together.

Nafi Sahgem


Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 3:24 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon says (?):

The Bible claims that 4,400 years ago, there was a flood.

My hypothesis, is that if there were a global flood, we should be able to find millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth.

My evidence.
1. Observable, if you dig, you will find it.
2. Repeatable, dig in Arizona or dig in Siberia, you indeed find millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth.
3. Measurable, Small things go to the bottom, large things rise to the top, such is hydrological sorting, such is we find.

Flood science, while possibly incorrect, is indeed science. This is more than evolution can claim for even their answer for millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth.

Puzzled replies:

First of all, you don't **prove** a hypothesis. And the test you set out is not really a test of your "hypothesis," since even if you find what you are looking for, finding fossil records near the water can mean anything. Certain animals surely lived and died near the water? And surely there are fossil records elsewhere as well?

If all animals died in a global flood and as the waters receded, wouldn't we find fossil records of land animals like lions under water, not just on the shores, but fairly deep? Also, many underwater animals would be found on land (since waters would have overflown). Furthermore, the fossil records should be limited to a thin layer (only 4400 years ago) and every other layer should be drastically different. And the key is that this should be GLOBAL (not just Siberia and Arizona).

Is this what scientists have found? Citations please.

Posted by: Puzzled | January 5, 2007 2:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Canyon, your ignorance is positively breathtaking."

I'm going with "infuriating," due to its being WILLFUL ignorance. Anyone who claims the Bible to be scientifically accurate when it states that a bat is a bird and that it's possible for a man to live in a whale's belly is clearly in deep denial. And it's obvious that Canyon will go to great lengths to protect his comfortable delusions.

It's people like Canyon that make rational folks fear for the future and motivate us to insist that it's long past time to afford any sort of respect to such ridiculous notions, especially in crafting public policy and educational standards.

And with that, I'm done responding to Canyon's delusional drivel.

Posted by: Rox | January 5, 2007 1:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Pam, thank you so much for taking the time to give Canyon a clue-by-four, point by point. It is mind-boggling how anyone over the age of 8 can use "Goddidit" to explain away the obvious physical impossibilities in the story of Noah's Ark and the Flood, and expect any thinking person to accept it as a valid, much less "logical" answer. It's fantastical nonsense and as worthy of respect as "Thordidit."

Anyone who spends time in a garden or with animals, observing and contemplating the way they function has no difficulty seeing evidence of evolution. Though Canyon belittles my honest admission that I'm no scientist or expert, I'm perfectly happy to read the work of those who ARE for the technical details. I'm just an old broad with an insatiable thirst for knowledge but no formal education; yet my own eyes provide sufficient evidence to conclude that my birds-of-paradise and my housecats are living examples of natural selection, perfectly suited for their habitat. Those same eyes have visited museums, wildlife refuges and botanical gardens where the relatives of and genetic precursors to my plants and housecats are clearly evident.

Scholar I may not be, but I was lucky enough to inherit more than sufficient intelligence to trust in what my eyes see and my research reveals rather than the magical thinking of those who cannot bear the idea that the Earth and its inhabitants aren't the work of a supernatural creator, and that humans live, procreate and die just like every other living thing. "Goddidit" is easy and comforting, but that doesn't make it true; and in fact there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: Rox | January 5, 2007 1:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

If anyone is allowed to post on this forum under any email or name, then how can anyone respond to anyone else if I post a note to "Canyon Shearer", but ten people have posted under the same name?

Posted by: Jeff Reed | January 5, 2007 1:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I got the above e-mail two seconds after posting my last post, it ought to make you mad at the very least. :)

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 1:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Puzzled, I'm off to sleep after this post.

Science is first and foremost the pursuit of knowledge. In order for something to be scientific, it must be:
1. Observable.
2. Repeatable.
3. Measurable.

Explain to me how evolution is any one of those things?

As for the actual age of the universe, I cannot prove that with science. More importantly, your religion has less evidence than mine.

Even more importantly, I am going to bring up the Bible for a moment for scientific reasons: I can prove other scientific facts in the Bible which prove its reliability.

The Bible claims that 4,400 years ago, there was a flood.

My hypothesis, is that if there were a global flood, we should be able to find millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth.

My evidence.
1. Observable, if you dig, you will find it.
2. Repeatable, dig in Arizona or dig in Siberia, you indeed find millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth.
3. Measurable, Small things go to the bottom, large things rise to the top, such is hydrological sorting, such is we find.

Flood science, while possibly incorrect, is indeed science. This is more than evolution can claim for even their answer for millions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 1:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon:

You keep talking about "science." In order to have a conversation, there has to be some common understanding of terminology, so please inform the rest of us: define "scientific method." Just to provide a hint as to what I am trying to get at, do you understand what "testing an hypothesis" means, and how does that contribute to the accumulation of scientific knowledge?

And to demonstrate this knowledge, why don't you stop calling people names and provide verifiable, scientific evidence that the universe is less than 10,000 (I'll let you have a few millenia) years old. Describe what scientific test (i.e., something that can be corroborated by someone else) would reject the hypothesis that our sun is not some 5 billion years old (as scientists say).

As for transitory fossil records,... first let's talk about the above questions, then perhaps we can talk more, even about religion.

Posted by: Puzzled | January 5, 2007 12:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

At least I'm not oblivious to evolution! :D

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 5, 2007 12:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Anyways, a quick typo correction, I have a degree in Professional Aeronautics, I am oblivious to how that word got left out."

You're oblivious to a lot.

Posted by: Pam | January 5, 2007 12:11 AM
Report Offensive Comment

AndySocial,

Stop bubble-gumming evolution to the bottom of science; you're getting science all sticky and blemishing its name.

The schools in Arizona taught the same lies that Pam believes, which is incredible; how can a modern text book have a drawing that Haekel drew in the 1860's, which was disproved in absolute in 1873?

The schools in Arizona are as good as any other evolution teaching public school, which isn't saying much. Evolution subdues truth and makes people stupid.

Anyways, a quick typo correction, I have a degree in Professional Aeronautics, I am oblivious to how that word got left out.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 4, 2007 11:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I weep for the quality of the schools in Arizona, if you were able to graduate less than a decade ago and still think that "evolution is just a theory" makes any sense at all. Other theories include gravity and germ theory. I'll go ahead and wash my hands and not try to fly, just the same.

Hua

Posted by: AndySocial | January 4, 2007 11:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Pam,...

The wolf is a variation of a dog, which is why they are nearly identical. I assume you're going to say that Chimps are nearly identical to humans. I would like to direct you to Berkley University citing that there are Three Million differences in the dna between the two.

As for rabbits, give me one example of a rabbit that is not longer a rabbit?

Horses, Donkeys, and Mules, are from the same family, the mule is genetically deficient, and not evolution, rather deevolution.

Pam, you have solidified your stupidity in claiming that babies have gills. That was disproved in 1873, and has never been reproved. I believe this crazy thing you believe is why people have no issue killing unborn babies. I wonder if deep down they think, "Well, it's not a baby yet, and it might actually be born a fish...so lets kill it." Despite that no woman has ever delivered anything but a human baby.

As for your opinion that there are transitionary fossils, I guarantee you that there are not. You cited lucy earlier, but I thought you were kidding. Lucy is a chimpanzee and has been since her birth, death, fossilization, and discovery. Saying she is more than a chimp doesn't change the fact that she is a chimp. She may be related to you, but not related to human beings.

The Bible will be discussed when you have discarded your fruitless religion and begin to search for truth, not before.

You have provided no evidence that is not easily stomped on due to science. I do not consider you to be a giant like I once revered Dinky Dawkins to be, but find your fanaticism to be intriguing. I didn't know someone could believe SO many lies in evolution and argue their merits, without actually investigating the issue.

Forgive my typo, the lands rise out of the water. As the Bible says. As for the merits of Bible science, we may get to that, IF, and only if, you refute your stupid religion first. At current, I am arguing against your religion as one interested in science, and not a Christian.

Correct on the olive branch, I am not sure what I was thinking...perhaps in the presence of such lack of thought from the peers in this board, my brain ceased to function momentarily.

Pam, more importantly, you haven't a single scientific evidence to stand on. You are basing your baseless religion on lies and feelings.

