No, God Does NOT Despise Anyone

No, God Does NOT Despise Anyone April 4, 2019

It’s hard to believe that I would even need to post an article to make this point to anyone, especially to other Christians. But, apparently, there are many who actually do believe that God hates the wicked and despises sinners.

Who? You ask. Well, people like pastor, author and Bible teacher R.C. Sproul, for example.

Try to watch this clip below without throwing up. [It wasn’t easy for me].

So, just to summarize:

*There’s nothing more dangerous than preaching that God loves people unconditionally.

*People who hear this message of unconditional love may come to believe that God’s love for them isn’t dependent upon their repentance of sin.

*Mister Roger’s Neighborhood is better than the Kingdom of God.

*God loves Christ and then only those who are in Christ [Christians].

*God abhors [detests] the wicked [Psalm 11:5]

*God doesn’t send the sin to hell, He sends the sinner to hell.

*God is angry every day against the wicked [according to the “Biblical Character of God”]

*Every sinner is exposed to the rage and fury of God every second of every day. [See Romans 1:18]

*We shouldn’t “take the terror out of it [the Gospel]” [See 2 Cor. 5:11]

*The sinner needs to be terrified about his condition.

*To bring our nation into righteousness our preaching must dramatically change [to this message of fear/terror].

Got all that?

Where to begin? Well, for one I’d start with Jesus who never told us that God hates the wicked, and who told us that if we’ve seen Him we’ve seen the Father. So, what do we see when we look at Jesus? We see a God who loves sinners and embraces the unrighteous, and shows great compassion on the unwashed and the unholy.

We also read in the New Covenant scriptures that God so loved the world that He gave us Jesus: to show us this love, to demonstrate this love, and to teach us to love others in the same way.

How does Jesus respond to the sinners who nailed him to a cross? He prayed for their forgiveness even as they were in the act of murdering him.

How does Jesus respond when he rises from the dead and returns to face those who crucified him? He breathes “Peace” upon them and reminds them to follow his example of love.

Next, I’d look at the Apostles. Because, if it is so important and vital to preach the terror of God, and to emphasize the wrath and fury of God before we share the “Good News”, then why is it we never – not once – see any of the Apostles preaching about wrath, or fire, or condemnation, or fear?

For example, there are around 6 different sermons preached in the book of the Acts of the Apostles and guess how many of them include references to hell, fire, fear, anger, wrath or fury? [Go ahead, guess].

None of them.

Not a single one.

In fact, what we see is that Paul speaks to idol-worshiping pagans in Athens and affirms these truths to them:

*They are the children of God

*God loves them and showers them with blessings so that they might turn to Him

*They are already in God and are sustained by God no matter what they do

*God wants them to reconsider this information and turn to God

*God will judge the world in righteousness through Jesus Christ, whom He raised from the dead

Now, I get it: That phrase “Judge the world” is in there, so that must be the “fear” and the “wrath” part, right?

Well, if so, it doesn’t seem to have created much fear in his listeners. In fact, the only reaction to any of this is related to his statement about the resurrection from the dead, not to the world being judged in righteousness.

Paul doesn’t mention sin, or hell, or eternal conscious torment. He mentions a God who created us, cares for us, wants us to turn to Him, and who sustains us in every way – regardless of our condition towards Him.

That…sorta seems like…unconditional love….doesn’t it?

[And yes, Paul does mention the word “repent” in his sermon to the Athenians, but that word in the Greek is literally about re-thinking our position, not about being sorry for our sins].

As long as we’re talking about Paul’s message, let’s look a little further to see what he has to say about things like sins and judgement.

“…in Christ, God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.” [2 Cor. 5:19]

What is our message? That God, in Christ, reconciled the world to Himself.

What does God want us to tell people when it comes to their sins? That God does NOT count their sins against them.

What is the message God has entrusted to us? The message of reconciliation [not fear, wrath, fury and conditional love].

How is that R.C. Sproul, and his friend John MacArthur, [and many others], get this so wrong? Aren’t they quoting scriptures to prove their point?

Yes, and that’s really the problem. It’s too easy to quote 2 Cor. 5:11 where Paul refers to “the fear of the Lord” as a motivation to preach the “Bad News” Gospel, and then totally ignore 2 Cor. 5:19 [just a few verses later] where Paul says that God doesn’t count anyone’s sins against them anymore and that we should carry the message of reconciliation, not fear.

