Putting it in perspective:
The word gospel literally means “good news” and occurs 93 times in the Bible, exclusively in the New Testament. In Greek, is it the word euaggelion, from which we get our English words evangelist, evangel, and evangelical. The gospel is, broadly speaking, the whole of Scripture; more narrowly, the gospel is the good news concerning Christ and the way of salvation.
The key to understanding the gospel is to know why it’s good news. To do that, we must start with the bad news. The Old Testament Law was given to Israel during the time of Moses (Deuteronomy 5:1). The Law can be thought of as a measuring stick, and sin is anything that falls short of “perfect” according to that standard. The righteous requirement of the Law is so stringent that no human being could possibly follow it perfectly, in letter or in spirit. Despite our “goodness” or “badness” relative to each other, we are all in the same spiritual boat—we have sinned, and the punishment for sin is death, i.e. separation from God, the source of life (Romans 3:23). In order for us to go to heaven, God’s dwelling place and the realm of life and light, sin must be somehow removed or paid for. The Law established the fact that cleansing from sin can only happen through the bloody sacrifice of an innocent life (Hebrews 9:22).
The gospel involves Jesus’ death on the cross as the sin offering to fulfill the Law’s righteous requirement (Romans 8:3–4; Hebrews 10:5–10). Under the Law, animal sacrifices were offered year after year as a reminder of sin and a symbol of the coming sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 10:3–4). When Christ offered Himself at Calvary, that symbol became a reality for all who would believe (Hebrews 10:11–18). The work of atonement is finished now, and that’s good news.
The gospel also involves Jesus’ resurrection on the third day. “He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification” (Romans 4:25). The fact that Jesus conquered sin and death (sin’s penalty) is good news, indeed. The fact that He offers to share that victory with us is the greatest news of all (John 14:19).
The elements of the gospel are clearly stated in 1 Corinthians 15:3–6, a key passage concerning the good news of God: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living.” Notice, first, that Paul “received” the gospel and then “passed it on”; this is a divine message, not a man-made invention. Second, the gospel is “of first importance.” Everywhere the apostles went, they preached the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Third, the message of the gospel is accompanied by proofs: Christ died for our sins (proved by His burial), and He rose again the third say (proved by the eyewitnesses). Fourth, all this was done “according to the Scriptures”; the theme of the whole Bible is the salvation of mankind through Christ. The Bible is the gospel.
“I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile” (Romans 1:16). The gospel is a bold message, and we are not ashamed of proclaiming it. It is a powerful message, because it is God’s good news. It is a saving message, the only thing that can truly reform the human heart. It is a universal message, for Jews and Gentiles both. And the gospel is received by faith; salvation is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8–9).
The gospel is the good news that God loves the world enough to give His only Son to die for our sin (John 3:16). The gospel is good news because our salvation and eternal life and home in heaven are guaranteed through Christ (John 14:1–4). “He has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you” (1 Peter 1:3–4).
The gospel is good news when we understand that we do not (and cannot) earn our salvation; the work of redemption and justification is complete, having been finished on the cross (John 19:30). Jesus is the propitiation for our sins (1 John 2:2). The gospel is the good news that we, who were once enemies of God, have been reconciled by the blood of Christ and adopted into the family of God (Romans 5:10; John 1:12). “See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!” (1 John 3:1). The gospel is the good news that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1).
To reject the gospel is to embrace the bad news. Condemnation before God is the result of a lack of faith in the Son of God, God’s only provision for salvation. “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” (John 3:17–18). God has given a doomed world good news. Why would anyone reject the gospel?
Great thought here Michael. I had a similar one yesterday myself after quite a bit of reflection on how we drag a lot of stuff into our “witnessing” which is really not The Gospel. It’s all about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. We would be more successful in our efforts to reach people if we kept our focus on that sometimes. Nice reminder, thanks!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Wally. I agree. There is nothing truly hard about being saved – yet, many, try and make an elaborate scenario in how it’s done… It’s as simple as a one on one with Christ through faith…. and the wondrous grace from God.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you and yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on My Daily Musing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In your own words, please explain why an omnipotent deity who can do anything needs to have a blood sacrifice to avert his ”wrath”?
LikeLike
@Arkenaten
You want a mere human being to explain the God who created the universe? Has it occurred to you that trying to demonstrate the stupidity of Christians is a fool’s errand? Christians already admit they are sinners. What could be more stupid than sinning? Well, there is one thing, that is ignoring the fact you are a sinner.
Because God created us, we belong to Him. Because God is infinitely wise, we have an obligation to obey Him. When we do not obey God, we sin. Thus, every sin is against God, and it is God who must forgive our sins.