Please, please, please, research this stuff a little, it is getting frustrating telling you the truth and having you throw back more lies.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 4, 2007 9:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Bill C.

Please take a moment to research cave-fish, as your understanding is lacking and an insult to my intelligence.

Cave-fish are not fish without eyes, but rather fish who had eyes once in their ancestory, were born deficient, survived in caves due to natural selection, and now live with genetic evidence for their eyes that don't form.

Is it your position to say that a fish that has lost the ability to see is somehow evolving?

By that logic, as soon as the fish loses the ability to smell, taste, hear and touch, that it will somehow become a chimpanzee? The Chimpanzee has many more chromosomes, and therefore shows that it has more genetic information than the cave-fish, the question, if your confusion of natural selection is true, how does losing eyes increase the genetic code?

As for evolution, you will not post a proof for evolution, because they don't exist. Please admit that, it will save both of us a lot of typing.

For a very brief autobiography, I went to a public grade, middle, and high school, where I had the theory of evolution shoved down my throat and believed every last bit of it. My degree is in Professional from Embry-Riddle, with a double minor in psychology and management. For a living, I kill people and break stuff.

And finally, your attack was not ad hominen because it was not a baseless attack on my character, but rather an objective opinion. I feel that it was wrong, but based on your conclusions, it was not baseless. Still, I realize now that there are two definitions for ad hominem, one being a baseless attack on the character, and the other attacking the character instead of answering the question. So indeed, your argument was directed at the second definition.

Mr. Arnold, you are completely baseless in your claim that losing an eye in the DNA is not a genetic loss. Explain to me just how much coding must be done to 'delete' the eye? Rather, coding is LOST and the eye no longer forms.

Lost information is deevolution, and disproves evolution in its entirety.

Jeff Reed, once again you fail to give an evidence. You are baseless fool, this opinion is bases on your claims that you can, but won't, provide evidence.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 4, 2007 9:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio, granted, there are those that would wish to place Creation as THE scientific origins of the universe into our schools. I fully recognize that the proofs we have are enough to form an objective truth, but are by no means scientifically true enough to purport as fact.(Coupled with the Bible, yes, but stand-alone, no)

As for why we should avoid teaching our children that evolution is fact is because it has far less science in it than Creation. Like I said, I am not for lying to children. At current, for a small stepping stone, I like Georgia's method of labeling evolution a 'theory'. That is a step towards removing hidden religion from our text books.

That said, I am all for blatant religion being in our text books. The majority of the world is ignorant to the histories of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Catholicism, Humanism; and all 'major' religions of the World. All of the world religions should be taught with subjectivity for the betterment of our human understanding; not completely removed for the loss of a great portion of our national identity and culture.

Knowledge has bred far less hatred in the history of the world than ignorance.

As for Hell, it was not my intent or objective to judge you for who you are. It is my agenda and objective to inform you, if God exists, He has promised to judge you. If I have appeared to have judged you, please accept my appologies for not being more informative that the criterion I am providing is the method for which God will compare righteousness, not me; I have no right to judge righteousness in my unrighteous state.

To warn people of Hell is the opposite to wish for their death, but rather to hope for their life.

Finally, I never said to accept anything without question, and that is why I have asked that you have accepted evolution hook line and sinker? Please examine the baits they are using before you bite.

Christianity promises everlasting life.
Evolutionism promises no judgement.

Both are extraordinary promises; and should be researched for merits as such.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 4, 2007 8:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Puzzled:
Good words. We should all wish for our children to be free thinkers. All of us wish to pass on our particular ideologies to our children because we believe them to be worthy. We need only to be sure those ideologies respect us all.
Thanks,
Jeff

Posted by: Jeff Reed | January 4, 2007 8:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Is there more than one Canyon Shearer blasting away here on everything from God to lung fish?
Has to be. If one of him, I am really worried. He is a paranoid obsessive/true believer about and against us the Antichrists.

I am beginning to see Tonio's point. Canyon and those who share his thinking, and there are many, impose their religious beliefs in schools and the public sphere.

Let me give you a humble suggestion as one familiar with the fight against Muslim religious extremists. Don't take on individuals like Canyon. Look out for religious entities, organizations, groups they are part of and take on the organizations. The organizations are the places where they enforce their beliefs, collect funds, and take actions in courts or legislative bodies to enact into laws to force their beliefs on the rest. And oh, in school boards too.

But of course it really helps to read on and know their thinking process as shown by Canyon Shearer here. And to read their blogs and sites to see what they are up to.

Your really don't want extremists in any way to have the upper hand in state affairs. But, be mindful, atheistic/agnostic extremists can be dangerous too. Pol Pot and Mao are two examples who take away fundamental freedoms and rights.

We really can't afford extremism of any kind. They literally can and do kill as we all know for centuries now.

My vacation ends today and can't read this On Faith as much as I would like. It was very interesting to know all of you. But, it would be better if you call yourselves humanists rather than agnostics or atheists. Do remember that labelings and self-identification are important in the war of words in the light of apparent hostility of "true believers" bent in their crusade agaist the Antichrists. I really would hate to see terms such as Atheistic-fascists or Agnostic-Nazis being coined.

I know you are all thinking what is this practicing Muslim up to? After all, she is delusional believer of God? I just hate extremists and literalists.

All the very best Humanists, God bless you and may God be with you always in your endeavours.

Peace be with you,






Posted by: Nafi Sahgem | January 4, 2007 5:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Agreed, Jeff Reed.

As for the earlier question of what to do? I take heart in reading Bishop Spong and other like-minded columnists. Whatever one thinks of religion, atheists also need to understand that religion -- although I personally have reservations about the benefits of organized religion -- is here to stay, at least for the time being. Many reasonable people struggle with how to reconcile faith with science. I think atheists have come to a certain conclusion. Other folks come to a different conclusion (like Bishop Spong).

Trying to find commonalities to converse may be the first step. I have been saying all along that in order to do so, first, a common understanding of some basic definitions must be in place. For instance, many people seem to have misconceptions of the scientific method (e.g., Popper's "falsification"). Second, earnest people of faith really need to take a step back and look at their own faith critically. Books like C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" (even though I disagree with much of what he said) take a reasoned approach from the perspective of a believer. I think that if one's faith survives this critical introspection, faith will be more enriching for the simple reason that it will allow one to be free from the tyranny of false gods (i.e., idolatry), which is after all Commandment #1.

Perhaps I am being too idealistic, but if we can educate our children to think for themselves and not force-feed them ideology, then we can gradually change the world for better? Ignorant and/or intellectually lazy people depend on ideology to guide their own thoughts, and that is the biggest sin.

Posted by: Puzzled | January 4, 2007 5:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Where is Canyon? I do so love reading his thoughts.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 4, 2007 4:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To all:
Many points have been made against Canyon Shearer. Just remember, he is of the ultimate extremist Christian position, and although I respect everyone I meet, being human, respect only goes so far. The best way to treat anyone who harbors such extreme thoughts over anything is to not acknowlege them, unless of course some of their words are simply brilliant.
Jeff

Posted by: Jeff Reed | January 4, 2007 3:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

OK, I'm sucked in for one more round, even though I know it it's completely useless.

Canyon, your ignorance is positively breathtaking.

You wrote:
"How long will it take for a dog to become a non-dog? I don't know, because it hasn't happen."

No, it hasn't, because a dog is an end product in today's world. But a wolf became a dog. Look it up - their DNA is almost indistinguishable.

Canyon: "There are certain species of rabbits that through variation cannot reproduce together anymore, but they are still RABBITS."

Until one of them *isn't*. This is the beginning of speciation. Horses and Donkeys are a case in point - they're still closely enough related to produce offspring, but those offspring (mules) are sterile. Horses and donkeys look different, don't they? And mules look somewhere in between, don't they? Look up Haldane's theory.

Canyon: "When you find a transitionary fossil that proves that there was an animal between the dog and the ape, please post it."