In other words: They only see what they want to see. And, unfortunately, what they want to see is a God who is angry and full of wrath and fury; a God who hates and detests and abhors the wicked.

Why, I wonder, don’t they want to see a God that looks like Jesus? Why do they want to ignore a God who forgives sins before anyone even asks for forgiveness or thinks to repent? Why do they want to emphasize the Bad News rather than fully embrace the Good News [which is better by far than they can even imagine at this point]?

I think it boils down to this: You either believe in a God who looks like Jesus, or you don’t.

Some say they do, but in practice the God they believe in looks a lot more like King David who longs to dash the infants of his enemies against the rocks, or like Moses who wanted the Israelites to slaughter toddlers and split open the bellies of pregnant mothers, and kill every living thing without showing any mercy.

That is not the God who we see if we have seen Jesus clearly.

An insistence upon a flat Bible perspective is what leads us to this schizophrenic God who is both a blood-thirsty, angry, despiser of the wicked, and at the same time a God who is love and who looks exactly like Jesus.

We cannot have it both ways.

And the Good News is, we don’t need to. Jesus has come to reveal the Father to us! We can now see who God is and what God is like: God is merciful. God is forgiving. God does not count our sins against us. God keeps no record of wrongs. God is love. God does not hold this love over us and dangle it like a piece of candy that we can only receive when we jump through the hoops.

If you have children, you understand this implicitly. Your love for your children isn’t based on what they do, or fail to do. Even if they did something horrible, or even evil, you would still love them even if your heart was breaking for what they had done.

If we can love our children this way, how much more can our perfect “Abba” Father God – who IS love – love us?

If anything, I believe our message should be to everyone – sinner and saints alike – something like this: “Rejoice! You are so loved by God! Your sins are forgiven! They are forever washed away! Come, get to know this God whose love for you is wider, higher, longer and deeper than you could ever imagine! You won’t regret spending the rest of your life discovering the endless love of God for you.”

That, my friends, is the Good News. And that’s what I wish we could all join together to believe, and to proclaim boldly.

**

Keith Giles was formerly a licensed and ordained minister who walked away from organized church 11 years ago, to start a home fellowship that gave away 100% of the offering to the poor in the community. Today, He and his wife live in Meridian, Idaho, awaiting their next adventure.

His new book “Jesus Unbound: Liberating the Word of God from the Bible”, is available now on Amazon and features a Foreword by author Brian Zahnd.

He is also the author of the Amazon best-seller, “Jesus Untangled: Crucifying Our Politics To Pledge Allegiance To The Lamb” with a Foreword by Greg Boyd.

Keith also co-hosts the Heretic Happy Hour Podcast on iTunes and Podbean. 

BONUS: Want to unlock exclusive content including blog articles, short stories, music, podcasts, videos and more? Visit my Patreon page.

 

 

 

 

"Let me get this straight. Your reaction to a discussion of ontology is "big words". ..."

Love Beyond Labels
"What about robotics and the reproductive cycle of the fruit fly? They have about the ..."

Love Beyond Labels
"Hi bffuxit.I looked at those texts, and I didn't see anything in them that said ..."

The Mark Of The Beast: Revealed!
"That's because there's a difference between support for an argument and the content of an ..."

Love Beyond Labels

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Robert Pritchett

    In response to Keith Giles’ “God Does Not Despise Anyone”: I am a Methodist, and I’ve been staff musician (pianist) in a PCA church for almost 30 years. It is not easy for me to listen to sermons in which I hear that God has created some people for the express purpose of sending them to hell! I attend my Methodist church service at 8:30 AM and then I play for the 11:00 AM CPC service each Sunday. So you might say I have dessert first and then have to eat liver, which I detest! A few years ago R.C. Sproul, Jr. spoke at the church. He said women should not be allowed to vote on church issues because wives’ votes might cancel husbands’ votes! Only one vote per family should be allowed and this should come from the head of the household, the man! I stay only because they pay me extremely well. The income provides money to give to my church where the teachings of Jesus are practiced. We actually take care of the poor among other things! My pastor’s weekly benediction includes this: “Bear witness to the love of Christ so that any stranger you meet will find in you a generous friend.” At my church we hear the Good News and then depart to show the love of Jesus to our community and world. The PCA has NO outreach. It’s all about Calvinistic theology. As a blogger recently wrote: “Calvinism makes me want to gouge my eyes out.” Arrgghhh!!!