We really don’t know how Jesus could pay the price for our sins. That was probably the thing that most confused me and caused me to reject Christianity for decades. Event though the Bible calls the wrong we do to another a debt, we cannot grasp how He paid our debts by dying in our place. Yet some how it eventually made sense. I cannot explain why. I guess I just decided that if every sin is a sin against God how He chose to cancel my debt was ultimately up to Him.
I suggest you go back and read altruistico’s post again. Then carefully Hebrews with a good commentary and pray for understanding.
What you believe is between you and God. Try as you might you cannot pawn that responsibility off on anybody else.
LikeLike
First, you have never established your god is real.
Second, even if for the sake of this discussion I give you that Yahweh is real, your hand wave comment demonstrates exactly what indoctrination does to relatively normal, sane individuals.
Now, let’s see you exercise a little honesty and integrity and maybe a side dish of intellect and at least try to explain why a blood sacrifice – as opposed to an ordinary, ”I forgive you” was required.
LikeLike
@Arkenaten
Here is your answer: God required it.
Now you can do what everyone else. Read the Bible and try to understand why that is just.
Before you condemn God, however, you might want to observe two things: (1) Jesus paid the price for our sins, and (2) the penalties humans impose upon each other for disobedience tend to be quite high, especially in non-Christian nations.
LikeLike
I have read the bible – twice, and still refer to it from time to time for study purposes.
Now, as you have simply not bothered or are unable to provide a rational, logical answer one can only deduce that you do not know the answer and thus are merely an indoctrinated fundamentalist who refuses to exercise the powers of critical thought.
And this simply makes you come across as rather silly, Tom.
LikeLike
@Arkenaten
Of course.
😆
It is not as if you are the first to make such an observation. See 1 Corinthians 2:6-16.
You must humble yourself enough to ask God to share a bit of His wisdom.
LikeLike
If you wish to demonstrate you have no intellectual integrity and continue to make a fool of your self then far be it for me to suggest you stop.
Remember, there are any number of readers who prefer not to comment and if you are a representative of your faith then you are putting on a very poor show.
LikeLike
@Arkenaten
I answered your question. You grandly pronounced it silly. And so it seems to you. Shrug.
You run around demanding proof from people who have already told you you have to ask God for your proof. The Bible says as much.
So why do you strut like a conquering peacock? Because we cannot provide evidence that would satisfy you? Have we not already told you we cannot give you any proof that would satisfy you?
You say you have read the Bible. All any self-professed Christian (one who has had enough sense to read the Bible) can suggest is that you pray for understanding.
So long as you don’t want to believe, you won’t believe. It is not much more complicated than that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, you simply said Yahweh demanded it.
You still have not made an attempt to explain, and this is what I am asking.
So, why not try again and at least make an effort to be intellectual instead of coming across as a gormless fundamentalist?
Once more, why was a brutal, blood- sacrifice required for forgiveness and to avert Yahweh’s wrath?
LikeLike
@Arkenaten
You seem a bit angry. Shame.
Why don’t you take your question to the one who can answer it? I am only a human being. I am just another creature like you. Do you have all the answers? Then what makes you think I have all the answers?
I just claim the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true. I say that what is written in the Bible is true. You don’t have to believe, but you can pray about it. Why is that a problem? Why does it bother you so much?
LikeLike
Angry? Good heavens, what gave you that idea?
Bother me?
*Smile*
How shallow are you,Tom?
So, you have no answer after all and fall back on rhetoric?
Well done. More confirmation you are nothing but an ignorant indoctrinated fundamentalist.
Good for you.
LikeLike
@Arkenaten
And once again you are reduced to name calling.
Pity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Tom
And once again, after all your pithy retorts and silly sin-inflected jibes, at the end no logical answer.
Typical.
I am surprised you have actually engaged me at all, Tom, considering you banned me from your blog.
Do you somehow feel brave when you can espouse your vacuous nonsense on someone else’s forum?
Sadly it makes you come across more cowardly.
But then, as a number of others will attest, this is par for the course for you.
What a silly person you are.
Ark
LikeLike
@Arkenaten
Some people think sheep are silly, and I am one of Jesus’ sheep.
Am I brave? No. I borrow on the bravery of my Shepherd.
You have earned a reputation Ark. I doubt anyone is surprised I banned you from blog. Fortunately for you, others have more time and patience than I.
Here is a thought for you. There is a descriptive expression that needs no explanation: party pooper.
A blog is a party where people can have a frank, yet respectful exchange of ideas. We each have a choice as to how we will behave. Some of us will come to the party to play. Some of us will come to the party to poop.