There is no fossil between dogs and apes, because apes didn't descend from dogs. They had a common ancestor, but this is very far back in both lineages. There are, nonetheless, many transitional fossils between extinct animals and present-day species. We have all of the whale precursors back to when they had four legs. Ever heard the phrase "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"? Know anything about embryology and fetal development? It's one of the most powerful evidences for evolution that there is. Not as Haeckel first proposed it, mind you - that the various embryological forms reproduced those of evolutionary *adult* forms, but they do reproduce historic *embryological* forms. We are single-celled in the beginning. We have gills at one point. We have arms and legs like fins. At another stage, we have tails. Embryo whales and dolphins grow legs in utero, then resorb them. Quite fascinating, really.

Canyon: "But until then, your gradual change flies in the face of modern evolutionism which says that there were no gradual changes, but rather very rapid ones, which is why we can't scientifical see evolution or any evidences for it."

You're talking about Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium, I assume, but as with most things, you clearly don't understand it. Read Gould. For some things there are gradual changes, which Gould does not dispute, but occasionally there is a larger change (*larger*, not "more rapid"). Darwin, who had no way of knowing about the units of inheritance (genes) postulated tiny, almost imperceptible changes. Our current knowledge lets us know that changes can be larger - but *not* one species into another in one generation.

Canyon: "The Bible, once again, is not on trial here. I would ask you to research the Socratic method, in that if evolution is proven false(it is) then you move on to the next hypothesis...then we will discuss the Genesis."

BS. If evolution is fair game, so is the Bible.

Canyon: "As for mutations adding information...no they can't. Give me one example of a mututation that has been written to the human genome."

I could give you hundreds. Walking upright, with all the attendant changes that go with that - spinal curvature, different attachment of spine and head, change in shape of pelvis, change in shape of feet. Opposable thumb. Bigger brain. All of these are genetic. Want more recent examples? Can you see physical differences between Africans and Scandinavians? Those are relatively recent mutations, and are adaptive, having to do with the needs for cold climate living vs. hot.

Canyon: "Evidence against mutations being passed on is occurrences when people or cats are born with extra toes. Those toes are not passed on to offspring, hence not additions to dna."

Wrong again, Kemo Sabe. I know cats, I breed cats. Polydactylism is absolutely heritable. It is caused by a dominant gene.

Canyon: "Despite my lack of a formal education in science, I am amazed that I am able to take on 'giants' such as Dawkins and reduce them to pixies."

In your dreams.

Canyon: "God raised the mountains and sank the valleys. There are big mountains and there are low valleys, and the waters rise up out of the waters."

What??? Waters rise out of waters? Are you completely insane? No, wait, don't answer that.
You didn't answer whether there is water above the sky - the firmament is supposed to divide the waters. You also didn't answer about stars being able to fall from the sky, as the Bible says.

Canyon: "We don't know how much the ocean was diluted by, but we do know that there are 'paths in the sea' which God could have quite possibly used to seperate the salinities of various areas...the salinity in the Mediteranean sea is different than the salinity in the Atlantic ocean, despite the fact that they touch each other."

But they occupy separate basins, and the interface is small. This would not have been the case if the entire globe was covered by water. You can weasel and squirm, but there's no way out of this one, Canyon - either the freshwater fish had to go, or the saltwater ones did - Oh, wait, no! How could I be so stupid (slapping head)? There's always MAGIC.

Canyon: "The animals on the ark were most likely infants and therefore had little propensity to eat one another."

More bull. Baby carnivores eat meat. Unless they're so completely infantile that they eat their mother's milk, which is made from her meat diet. At that stage, they can't live without her.

Canyon: "If God had no issue destroying the world by flood, I am sure he had no issue in providing rapid plant growth after the creation of the flood, which the food on the ark would have sufficed until it was ready. You think that they picked the olive branch? Why don't you use your brain and think that they brought it with them?"

Right, more magic. You don't know your Bible very well, Canyon. The olive branch was brought back by the Dove that Noah sent out to see whether the land was dry. You say the flood waters were so powerful that they scoured out the Grand Canyon and laid down all those layers of sediment that now cover things miles deep, but they didn't wipe out the olive trees? Is there even a word for logic in your language?

Canyon: "Most 'carnivores'(there are very few true carnivores)..."

Huh?? There are *millions* of "true carnivores"! Don't limit your thinking to mammals, sweetie, there are carnivores in all classes - insects, birds, reptiles...and lets not forget the fish in that big aquarium. :)

Canyon: "... are capable of eating plants and with the power God has over the animal kingdom, until sufficient herds of animals existed, He would have kept them separate."

While the carnivore starved. Oh, right, more magic. Cats are just one example of obligate carnivores - they can't live on anything but meat. And there are *lots* of cat species. Even more if you add in all the ones we only now know as fossils.

Canyon: "That which cannot be proven via science about the flood is easily figured using logic."

Oh, stop, you're killing me. You could do stand up!

Posted by: Pam | January 4, 2007 3:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Canyon Shearer

The recent post in which I trust I explained natural selection/ evolution to you, labeled by mistake anonymous,was mine. I don't believe in not identitfying myself.

Posted by: Mr. Arnold | January 4, 2007 3:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon:

How was my post the opposite of an ad hominem attack?

Posted by: Bill C. | January 4, 2007 3:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Canyon Shearer,

You are apparrently terribly confused. In your last post, you self-destructed your own erroneous
contentions. You proved that you are devoid of any fundametal understanding of natural selection/evolution and not only that--you accidentally proved that the theory of natural selection/evolution is correct.

I think I can explain it to you. Try to follow me.

Lets take your cave-fish example. Your problem is in not understanding that the eyeless cave-fish are, due to their dark environment, GENETICALLY SUPERIOR to the sighted members of their species—because their lack of eyes enables them to survive (natural selection). And since only the eyeless cave-fish survive, only they reproduce and pass along to their young, the beneficial eyeless mutation which evolved to become the genetic blueprint for the species (evolution).

Please remember in the science of natural selection/evolution, the superiority or inferiority of any mutation is determined solely, nothing more or less, by whether it increases or decreases the probability of the organism, in which that mutation manifests to survive and procreate (superior) or to become extinct (inferior). Remember too that genetic effects to an organism’s survival and procreation or extinction are inextricably linked to, and as directly so as a hand is to a wrist, the very specific environment in which that organism dwells.

I’m glad it was so easy to correct your thinking. No thanks are necessary.

I suspect you’ll be as correct about your prediction for the demise of the science of natural selection/ evolution as Voltaire was about his prediction for the fate of bibles.

You’re right about religion, but you didn’t go far enough. All religions are stupid, including Christianity. Natural selection/evolution is a proven science; thus it cannot be a religion because all religions are tautologies.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 4, 2007 2:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon I will not tire myself listing reasons for you to believe in evolution because they are so numerous and diverse that to list a single one would be inadequate to the point impotence. Just go read a book on evolution. But first i implore you to go read "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" by Karl Popper or at least a synopsis of it. A synopsis is a lengthy summary (so as not to confuse your trogliditic brain). A small understanding of falsificationism will do you some good.

On a side not Canyon. What do you do for a living? Where did you go to school? I am very interested to know how a person such as yourself even manages to exist in the modern world. Actually I would be very interested to know how someone like you would be able to exist past the year 1600.

Posted by: Bill C | January 4, 2007 2:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"That disproves your religion as well. For a great evidence, look at cave-fish, who doesn't have eyes, because in the dark, the fish with eyes were swimming into rocks, puncturing their eyes, and dying of infection. Natural selection caused the GENETICALLY DEFICIENT fish to survive"

Canyopn this is a perfect example of how natural selection does work. You really don't have the mental wherewithall to understand that fish without eyes in those circumstances are genetically more fit for their environment than fish with eyes. Natural selection states that and animal will be selected for survival based on its fitness to its environment, which is exactly what has happened here. Just because you personally find fish without eyes to be "genetically deficient" whatever that means, doesn't mean they were less fit to be selected for survival by their environmental conditions. In this circumstance the genetically deficient fish were those who posessed eyes. You're subjective standard of deficiency is quite irrelevant. You offer no proof and infact gave a ncie example of natural selection in action. But you just don't understand why because you Christian mindset has schooled you to think in terms of subjective ideals and not in terms of context.

I had not heard of that example but if it is true you only damage yourself by bringing it up.

Idiot

Posted by: Bill C. | January 4, 2007 2:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

All religion should be unrecognized above the level of the individual.