  • J & S VanHemert

    Thank you Keith! I appreciate your ability to counter the hyper-Calvinist view of God as a wrathful and hateful being. This type of creed preached by Sproul is toxic.

  • KontraDiction

    I love this! So many people are eager to drop Bible verses to endorse their own personal hatreds. And you’re right, the Old Testament is so full of wrath and murder, it might as well be about a different deity. But this simple message, God is love, sums up everything.

    Also, Fred Rogers is one of the most loving, peaceful, gentle men I have ever heard of, and my personal hero. If Jesus is anything like Mister Rogers, I will follow him all my life.

  • soter phile

    Almost every article, Keith – you seem to live for false dichotomies.

    Yes, God is love.
    No, love is not cheap grace.

    You criticize Sproul for almost verbatim quoting Scripture, then fall directly into Marcionite caricatures about the OT & NT divide – as if Jesus didn’t say the whole OT is pointing to him.

    The only thing schizophrenic here is your “I like this but not that” approach to God’s Word.

  • soter phile

    you said: …the Old Testament is so full of wrath and murder, it might as well be about a different deity…

    Jesus affirmed every pen stroke of the OT (Mt.5:17f).
    He said it all pointed to him (Jn.5:39-40; Lk.24:27,44).
    No one in the NT quotes the OT more than Jesus – he even quotes Ps.22 as he’s dying on the cross.

    If you’ve thrown out the ‘god of the OT’, you’ve thrown Jesus out as well, since he claims to be that God.
    Is it possible what you mean by ‘love’ is something less than what Jesus means?

  • soter phile

    You don’t seem to know what hyper-Calvinism means (e.g., no need to evangelize because of election).
    Sproul is an ardent proponent of evangelism – and that God is loving.

    Some might say purposefully misrepresenting those with whom you disagree is toxic.

  • Chuck Johnson

    The only thing schizophrenic here is your “I like this but not that” approach to God’s Word.

    “I like this but not that” is standard operating procedure when it comes to making use of Biblical information.
    You do it too, soter, as do both Keith Giles and Pastor Sproul.

    Then the selected Biblical advice is promoted as the word of God or the intentions of God.
    It’ putting the rubber stamp of God onto your own philosophies.

    I do it too, but I am an atheist.
    I know the Bible stories to be just stories which were written by ancient people and then handed down to us.

    The problems come when a person want to represent his own morality as being divine, perfect or eternal.
    As religionists often will do.

  • soter phile

    a) no, ‘pick & choose’ is not the intended methodology of conservatives. that’s definitively ‘progressive.’ you can levy that critique in practice (and have some warrant), but it’s disingenuous to claim it is the espoused operating procedure.

    case in point, you rarely hear a call to repent in a progressive church (other than aimed at conservatives). but since it was a theme of Jesus’ teaching, you will hear biblical conservatives calling each other to repent often – even when it’s uncomfortable.

    b) ironically here, you want to privilege your particular metaphysical convictions over mine. you are doing the very sort of thing you claim I should not do. it’s self-refuting.

  • Chuck Johnson

    “no, ‘pick & choose’ is not the intended methodology of conservatives.”

    And I am sure that you and your fellow conservatives will congratulate yourselves for following the Bible “as intended”.
    But “as intended” is impossible.
    You follow what the Bible teaches as you perceive it.
    The progressives follow what the Bible teaches as they perceive it.

    If you want to take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, you will do that. But if you are in the mood to turn the other cheek, then that’s what you will do,

    And you will know with great confidence that you are correct in doing this since it is God’s law.

    You are ventriloquist and God is your dummy.

  • Chuck Johnson

    b) ironically here, you want to privilege your particular metaphysical convictions over mine. you are doing the very sort of thing you claim I should not do. it’s self-refuting.

    No, my convictions are non-metaphysical or anti-metaphysical.
    As an atheist and a scientist, I see the entire universe as being devoid of magic, voodoo or miracles. These things are ideas only and they have no physical form, substance or effect other than the effects of ideas.

    I see the universe as consisting only of physical things.
    Even human ideas consist of matter and energy.

    My perceptions of Biblical stories is that they are merely stories told by humans long ago.