LikeLike
So, let’s be frank. Please. no more duck and diving. Explain the reason why Yahweh, an omnipotent omniscient deity required a horrendous, brutal blood sacrifice of his son?
Let us all see if you have the integrity to offer an honest, well-thought out answer instead of chucking more poop at the wall in the vain hope it will stick.
Off you go Tom …. the floor is yours.
LikeLike
@Arkenaten
So we are back to that refrain, and you call me silly? Sigh!
Frankly, I have already answered your question, but it appears you refuse to understand the problem. Perhaps you have never had the privilege of raising a child.
Children ask questions, and they expect answers from those who raise them. Yet we too are only children. So we often have to say: “I don’t know. Go ask your mother.”
Only our Father in Heaven has all the answers. Therefore, until our Father thinks I am a ready for the answers to your all your questions, I can only give you the answer I gave you before: “God required it.”
At some point, we must accept the fact we will not and cannot know everything. Just as children must trust their parents because of what they know about them (not what they don’t know), we must believe in God and put our faith in Him.
Meanwhile, if you must have an answer to your question, I kindly suggest you pray. Otherwise, I expect you will never get an answer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No you have not answered the question as asked, merely providing an answer. This is not the same at all.
I do not want a theological answer as per ‘God said so there…’ as the one you continually provide simply makes it look like a barbaric ritual no better than a heinous Canaanite child sacrifice – something which Christians have always condemned, and rightly so, of course.
Therefore the blood sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth must have a totally different significance than a Canaanite child sacrifice and this is what I am after. Do you follow?
I am looking for a logical, coherent reason for the need for a Jesus’s barbaric mode of death. In other words; why was it necessary for him to die such a barbaric death?
If there isn’t a logical coherent reason then it does not bode well for your god and simply makes him appear brutal and sadistic, for what parent would willingly sacrifice their own child in such a disgusting and unnecessary fashion?
So, once again. Please explain why a blood sacrifice of such a brutal and barbaric nature was required by your god when being omnipotent a simple ”I forgive you” was not enough.
Thank you.
LikeLike
@Arkenaten
You would make either a superb or, more likely, very frustrated scientist.
There is no end of questions. If we insist impatiently upon knowing everything, we will just wear ourselves out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay, so what you are actually telling me is this:
”I have no idea why an omnipotent deity would require the barbaric sacrifice of his supposed only son, but I refuse to exercise any critical thought on this matter lest it expose the utterly fallacious nature of the doctrine, and expose my own fears that I have allowed myself to be duped.”
This I am prepared to accept, as it confirms what all non believers know.
Thank you.
LikeLike
@Arkenaten
When you try to put your words in the mouths of others, those word still belong to you.
I cannot point to the Bible and say: “See. That passage answers your question.” I can speculate, but I am not suppose to either add to or subtract from the Bible. Besides no answer of that sort would even begin to satisfy you.
I will, however, make this observation. You are correct that the sacrifice was barbaric, but that was our doing.
What Jesus did is He allowed Jewish and Roman authorities to give Him a rigged trial and to kill Him. He could have stopped them, but He did nothing. Jesus just let the Jews and the Romans behave as we would normally behave.
On the cross, dying, Jesus forgave the evil done to Him. He did all this after having lived a perfect life, a life in accordance with the teachings of the Old Testament. No mere man could live in accordance with the Law.
What did Jesus’ execution accomplish? The important thing is with His death and resurrection Jesus paid the price for our sins. There is, however, another thing we must observe, the nature of Jesus’ “crimes.” Jesus healed people, even on the Sabbath and He spoke out against the hypocrisy of the teachers of the law and the temple priests. Therefore, they hated Him.
At His end, when He was on trial, the people turned on Him and hated Him too. Jesus was not the Messiah they wanted. They did not seek to have their sins forgiven. They wanted material wealth. They wanted to conquer the Romans.
And the Romans? With casual and brutal indifference, they tried Him. They beat Him. They whipped Him. They nailed Him to a cross.
Therefore, with His death Jesus demonstrated both our own depravity and His Holiness, the Holiness of God.
Still, I cannot answer your question. I don’t know why God required a blood sacrifice. I just know our sinful nature. To escape it, we need a Savior. All of us.
LikeLike
Thank you , Tom. And once again you cement the belief of normal people that those of your ilk are sadly indoctrinated.
The fact you cannot offer a rational answer is proof positive of the fear you have that to make any sort of rational attempt will expose this dogma for what it is – nonsense/.
The neutral observer will make their own judgement
LikeLike
@Arkenaten
Who exactly do you think is a neutral observer?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyone who doe snot have a dog in the fight and might be mildly interested in the lies and ignorance you peddle.
LikeLike
Anyone who does not have a dog in the fight? Can you identify one person?