All ministers should be muted. Only their actions should be permitted to attract adherants.

All believers should be challenged but not degraded.

All non-believers should be permitted to be ignorant of God so they could know that what they really object to is the behvior of believers.

Politicians always lie.

Lovers often lie.

Believers generally have no idea of that in which they believe.

The one part of God that is accessible is the Spirit; yet, very few humans know or are taught that simple fact.

The one truth of religion is that good cannot exist in the absence of evil, and that is the 'root cause' of all the trouble.

Randomized 'Natural Selection' operates on the human species/races and we all get to watch, but we aren't sure that it happens in robins. Robins may prove the argument of the creationist, but the human never will.

Only a creationist believes that God cannot have ever been a good chemist.

Posted by: Grumpy Grampa | January 4, 2007 2:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I have not mentioned one WORD about putting Creation in public schools. I haven't mentioned one WORD about origins in schools."

And I recognize that. I wasn't talking about you specifically. I was referring to creationists in places like Kansas, Dover PA, and Charles County MD.

"If it were up to me, and someday it will be, origins will be absent from our schools biology books..."

Why? As I've said before, I don't see what origins have to do with the meaning and purpose of life. Plenty of Christians accept the hypothesis of natural selection, and plenty of theists in and out of Christianity believe that deity designed the process of evolution. (That's not the same as intelligent design, which attempts to scientifically prove the existence of deity.)

"If you support lying to children, know that Jesus promised a great Hell(perhaps the worst) to those who take Children to Hell because of lies."

You truly have no idea how statements like that infuriate me. It's not about whether I believe in hell. It's that no one has any business calling me evil and worthless and deserving of death, which is what the doctrine of hell is about. To me, it feels like you're claiming that I am worthy to live only when I do what you say or when I meet your expectations. My apologies if that is not your intention. Please understand that in my view, to believe that a person is destined for hell, for whatever reason, is to wish for the person's death - morally they're the same thing.

Here is part of my point - the existence or nonexistence of afterlife or deity are not objective facts. All we have are claims made by the people who wrote the different holy books. Why should anyone accept their claims without question?

Posted by: Tonio | January 4, 2007 12:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Arnold, welcome to the conversation.

I suspect that with 49% of the country and most of Europe believing in evolution, I may very well be in the dark ages. When evolutionism falls from grace in approximately 18-20 years, what are they going to call this evolution generation? Generation confused?

Moreso, to answer your question, Natural Selection equals:

Group of Organisms.
One organism mutates or somehow else gets better.
This betterment is written to its dna.
This betterment is passed onto to its offspring.
These better offspring outsurvive or overwhelm the lesser organisms.

That is the evolutionist view of natural selection. I would believe it quite readily if any mutation were ever found to be better, or if any better mutation were ever passed onto the young. At current only genetic defects are passed on, a definite blow to your religion.

The true definition of natural selection.
A group of organisms.
The weak or succeptable organisms die.
The healthy organisms survive.
No new information is added.

That disproves your religion as well. For a great evidence, look at cave-fish, who doesn't have eyes, because in the dark, the fish with eyes were swimming into rocks, puncturing their eyes, and dying of infection. Natural selection caused the GENETICALLY DEFICIENT fish to survive.

Cavefish is my favorite disprover of your stupid religion...well...it's close.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 4, 2007 12:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio, with all due respect.

I have not mentioned one WORD about putting Creation in public schools. I haven't mentioned one WORD about origins in schools.

If it were up to me, and someday it will be, origins will be absent from our schools biology books, WORLD religions will be an ELECTIVE, and students will truly be able to show their brain power. There is great wisdom to be found in biology books without devoting two or three pages to origins.

Why are you so terrified that my religion be taught in schools when you are completely missing the fact that your religion is being taught in schools? I hate lies, I hate them, I hate lying to children most of all.

The school system will be a better place when a teacher will not ram a theory down a students throat and keep it down with lies.

If you support lying to children, know that Jesus promised a great Hell(perhaps the worst) to those who take Children to Hell because of lies.

Bill C., isn't it amazing that even when you attempt to concede something, we still disagree? Your post was the opposite of an ad hominen attack...and you are welcome to your opinion, rather than worry about mental health, worry about my roots in science, the search for truth, and the impending judgement that I am trumpeting about.

Jeff Reed, your post could be turned on yourself and it would mean exactly the same thing.

Which reasons am I missing to believe in evolution? You have yet to give me one. You are a religious fanatic spreading your crazy ideology which has little chance of ever happening.

Christians will always stand on the rock of Truth, and evolutionists et al. will always say, "we can't know the truth." There is little compromise to be found there.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 4, 2007 12:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

to Mr.Canyon Shearer,

Like most evolution-deniers, you apparently don't understand either evolution or natural selection. You style of arguing is to simply say everything you believe is proven fact and everything you don't believe is factually incorrect. Only problem is that the vast majority of your conclusions have been proven wrong by science.

In a few brief sentences tell us the central tenets of natural selection/evolution. Then tell us how you falisfied them. Then tell us what would prove to you that your beliefs are false.

After all, the the most intelligent minds in the life sciences have been trying to disprove these tenets of natural selection/evolution for years--and have failed.

If this were Miller analogy test--I believe your mind is to that of Richard Dawkins as a Pedue chicken's is to that of Einstein.

"Remember if your parents didn't have any children it is unlikely that you will either."

I feel very sorry for you; it's a shame you are not living in the Dark Ages where I suspect you would have been quite happy.

Posted by: Mr. Arnold | January 4, 2007 11:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Tonio sums it up rather well. We have witnessed extreme positions, and I believe we have seen that their blind beliefs limit their ability to reason. No matter how many times their claims are refuted with evidence, they simply refuse to listen and skirt around the issue. That is why we must look at all religions and those of no religion, find the ones who can reason together and come to some agreement on how to move forward. I truly believe that for us humans there will always be many of faith as well as many without, and I know that I am plagiarizing some science fiction writer somewhere when I write that the stars are their for us to explore, but we cannot hit the stars like a plague, wanting to convert all those we meet to some humans way of religious thought. So before we get there we better figure out how we can live together here on Earth, because if we somehow make it to the stars with the mindset that we have now, someone bigger than us who doesn't care for our lack of reasoning may just decide to help us all find out the infinite question of just what lies beyond. For us to determine how we can live together--the best and brightest minds of all religions and non-religion, as well as thoughts from the masses, need to come together, and by using reason, understanding of another's position (traditions, beliefs, etc), and just plain common sense and logic, we may be able to start ourselves on the right path to get to there. This “On Faith” forum is a start; we must not let this chance slip away.

Posted by: Jeff Reed | January 4, 2007 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment

If you look at Canyon Shearer's post it is very clear he is the victim of a mental breakdown. If what he says is true then he went 23.5 years not believeing in God and then suddenly converted. He claims to have lead a life where he accepted and pursued all the evils he now condemns. Well he obviously was just a little lost in life, freaked out, and absorbed religious nonsense to give his life direction and now since it is the only thing which props him up with some kind of meaning he resists, to the point of absurdity, any thing which questions his unreasonable faith in the slightest.

More evidence that he is out of his mind is given by the fact that he said "US Marines like strawmen. I once got to knock down a real strawman with an M16." I take this to mean that he got to kill someone. Well it is rather sick to glory in the fact that you got to kill someone no matter who they were. I am sure it was made easier for hinm to live with because his religion tells him that as they were godless heathens, hellbound, and parasitic to society, and additionally that God approves of his killing. Very real proof of how religion facilitates and causes violence.

I realize this is an ad hominem attack but I think he is extreme enough that it is relevant.

Posted by: Bill C. | January 4, 2007 11:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"I guess the real question we now have to ask ourselves is whether we are going along Sam Harris line that the religious moderates are part of the problem or to skip this in favour of broader cooperation...I'd rather go for the latter."

Falk Steinle, I tend to agree.

On one hand, both Harris and Dawkins have a legitimate point when they say that religious moderates provide cover for extremists. On the other, to treat moderates as part of the problem seems to go against the principle of freedom of conscience. I'm a big fan of their books, but I disagree with their contention that a person's religious beliefs have an overwhelming dominance of his or her thinking and actions.