    So my convictions are privileged by the fact that no hypocrisy is involved in my Biblical understandings.
    Hypocrisy enters Bible interpretations every time that the Bible is asserted to be a perfect and eternal source of human knowledge, wisdom and morality. – – – That’s the vanity of Christians.

  • Steven Waling

    You have no understanding of the concept of ‘cheap grace,’

  • KontraDiction

    Soter phile, you are correct, I am throwing out a great deal that you would likely prefer to keep. I personally believe Jesus was an extraordinary teacher, but not God. That the Bible is mostly wisdom-as-story rather than literal truth. And that Jesus (and many others) understood love in such a radically transcendent way that inspires us even today to follow them, and as best we can, to embody that love for each other.

  • jekylldoc

    I wish I could get excited about hermeneutic. I am much more concerned about what I show of Jesus than about what arguments are put forward about God by people anxious to get every jot and tittle correct.

  • ashpenaz

    Sproul’s God isn’t even the Old Testament God–in the OT, God’s wrath is about restoration and purification. Yes, He gets very angry, but only to wake people up and turn them around. All the prophets point toward eventual restoration.

  • Ken Allen

    “As an atheist and a scientist, I see the entire universe as being devoid of magic, voodoo or miracles.” This is a form of the hasty generalization logical fallacy. You are inferring that all scientists deny the existence of the metaphysical, but this is not true. The truth is, you don’t believe that a metaphysical realm exists because you have chosen that option. It has nothing to do with science since some scientists do believe in such a realm.

  • Chuck Johnson

    If you want to know if I claim that all scientists deny the existence of the metaphysical, then ask me.

    Telling me (as you have done here) is dishonest.

  • Rudy Schellekens

    “Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”

    Condemnation is definitely part of the Godhead. John makes it as simple as, “If you do not believe (trust, conjoined with obedience) in Him, you are condemned. Nothing else matters. If you do not believe, “Trust, conjoined with obedience), you will not live as one who imitates God. Simple as that. The bad things done in life? Of course these happen when you do not imitate God.

    “Judgment” is used 22 times throughout the Gospels, mostly by Jesus – and not in a good sense, either!

    Judgment is part of the proclamation of Paul (Acts 24).

    Judgment is used throughout the writings of Paul, either as “a decision made” or condemnation against… for…

    Judgment is the ultimate expectation of all after this life

    Judgment is for the things we have done while in the body

    Peter writes extensively about judgment

    And of course, Revelation is about nothing BUT judgment on those who persecute the people of God.

    Judgment is for for both those who walk with God and those who do not. The outcome will definitely be different. But like it or not, Judgment and things despised by God are definitely in the Book, from front to back…

  • Ken Allen

    Its not dishonest, its corrective. Your claim is embedded in; “As an atheist and a scientist, I see the entire universe as being devoid of magic, voodoo or miracles.” I don’t need to ask, you have already made the claim because of your logical fallacy. I would hope that this would be a learning experience for you.

  • Chuck Johnson

    “I don’t need to ask, you have already made the claim because of your logical fallacy.”

    You are lying.

  • R/R 2016

    I would argue that there is no statement made of or about Jesus, whether by word or by action, without a hermeneutic.

  • jekylldoc

    I expect I agree with that. On the other hand, a “fuzzy hermeneutic”, not sharply focused enough to resolve minor matters, works very well for witness by actions. I have been hugely inspired by insights developed by those invested in hermeneutical purity and precision, but in the end it was the way the inspiration bore fruit in experience that made it important to me.
    Two simple examples from the Progressive side (I have also been wonderfully inspired by some insights from the evangelical side):
    – Penal Substitutiary Atonement downgrades resurrection to an add-on, a side issue to the plan of salvation, by contrast with what the early disciples seem to have preached;
    – “Jesus is Lord” was a political statement fully conscious of his execution by Roman authorities.
    The first moves transformation back to the center of the concept of salvation, where it was for Paul. Action follows, most especially action based on reconciliation. The second puts moral truth back at the center of real power on earth, in full defiance of the principalities and powers. And that is a great antidote, at least in my life, to cheap grace.

  • R/R 2016

    I’m interested to know what qualifies these insights, of which I’ve gleaned from reading Aulen, Yoder, and others during my divinity studies, as big-P Progressive.