My idea of freedom of conscience is that people are entitled to believe whatever they want about the supernatural and the afterlife, so long as those beliefs do not cause them to act in ways that adversely affect others. In my view, it's not my business if some believers adhere to a literal reading of Genesis. But it becomes my business if those believers use public schools to try to push creationism on my children, or try to discredit science and scientists to win converts to creationism.

Posted by: Tonio | January 4, 2007 10:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment

What reasons?

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 4, 2007 7:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Well Canyon, always remember:
People are not stupid, they have reasons.
You standing here and denying the reasons doesn't make it so.

Happy new year to you too.

Posted by: Falk Steinle | January 4, 2007 7:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Aha, Puzzled, what a crazy way to twist an idea around.

I am all for reason and faith; you have the faith, now search out the reason.

Have a great new year, everyone. (assuming this thread is over)

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 4, 2007 6:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Nafi:

I see.
So, what are we going to do? Do you see any remedy?
Would you go so far as to say that the crusader-jihadists are our common oponent?

Puzzeled:
I guess we have equal and ample reason to be alarmed.
I guess the real question we now have to ask ourselves is wether we are going along Sam Harris line that the religious moderates are part of the problem or to skip this in favour of broader cooperation.
I'd rather go for the latter.

Posted by: Falk Steinle | January 4, 2007 5:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks to Nafi for the perspective. It seems to me people of faith should be much more alarmed than atheists should be. Fundamentalists are trying to hijack both reason AND faith.

Posted by: Puzzled | January 4, 2007 4:01 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Craig,re Canyon Shearer,so now you know how and why extremists and fanatics win. They never let up, they never see reason as one hope, they never go away.

We have quite a number like him in the Islamic world. And we just gave up, like you. And they are the voices drowning out the voices of reason like you.

Canyon is not alone. I've read and heard many like him in every religion, especially mine. They are, for lack of better word, internet crusaders, internet evangelists or internet jihadists, bent on eliminating all those who disagree with them one way or another.

One by one, in this thread, I saw BGONE then Dodger etc gave up and walk away.

And as they say, the last man standing is the one who won. In his mind, Canyon won.


Posted by: Nafi Sahgem | January 4, 2007 2:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Craig, thank you for the debate.

I implore you to research 'drug-resistant' diseases in order to discover that they have NOTHING to do with the disease getting better...but rather the disease losing information so as to render the drug ineffective.

Another perfect example of natural selection disproving evolution.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 4, 2007 1:49 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I wish I knew why my posts keep getting held.

Canyon sure seems to be able to post a lot of name-calling, and I'm just trying to refute his misinformation.

I don't think I'll bother anymore, so I guess you win Canyon. Just remember this: if the doctor ever prescribes you antibiotics, make sure to take them all, otherwise you'll be contributing to the evolution of drug-resistant diseases, whether you believe it or not. :)

Posted by: Craig | January 4, 2007 1:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous, your post on the 'forming' star is a joke. It 'may' be a forming star. In reality, it is a lumb of gas. There is no proof for a forming star, no new stars, and no evidence that a star has formed since the Creation of the universe.

Craig, I hope you are beginning to see your brainwashed self. How long will it take for a dog to become a non-dog? I don't know, because it hasn't happen. There are certain species of rabbits that through variation cannot reproduce together anymore, but they are still RABBITS.

When you find a transitionary fossil that proves that there was an animal between the dog and the ape, please post it. But until then, your gradual change flies in the face of modern evolutionism which says that there were no gradual changes, but rather very rapid ones, which is why we can't scientifical see evolution or any evidences for it.

I'll admit, it is a great brainwashing technique...blink...and you've missed it.

Tom Clancy's books were not written 3600 years before science found out about the science there-in.

The Bible, once again, is not on trial here. I would ask you to research the Socratic method, in that if evolution is proven false(it is) then you move on to the next hypothesis...then we will discuss the Genesis.

As for mutations adding information...no they can't. Give me one example of a mututation that has been written to the human genome. This is the question the proved Dawkins to be a nitwit; so I don't expect you to fare better.

Evidence against mutations being passed on is occurrences when people or cats are born with extra toes. Those toes are not passed on to offspring, hence not additions to dna.

That said, your religion is showing through when you say you can turn my post into the Constitution. I have purposely left out key terms found in the Constitution so as you cannot turn this post into. Where are you going to get the necessary words? Are they going to magically fall out of your harddrive?

The eye is beautifully designed. The blind spot isn't an issue, proof that design works inspite of it, if indeed it is a mistake, but I garner that it must have a brilliant function which we have not yet discovered...such as the location of the blood vessels which filter uv rays...something that octopus's don't have to deal with. Sounds a bit like design, don't it?

Pam, I love Ken Ham, a great man and a genious in both the Bible and Science. But anyone can refute evolution once they realize that it is a pseudoscience, you don't need coaches to do it. Despite my lack of a formal education in science, I am amazed that I am able to take on 'giants' such as Dawkins and reduce them to pixies.

The answer to both of your questions is plate tectonics and amazingly, in your questions, you proved the complete lack of knowledge you possess in the surface of the earth.

God raised the mountains and sank the valleys. There are big mountains and there are low valleys, and the waters rise up out of the waters.

Your presuppositions about post flood life are hugely flawed and based on your religion. We don't know how much the ocean was diluted by, but we do know that there are 'paths in the sea' which God could have quite possibly used to seperate the salinities of various areas...the salinity in the Mediteranean sea is different than the salinity in the Atlantic ocean, despite the fact that they touch each other.

The animals on the ark were most likely infants and therefore had little propensity to eat one another. If God had no issue destroying the world by flood, I am sure he had no issue in providing rapid plant growth after the creation of the flood, which the food on the ark would have sufficed until it was ready. You think that they picked the olive branch? Why don't you use your brain and think that they brought it with them?

Most 'carnivores'(there are very few true carnivores) are capable of eating plants and with the power God has over the animal kingdom, until sufficient herds of animals existed, He would have kept them separate.

That which cannot be proven via science about the flood is easily figured using logic.

You can't scientifically disprove the Bible account, you can only stand in awe of the science which magnificently backs the Bible account and continue searching for the science that could do the same for your measly religion.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 4, 2007 12:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I never referenced Popper's actual writings on Darwin. Instead I said that Dawkin's theory, which cannot be identified with either Darwin's theory or even neo-Darwinism full stop, fell afoul of Popper's criticisms of Freud. Yes you are correct he never "refuted" Freud as such but he did rule Freud's theories out as science which is all I'm claiming for Dawkin's theory too. I'm quite willing to admit that evolution occurs and is scientifically proven to do so, but I'm not willing to admit that Dawkin's unfalsifiable theories are science. They're not and here I'll follow Popper.
Insult me all you want but you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Posted by: Sam | January 4, 2007 12:08 AM
Report Offensive Comment

What everyone needs to understand is that Canyon gets his science “education” from answersingenesis.org. This site would be hysterically funny if what it asserts as truth, and the gullibility of those who believe it, weren’t so frightening. Check it out sometime.


To Canyon (against my better judgment):

Others have corrected you on lungfish and the Hubble’s pictures of stars being born, while my posts were being held.

Where did apes come from? Dryopithecus. Before that? Proconsul Africanus.

Something between man and ape? Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy).

Now I have a couple of questions for you.

1) Did you know that in the Bible it says that after God made the waters, he separated them with the firmament?
“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.”
And then he hung the Sun, Moon and stars in the firmament?
“And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,”

Do you believe that above the sky there is water? Do you believe that the Sun, Moon and stars are “set in” the sky? That the stars can “fall”?

2) After the flood, when the waters receded (where did they go?) and the animals were released, what did they eat? All the vegetation would be gone (which begs the question of where that olive branch came from) – nothing for the herbivores to eat. And any predator that got itself a meal would have wiped out a species. Remember that there were only two of each, and those hungry predators couldn’t wait for a meal until there was time for gestation. And what about the fish? Freshwater fish can’t survive in salty ocean water, and if the ocean salt was diluted by all that rain, the ocean creatures would have died. Did Noah have a giant aquarium on board, too?

Every human population on Earth has creation myths and legends of their earliest “history”. How can we tell the legends from true history? Easy. They all involve supernatural feats, superhuman heroes, sorcery, magic, monsters and demons. We have no trouble recognizing them as such when they are the myths of another people. We scoff at them. But when they the ones we grew up with, we can’t seem to recognize them at all. Sometimes it makes me embarrassed to be a member of the species.

Posted by: Pam | January 4, 2007 12:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"Craig, again, because a dog can create a dog has nothing to do with evolution because that dog will always bring forth a dog, no experiment has ever shown anything remotely different."

Of course a dog will always bring forth a dog. No one ever said otherwise. But it would be slightly different from the original dog. And that dog would bring forth a slightly differnt dog, and that another. How much different would one of the great-great-great-....-great grandchildren have to be before you would agree that it was no longer a dog?

"Evidence refutes the Big Bang from the Laws of Nature, to the basics of rotation, to the dynamics of an explosion/expansion, to the basic logic of the idea."

I'm still waiting for specific examples. Which Laws of Nature? What about the basics of rotation?

"You believe in evolution despite evidence against it "

I'm still waiting for you to post some evidence against it. So far all you've said is that "I believe in Genesis, therefore evolution is wrong." Please post some specific piece of evidence that disproves evolution.

"The Bible is not on trial, but a list of scientific facts in the Bible was posted on this thread a few days ago."

There are scientific facts in Tom Clancy's books too. That doesn't mean the books are true. :)

"The theory of evolution hasn't been thrown out because evolution is not science "

This must be news to the thousands of biologists who work with it every day.

"No matter how many times you edit my posts for grammar and spelling, it will never become the Constitution of the United States because natural selection doesn't add information."

No, but mutations can add information. Natural selection may (or may not) favor organisms that carry that mutations. I could write a program that would randomly change, add, or remove a letter from your post, and by selecting the changes that brought it closer to the Constitution, I would eventually get there.

"You are a religious fanatic espousing on the lack of merits of the eye. It is a stupid argument"

I wasn't espousing the lack of merits in the eye. I am saying our eyes *could have been better*. If they were truly designed, then the designer did some silly things, like putting the blood vessels in front of the light receptors and having a blind spot where the optic nerve connects. Surely a perfect God would done a better job on His highest creation? Or did He screw up ours eyes on purpose after the Fall?

"It is funny that the flawed eye serves us so well...and that a better one hasn't evolved?"

Better ones *have* evolved. Eyes of cephalopods (eg, squid and octopi) don't have these problems.

Posted by: Craig | January 4, 2007 12:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I had a long reply that keeps getting held, so I'll content myself with a short one. :)

"If stars are forming, I would love for you to show me ONE, the Hubble can't find it,"

Is that so?
http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/hstexhibit/stars/starbirth.shtml

Posted by: Anonymous | January 3, 2007 11:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Craig, again, because a dog can create a dog has nothing to do with evolution because that dog will always bring forth a dog, no experiment has ever shown anything remotely different.

Evidence refutes the Big Bang from the Laws of Nature, to the basics of rotation, to the dynamics of an explosion/expansion, to the basic logic of the idea.

You believe in evolution despite evidence against it and blind faith that there is evidence for it, and then you argue for its existence. That makes you a religious fanatic in the theology of evolution.

The Bible is not on trial, but a list of scientific facts in the Bible was posted on this thread a few days ago.

What is on trial is the religion of atheism and evolutionism.

What you said about scientific theories is beautiful, it is true. The theory of evolution hasn't been thrown out because evolution is not science and does not operate as such.

How long would I have to weed through the junkyard weeding out the bad parts before I found my 747? Natural selection disproves evolution. No matter how many times you edit my posts for grammar and spelling, it will never become the Constitution of the United States, because natural selection doesn't add information.

You are a religious fanatic espousing on the lack of merits of the eye. It is a stupid argument and if you are ever saved from your religion, you will see that. It is funny that the flawed eye serves us so well...and that a better one hasn't evolved?

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 3, 2007 11:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Craig, variation is the greatest brainwashing technique of evolution. Because a dog can have a different dog, you believe a cat can have a kangaroo."

Um. No I don't, and neither does anyone else. Why would I?

"I cannot prove Genesis to you because you really truly want the big bang to be true."

What I want or don't want doesn't matter. The evidence favors the Big Bang.

"You can't prove the big bang to me because I believed in the big bang, examined everything you are saying, and saw the ridiculousness of it."

But you never say WHY you thought it was ridiculous.

"Neither of our religions has enough knowledge to say with any certainty that either is true."

I don't believe in a religion. But I accept (for now) the evidence for the Big Bang and evolution.

"And in every testable way, the Bible is perfect,"

Examples, please.

"Unfortunately for you, in every testable way, your theory fails"

Sorry, it's been tested repeatedly and so far hasn't failed. If it had, it would have been thrown out for a better theory. That's how science works.

"It was once compared that evolution is similar to a tornado going through a junkyard and a 747 coming together through random chance. It is an insult to my intellect and to yours to suppose such a thing could happen."

It's also a bad example, because evolution doesn't work that way. The 747-and-tornado example that creationists like to trot out is yet another strawman posted by people who don't understand how evolution works. Evolution doesn't work by throwing together all the pieces at once; it works by saving the useful stuff as it goes along.

"The eye humbles all human engineering; infinitely more complex and better working than any human machine ever conceived."

The human eye is also poorly "designed", for lack of a better word. We could really do without that blind spot we all have.

Posted by: Craig | January 3, 2007 11:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Daren, thank for your thought provoking and important question.

I encourage doubt in EVERYTHING. To go through life surrounded by blind faith is perhaps the worst way to live, in my opinion.

I was a skeptic in the Bible for many years, it took me a long time reading prophecy and comparing science in the Bible to science in the world before I could trust that the Bible is indeed devoid of lies and contradiction, and that the myths are actually His Story trustable because it is written by God.

It is a dangerous thing to trust that because Qanza has never had an accident that the flight you are one will not be their first.

That is because Qanza is made up of human beings, and we trust them as much as we possibly can. But because the Bible is made up of God, we can trust it as much as it is possible to trust God, which is perfect trust.

I encourage to you be a skeptic in evolution, the Bible, Allah, and 'atheism' until one can prove to you to be the truth, or likely the truth. The only thing that can actually disprove the others is truth.

Good luck in your search.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 3, 2007 11:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Craig, variation is the greatest brainwashing technique of evolution. Because a dog can have a different dog, you believe a cat can have a kangaroo.

I cannot prove Genesis to you because you really truly want the big bang to be true. You can't prove the big bang to me because I believed in the big bang, examined everything you are saying, and saw the ridiculousness of it. Neither of our religions has enough knowledge to say with any certainty that either is true.

Fortunately for me, I am on the side of God; and in every testable way, the Bible is perfect, and therefore in the difficult to test arenas and the untestable, I can trust it.

Unfortunately for you, in every testable way, your theory fails, and therefore the things that are difficult or impossible to test are untrustworthy.

In an effort to break the stalemate, I have been working on a (open air) sermon put together from the ideas of Todd Friel, Paul Washer, Charles Spurgeon, Ray Comfort, and especially Jesus Christ. I have attempted to appeal to your intellect, but have found your intellect closed to reason. Now I would like to take a shot at your conscience, you are the first to hear this.

It was once compared that evolution is similar to a tornado going through a junkyard and a 747 coming together through random chance. It is an insult to my intellect and to yours to suppose such a thing could happen.

This is because a 747 is incredibly designed by ingenious men working for years to bring together something like the 747. It is difficult to understand just how intricate the 747 is, so maybe we can take a look at the fuel control for just one of its four engines.

The fuel control on a 747 is composed of approximately 300 parts contained in a box approximately 12 inches by 8 inches by 6 inches. In order to work on this part, you must go to school for an additional two years after completing your part 65 training, which takes approximately two years. The reason for the additional training is because the Fuel Control is the most important part of the 747. It controls fuel flow to the engines; when the engine needs fuel, it gives it to it, when the engine doesn't need fuel, it keeps it back. It does this by measuring and comparing input fuel, turbine temperature, ambient pressure, fuel pressure, throttle position, bleed air, and contains several redundancies.