  • Mark Dohle

    God’s love is beyond comprehension. We cling to a God of wrath (in the human sense of the word) because we understand that, even if fearful. It is like worshiping Zeus I guess. I do believe that hell is a reality, but how God looks at the soul and judges is different than ours. We are told not to judge others, in is in fact a form of self judgment.

    We need to show how Christ Jesus lives in our hearts by showing respect, speaking truth, and then hoping in God’s mercy and love. If anyone goes to hell, it is a choice, not an accident of birth, or being in the wrong religion. Jesus is the Word, the creator, we cannot reduce him to being just one of us.

    Peace
    Mark

  • jekylldoc

    Well, I am hardly an expert on where they came from, but I find evangelicals wedded to a doctrine of Penal Substitutiary Atonement as if their soul depended on it, which is kind of pitiful, and to a resistance to any political interpretation of the culture of the early church. I don’t know why they do that. It wasn’t until I read progressives, like Crossan and Borg, and like Henri Nouwen, that I encountered them.

  • R/R 2016

    Common, convenient, and wrong. My suggestion is to broaden your definition of evangelical. And your reading list. Would you like a list of exceptions?

  • jekylldoc

    Well, I appreciate your effort to broaden my horizons, but I don’t think I will take the time to read exceptions. I will make an effort not to stereotype evangelical doctrine. Certainly I have found work by Yoder to be uncorrelated with the stereotypes.

  • R/R 2016

    That’s fair. Have a nice day, jekylldoc.

  • hermeneutic/another wierd word MHO. It stimulates my already over-active imagination/ puts me in an enchanted state seeing in my mind an unfortunate guy named Herman w/a case of Hirsutism. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2cba8332db74f35da817dc77229d3c30a4930b2ce2013dd0764cf6f5848f9c8c.jpg

  • jekylldoc

    Might have played for Herman’s Hermits? Tambourine, at least?

  • holydooly

    And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven……but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. Matthew 12:31–32.
    It is amazing how all you warm inner glow Christians like to ignore this passage- reiterated in the other Synoptics. You should all be asking – then what the hell is ‘a sin against the holy spirit’? And the answer is equally obvious to anyone who reads the gospels without Paul’s rose tinted faith lenses. It is a sin of remorseless and callous indifference to human suffering, such as evident in the religious elites who orchestrated Christ’s torture and death.

  • Susan Granade

    Smug obsession with the “sins” of others–and what are these sins anyway?–seems sinful. Sin, to me, includes being angry and judgmental about others’ “wrong” thinking and weakness.

  • Chris Griffin

    Actually this controversy is easily solved by reading Psalm 15, verse 4 which says that one of the requirements to attain Heaven is that we must despise vile people. Since we must despise vile people then God also must despise vile people…

    1 Lord, who may dwell in your sacred tent?
    Who may live on your holy mountain?

    2 The one whose walk is blameless,
    who does what is righteous,
    who speaks the truth from their heart;
    3 whose tongue utters no slander,
    who does no wrong to a neighbor,
    and casts no slur on others;
    4 who despises a vile person

  • soter phile

    Silly Jesus… worried about every jot & tittle… (Mt.5:17-21)

  • soter phile

    You seem to like baseless claims.

    Just as the Religious Right is prone to fear-mongering, the Left is prone to antinomianism.
    A god of cheap grace does ‘despise’ anything… even when its child runs willfully out into traffic.

    That is not love.
    Love necessarily includes a settled opposition to anything that would destroy its beloved.

    God loves us enough to say ‘no’ (Heb.12:5f).
    That’s a biblical theme… & a concept basically lacking in progressive churches.

  • soter phile

    It is precisely your faith in science which Nietzsche directly calls metaphysical:

    Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as science ‘without any presuppositions’; this thought does not bear thinking through, it is paralogical: a philosophy, a ‘faith,’ must always be there first of all, so that science can acquire from it that direction, a meaning, a limit, a method, a right to exist. … The truthful man, in the audacious and ultimate sense presupposed by the faith in science, thereby affirms another world than that of life, nature, and history; and insofar as he affirms this ‘other world,’ does this not meant that he has to deny its antithesis, this world, our world? … It is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science.

    Again, you want to privilege your metaphysical convictions over mine – while claiming you have none. The result is not only self-refuting, but the failure to be aware of your own metaphysical bases leads to an overt-double standard. The more you call others (whether theists or Christians specifically) hypocrites for having such convictions, the more ironic it becomes.