If the fuel control fails to give the engine enough fuel, the airplane will fall out of the sky, killing as many as 544 people. If the fuel control gives the engine too much fuel, the airplane will instantly become a fireball, killing 544 people in the air and innumerable more in the path of the flaming debris. The man working on this part is responsible for thousands of lives; undoubtedly the fuel control is unbelievably and incredibly designed.

Contained within these 576 cubic inches are 300 minute parts, all placed with a purpose, and we consider this item to be a marvel of engineering.

Consider then, the human eye. The human eye contains 137......MILLION......light sensitive cells packed into an area the size of a POSTAGE STAMP. The human eye measures and compares light levels 24 times a second. It focuses quicker than you can realize it is out of focus. It contains a self-lubricating system and automatic windshield wipers. Each second it ticks imperceptibly left to right, helping the brain to determine distance. The eye filters harmful UV rays by filtering them through the very blood vessels that replenish it in order to protect and sustain itself.

The eye humbles all human engineering; infinitely more complex and better working than any human machine ever conceived.

The eye is so important to us, that when asked if someone would consider donating theirs for the sum total of One-Million Dollars, the majority unhesitatingly turn the offer down. But more important, when offered One-Billion Dollars for both eyes, not a single taker can be found.

And yet the Bible says that the eyes are the windows to the soul. If the pair of eyes is worth more than One-Billion Dollars, how much more is the Soul worth?

Jesus Christ gave us a taste, by saying that if the eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it into the fire, for it would be better to enter Heaven missing an eye than to enter Hell whole.

The eye is a tiny, nearly insignificant part of ourselves, and if we put so much emphasis on maintaining it, how much more should be put forward to maintain our soul?

We know that in the presence of the degeneration of the species and the world that our eyes have become weak and damaged. Through the intelligence of man are we able to place tiny pieces of glass on the SURFACE of our postage stamp sized eye and see clearly. I am blind without these lenses, but through the grace of science I am able to see.

We also know that in the presence of the degeneration of the species and the world that our souls have become weak and damaged. Daily we fall short of the Glory of God, every time we fail to thank God for the gift of sight, every day we claim that chance lead to the creation of a fuel control unit, every day we lie to God and say that we don’t need him because we are quite capable of fixing our own eyesight problems. We offend God, we transgress His laws, we ignore Him, and even still, God has corrected the damage done to our soul.

In that a lens can correct eyesight, the Lamb can correct the soul. Jesus Christ came and provided the correction by being the perfect Human; subjected to the law, to the degeneration, the temptation, and came through it unblemished and perfect, only to die a humiliating death, rising from the dead, and correcting the deflection of the human soul.

If you want to fix your eyesight, there are two things you need to do. You need to realize you have an eyesight problem, and then you need to put on the corrective lens.
If you want to fix your soul, there are two things you need to do. You need to realize you have a soul problem, and then you need to put on the corrective action of Jesus Christ. In other words, repent of your sins and place your trust in Jesus Christ to save you!

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 3, 2007 11:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

CANYON SHEARER:

I can accept that you would question the assumptions underpinning evoluationary science. But can you accept my skepticism of the Bible, which is most likely a collection of myths, lies, superstitions, and contradictory statements?

Posted by: DAREN | January 3, 2007 10:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

CANYON SHEARER:

Yes, it is incumbent on the religiously devout to prove that God exists...and to do so in a manner that everyone else can make an objective judgement.

Posted by: DAREN | January 3, 2007 10:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Please educate me in evolution, give me one fact; for then, praise dawkins, I can finally believe!"

OK.

Fact: Random genetic variations exist within a species.
Fact: Variations can be passed on to offspring.
Fact: Environmental or artifical selection pressures can favor one variation over another.

That's evolution in a nutshell. I don't think you can really argue against any of them.

Or if you disagree, read up about antibiotic-resistant diseases. That's evolution in action. Here's a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance

Posted by: Craig | January 3, 2007 9:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Lungfish? Evolution? Creationism? Intelligent design? Big Bang? And to think I got an A in evolution in college.

The theoretical framwork for Big Bang do have similarities with Hinduism's concept of time and space.

I find it interesting that Muslims do not really get into passionate discussions on evolution and creationism. Must be the mindset that science is used as proof of the existence and wonderment of the God. Not to disprove.

Who knows what God really is, but we are "certain" that God does not create man in his image, no any man is divine or semi-divine. That would be according God a puny human status. And the wrath of the evengelicals shalt fall on me : )

Posted by: Nafi Sahgem | January 3, 2007 9:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Adam was created a man, creation was created complete, therefore the light from stars was created complete. Easy."

Except that means God is deliberately trying to fool us into thinking the universe is older than it really is, which means God is either a liar or a trickster. Maybe it's really Loki? :)

Posted by: Craig | January 3, 2007 9:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"More importantly, how can we see things that are 47 Billion light years away if the universe is only 16 Billion years old?"

We can't. The most distant things we can see are about 13 billion light years or so away. The universe as a whole may be bigger than the observable universe, but we can't see the rest of it because due to the limitation of the speed of light, there hasn't been enough time for anything to reach us from there.

Posted by: Craig | January 3, 2007 9:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"More importantly, how is everything expanding away from the Earth? That would place the Earth in the center of the universe."

No. The thing that's hard to grasp about the Big Bang for a lot of people is that it wasn't an explosion *in* space; it was an explosion *of* space. You couldn't have stood "outside" and watched the Big Bang happen because there was no outside to stand in. Space itself didn't exist.

After the Bang space expanded and continues to expand today. The second thing to note is that every point is expanding away from every other point; so wherever you stand it always looks like you're at the center of the expansion.

Imagine if the universe consisted entirely of a 1-dimensional line, like this:

A-B-C-D

The dashes represent a distance of say 10 million light years (10 Mly). If we want long enough, the distance between any two points will double, so the universe looks like this:

A--B--C--D

Now point A sees B get 10 Mly farther away, C get 20 Mly farther, D get 30 Mly farther, so it seems like everything is expanding away from him. Not only that, but the futher away the other point, the faster it appears to be receding!

But B sees A get 10 Mly further, C also get 10 Mly farther, and D get 20 Mly farther, so it also seems like everything is expanding away from him.

Every point can legitimately claim that it looks like everything else is rushing away from them. In reality, it's just the space between them getting bigger.

Posted by: Craig | January 3, 2007 9:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Of course the balloon is empty inside. It is just to get you to visualize how the outside balloon surface would expand, and the distance between two imaginary points on the balloon surface would become more distant. And why do you skirt the issue? I haven't read Stephen Wright, and why is that relevant? A simple question. If the star is billions of light years away, and the light from that star got here now, then how old is the star? And how old (at least) is the universe?

I don't worship idols (or anything else, for that matter). As hard as it may be to accept, people don't worship evolution because it is not a religion. You say you worship God, but really, it doesn't sound like any sane notion of God most sensible Christians would understand.

Confronted with a question you cannot answer, you avoid it and then react emotionally. Please think about what you are saying.

If you think the Big Bang is a poor explanation, then why? And if the Big Bang is an utter failure, does that automatically qualify Genesis as a valid explanation? As I said, if you read Genesis as a declaration of your faith, then fine. However, if you want to say that the Book of Genesis is a factual accounting of the beginning of the universe, then that is something you should support with credible (objective) evidence.

Posted by: Puzzled | January 3, 2007 7:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Have you read Stephen Wright's book? He is an evolutionist, I thought you'd have a picture of him on your wall...

He proposes the universe is 47 Billion light years in any direction from Earth.

When you blow up a baloon, there is empty space in the middle...your analogy fails.

More-so, if we BLEW up from nothing and it magically became everything, things would be coming with us, going in the same direction as us, following us...we DON'T SEE THAT.

The big bang is a poor explanation for the creation of the universe.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 3, 2007 6:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Canyon,

No, stars 50 billion light years away would not be visible until the light from the star reached us (50 billion years later), and stars don't generate light until they exist. Please proof-read your posts. Do you even understand your own postings if you were to read them over?

Also, even if earth is not at the center, if the entire universe is expanding, then of course everything would seem to be going farther away. Ever blow a baloon?

Posted by: Puzzled | January 3, 2007 6:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Why aren't you allowing me to post???

Posted by: Pam | January 3, 2007 5:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Forgive me if this posts twice, I'm having difficulty with the website:

Dear Falke, bravo on your research! I never thought I'd see the day an evolutionist actually looked something up! You are a credit to your religion.

I am actually conceding a loss for argument concerning Lungfish; in the many articles I have read on it, none have ever mentioned that it has gills; I have now read several scientific reports and truly, Lungfish does breath-in through its lungs and out through its gills. I can agree, that is incredible.

I have no idea if lungfish is an intermediary, much more research is necessary, it is odd that his gills do not operate; why would he lose that ability when he spends 99% of his life underwater?

However, lungfish could have easily survived the flood, considering the fact that they have been observed to burrow in the mud and slow their metabolism to 1/60th of normal. That is comparable to the gilled creatures that live for months on end on top of Stone Mountain in Georgia waiting for rain.

Thank you very much for the intriguing thought, I haven't seen an evolutionary evidence in a long time that took me more than ten seconds to completely refute. Be assured that I will be researching the issue further.

You bring up an interesting point with sweetwater and saltwater animals. It is also extremely interesting to note that the salinity of the ocean is less salty than an evolutionist would expect and more salty than a creationist would expect. A creationist rectifies this by saying we don't know the original salt content of the ocean, the evolutionist has no rectification. Variation could easily create most of the sweet-water and salt-water animals, such as the crocodile, and others may have been able to live in the semi-salty flood waters.

The salinity of the ocean is a point on which much research is needed, as it currently is a mystery to both creationists and evolutionists.

Thanks once again for the discussion.

Rox, if you truly think talk-origins has anything to offer, please post it here. I do love that you instantly went for the "I'm not an expert" defense and the security of your hole. In every debate I've had but the one with Mr. Falke, evolutionists run crying to their hole until I've passed; under the guise, "I'm not an expert."

There are so such things as evolutionists, for you simply need to look in the mirror to see one. You believe in evolution, and therefore are an evolutionist.

I see that you also have huge faith that the God of the Universe will someday fall from Glory. It is interesting to note that in the history of civilization this God has reigned, and His absolute monopoly on truth ensures that He will always exist. Even if men somehow forgot His name and the Bible disappeared, He would still exist.

Anyways, I ask that you pay attention to Falke; for through research, coherent argument, and subjective evidence may you actually learn something.

Puzzled, your presupposition of things being old does not make them old. The universe was created in a mature state, so stars from 50 Billion light years away were created visible.

More importantly, how can we see things that are 47 Billion light years away if the universe is only 16 Billion years old? More importantly, how is everything expanding away from the Earth? That would place the Earth in the center of the universe. After a big bang, one thing remaining in the center would be unlikely, and the chance of insignificant us being the exact center would be smaller than the chance that a monkey could become a man.

I concede readily that Lungfish is the first evolutionary evidence I know of that is not easily swept away with truth; if only your entire theory were so ambiguous so as to survive criticism.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 3, 2007 5:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Falke, bravo on your research! I never thought I'd see the day an evolutionist actually looked something up! You are a credit to your religion.

I am actually conceding a loss for argument concerning Lungfish; in the many articles I have read on it, none have ever mentioned that it has gills; I have now read several scientific reports and truly, Lungfish does breath-in through its lungs and out through its gills. I can agree, that is incredible.

I have no idea if lungfish is an intermediary, much more research is necessary, it is odd that his gills do not operate; why would he lose that ability when he spends 99% of his life underwater?

However, lungfish could have easily survived the flood, considering the fact that they have been observed to burrow in the mud and slow their metabolism to 1/60th of normal. That is comparable to the gilled creatures that live for months on end on top of Stone Mountain in Georgia waiting for rain.

Thank you very much for the intriguing thought, I haven't seen an evolutionary evidence in a long time that took me more than ten seconds to completely refute. Be assured that I will be researching the issue further.

You bring up an interesting point with sweetwater and saltwater animals. It is also extremely interesting to note that the salinity of the ocean is less salty than an evolutionist would expect and more salty than a creationist would expect. A creationist rectifies this by saying we don't know the original salt content of the ocean, the evolutionist has no rectification. Variation could easily create most of the sweet-water and salt-water animals, such as the crocodile, and others may have been able to live in the semi-salty flood waters.

The salinity of the ocean is a point on which much research is needed, as it currently is a mystery to both creationists and evolutionists.

Thanks once again for the discussion.

Rox, if you truly think talk-origins has anything to offer, please post it here. I do love that you instantly went for the "I'm not an expert" defense and the security of your hole. In every debate I've had but the one with Mr. Falke, evolutionists run crying to their hole until I've passed; under the guise, "I'm not an expert."

There are so such things as evolutionists, for you simply need to look in the mirror to see one. You believe in evolution, and therefore are an evolutionist.

I see that you also have huge faith that the God of the Universe will someday fall from Glory. It is interesting to note that in the history of civilization this God has reigned, and His absolute monopoly on truth ensures that He will always exist. Even if men somehow forgot His name and the Bible disappeared, He would still exist.

Anyways, I ask that you pay attention to Falke; for through research, coherent argument, and subjective evidence may you actually learn something.

Puzzled, your presupposition of things being old does not make them old. The universe was created in a mature state, so stars from 50 Billion light years away were created visible.

More importantly, how can we see things that are 47 Billion light years away if the universe is only 16 Billion years old? More importantly, how is everything expanding away from the Earth? That would place the Earth in the center of the universe. After a big bang, one thing remaining in the center would be unlikely, and the chance of insignificant us being the exact center would be smaller than the chance that a monkey could become a man.

I concede readily that Lungfish is the first evolutionary evidence I know of that is not easily swept away with truth; if only your entire theory were so ambiguous to survive criticism.

Posted by: Canyon Shearer | January 3, 2007 5:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

to Sam, posted 1/3 at 3:33

Your untruthful statements indicate a disgraceful lack of knowledge about evolution and Karl Popper's aplication of his theory of falisfication.

First, Karl Popper never refuted Freud; he said Freud's theory was irrefutable (untestable) and therefore it could not be proved or disproved.

In contrast, although Popper at first aserted, "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program" (Unended Quest, 1976)... he later, as he better understood the theory of evolution, had the intellectual integrity to admidt his mistake, "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation" (Dialectia 32:344-346).

Sam, it would be helpful to establishing accuracy, if your future writings expressed the same integrity that Karl Popper showed, by your admidting how incorrect your contentions were and are.

Posted by: Doug | January 3, 2007 5:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Agreed.
Jeff

Posted by: Jeff Reed | January 3, 2007 5:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I agree that we need a more civil discourse. However, in order to have meaningful conversation, there has to be common understanding of key concepts and a willingness to listen. Perhaps the "true believers" themselves need to recognize that Creationists and the other pseudo-scientists are actually clouding the debate by offering unfounded ideas packaged like science. And more importantly, these false notions of science are barriers to truly reconciling faith with science. The recent conversation between Dawkins and Frances Collins in Time was interesting, but not satisfying (as it was only an excerpt of the real interview).

Most reasonable Christians should understand that Genesis is not a literal account of creation. The first chapter is just saying (in literary language, a kind of a mythic account) that the author believes that God is the creator of everything. The Bible is just one long testimonial on faith (i.e., "I believe!!").

I think scientists can study the Big Bang and at the same time read Genesis as a confession of faith. Scientists will be the first to tell you that there is so much we don't know, and perhaps there are parts beyond our knowing. That is where religion may come in for some scientists. But that does not mean that Christian scientists insist that the earth is 6000 years old and evolution is a farce.

Fundamentalists who get upset about how modern science seems to refute the Bible really have little understanding of the Bible and are showing ignorance on two fronts (science and religion) by insisting on the literal truth contrary to all established knowledge and common sense.

Posted by: Puzzled | January 3, 2007 5:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I believe that only the most fervent of those of faith believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and they are of a small minority who believe that every word in the Bible is factual, when reason and common sense tells us that most are the wishes of the men who wrote them. As the war of words between the Atheists and Christians continue unabated, we should remember this point: Most people of faith believe in an omniscient being that created the universe and has no beginning or end, essentially originating from nothing. An atheist believes in a universe created by an extremely high concentration of matter, essentially ori