  • soter phile

    a) i chose the word ‘intended’ purposefully – to admit (as all Christians ostensibly do) that we often fail and need a Savior. however, even among secularists, i do believe “to err is human” is a common phrase. that’s not a debate between perceived and intended. that’s simply a functional human experience, which we all share.

    b) the bible “as intended”
    NB: here you have equivocated… moving from conservatives ‘intent’ to authorial ‘intent’ – something that ALL literary scholars recognize has intrinsic value

    you said: the Bible “as intended” is impossible
    here you actually get (unintentionally?) closer to what biblical conservatives are saying. YES! anyone who says they perfectly follow Jesus’ ethical teachings is delusional. it is impossible – and intentionally so! even a cursory reading of the Sermon on the Mount should make that evident. Jesus is raising the bar of all the OT laws by moving to the underlying motivational problem of the heart. does anyone really love that deeply?!

    Jesus’ answer: only God. we need Him. our best efforts still fall short.
    Jesus did not come to teach us how to be better human beings. That assumes we could.
    Jesus did not come to make us better at all – but to make us new. He came to raise the dead.

    No wonder you have rejected this ‘god’ you perceive in the Bible. Yes, such a god would be merely a ventriloquist – a self-projection (as Feuerbach’s critique famously said). But that is NOT the God of the Bible – that is not Jesus – who says to the Sadducees (who don’t believe in a literal resurrection): isn’t the reason you are mistaken is because you don’t know the Scriptures or the power of God? … No, you are quite mistaken. He is not God of the dead, but of the living.

    Jesus is not a foil for conservatives or liberals to manipulate. He calls them both out.
    Just as he does secularists like Herod.

  • soter phile

    extraordinary teacher? do you realize all of his teaching pointed to himself? he was incredibly megalomaniacal. if one merely accepts his ‘ethical teaching’, the problem is that he inextricably links it to his claims to be the center of existence – like Mason, Koresh or the like.

    If Jesus is not who he said he is, then the NT should be thrown aside as evil – not read as a book of morals taught by a liar.

    I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. . . . Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem, I have to accept the view that He was and is God.

    – CS Lewis, Mere Christianity

  • Chuck Johnson

    Jesus did not come to teach us how to be better human beings. That assumes we could.

    This philosophy of yours is quite defeatist.
    It sells short the power of the Jesus stories.

    The Jesus stories are a part of cultural adaptive evolution.
    The Darwin-Wallace discovery is a part of cultural adaptive evolution.

    The ongoing processes of cultural adaptive evolution helps to make us better human beings.
    This runs counter to your defeatist philosophy.

  • Chuck Johnson

    The components of science have been in the making for billions of years on planet Earth.

    Animals on Earth developed neurons and then brains.
    The human brain is the seat of the mind.
    The mind creates and manages the human ideas.

    The entire process has proceeded for billions of years with no magic, metaphysical or divine direction.

    The Darwin-Wallace discovery shows us how all biological things, (including the things that you claim to be metaphysical) come into existence through natural processes. Through the natural functioning of matter and energy.

    I am a scientist.
    I see your magic-infused view of the origins of things, and I recognize your view to be false.

    Science keeps showing us over and over that the miraculous and divine views are incorrect and that the naturalistic views explain things better, with no magic being needed.

  • rationalobservations?

    There is no authentic and original historical evidence of the existence of Jesus.

    Myths and legends written centuries after the time in which the fictional tales of Jesus are merely set are evidence of human imagination and duplicity.
    You cannot validate myths and legends exclusively by quoting myths and legends.

  • KontraDiction

    I disagree. The parables he taught with, which seem to be the most authentic representation of his teachings, always point to the love of God, never to himself. It was Paul who changed all that, claiming that Jesus was God. CS Lewis leaves out this third option: Jesus was neither lying nor a lunatic, but just didn’t say what the Bible says he did. You have to remember, these teachings were not written down for at least a generation or two after Jesus’s death. Many of the original Christian communities were wiped out by Constantine. And the Bible was brought together as one book around, what, year 400? Plenty of time for the message to get altered, and that is what I believe happened, based on historical research.

  • jekylldoc

    So you keep every one of the laws? Tithe mint, and dill, and cumin do you? How’s that working out for you? Helping you understand the needs of others, is it?