LikeLike
Me?
LikeLike
@Arkenaten
😆
I laugh, but at one point or another we have all played that joke upon ourselves. Who, especially when they were young, has not amazed to find that those in authority have not solved all the world’s problems? From our own limited point of view it seemed so simple. Don’t do evil.
When we are young, we don’t yet realize our own arrogance, our own sinfulness. We have yet see things from another’s point-of-view. We still don’t know enough to try to see things as they are, from God’s point-of-view.
I pray your “neutrality” will end and you too will become a child of our Lord.
LikeLike
You misunderstand, Tom.
I do not side or favour any religion.I am neutral on this point. I consider all are equally ridiculous and equally disgusting, built upon lies and superstition and promoted by ignorant delusional people such as you, Tom.
Your wish that I may your god is truly hilarious.
You need to learn to accept that religion is slowly but surely being pushed in the background as more and more secular countries shun the nonsense you cling to, especially in traditionally Christian countries.
Look at Northern Europe as a pretty good benchmark. Or Australia.
You are simply standing ankle deep in old, dead manure , Tom expecting something to grow. And it never will, I’m afraid. Except you are beginning to smell a bit.
In a few generations people will look back on this era and wonder what n earth poor fools such as you wasted their lives for.
Ask a christian decnovert. They were in exactly the position you are in at the moment.
Ask any if they regret their decision to walk into the light and shrug off the shackles of god belief.
Peace.
LikeLike
I find your comment rather confusing, Arkenaten. You say you “I do not side or favour any religion.I am neutral on this point. I consider all are equally ridiculous and equally disgusting, built upon lies and superstition and promoted by ignorant delusional people such as you, Tom.”
You claim to be an atheist and we all know that atheism is a religion. Also, you proclaim without reserve that you are a practicing atheist.
I find it, therefore, quite alarming that you find all religions, including your own, as being “equally ridiculous and equally disgusting.” I presume then you feel the same about your own? I find it equally astonishing that you profess; even your own religion is built upon lies and superstition and promoted by ignorant delusional people.” What is it then you are saying about yourself? Would not atheism also be built “upon lies and superstition and promoted by ignorant delusional people, such as yourself?” After all you did say “all” religions….. didn’t you?
Explain yourself, Arkenaten. How is atheism, as a religion, different than say, Christianity, Hindu, Islam or Judaism? Can you enlighten us, Arkenaten?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Atheism a religion?
Oh, dear.I think any further discussion on that topic will only embarrass you and make you look even more silly than you already are; so I will take the fifth if that’s all right with you?
We can resume if you are able to formulate an intelligent comment, no problem.
Your call.
LikeLike
Arkenaten, please, I welcome the embarrassment if you’ll only accept the hypocrisy of yourself. After all; didn’t you tell Citizen Tom “the fact you cannot offer a rational answer is proof positive of the fear you have that to make any sort of rational attempt will expose this (atheist dogma) dogma for what it is – nonsense?” Again, please enlighten me as to “how your religion is different than those you detest?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, as I am sure you know,atheism is the non-belief in gods. And that’s all.
Now , if you wish to continue your little quest and make yourself look like a complete dick then that is your choice.
And for the general amusement of anyone lurking, I am more than willing to throw a few logs on the fire of of your imbecility, so, what you got?
LikeLike
So, the first qualifier to a religion is “belief or a belief system.” Yours being then the “belief there is no god or gods.” You are beginning to sound like other religions in that regard..
Oh, I do wish to continue my “little quest” Arkenaten. Please go on……and can you qet to the question I originally asked: “How is atheism different from other religions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Judaism? So far you have only discussed the similarities.
LikeLike
Wrong. There is no doctrine and no ”belief”. You can argue semantics til the rapture or your head explodes.
Anything else?
LikeLike
Atheism in the USA is protected under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. There are also online churches that have been created by atheists to secure legal rights, to ordain atheist clergy to hold ceremonies, as well as for parody, education, and advocacy. Does this not constitute doctrine or dogma of your religion?
LikeLike
Ah, so in other words, they are simply taking the piss?
I am surprised you are unable to see the irony?
And this makes your religion look even more silly, does it not?
Sorry, that you recognise it is done for parody shows you don’t believe it yourself.
You are dancing on quicksand. Why not quit while you are at least not sinking?
LikeLike
At every turn, Arkenaten, you squirm, cover your ears and make your comments which have little or no substance. You squirm uncontrollably when confronted with truth and wisdom. You have done so when confronted by Citizen Tom and do so again with Phadde2. Your M. O. is nothing more than an attempt at showmanship – you’re feeble in that regard as well, Arkenaten.
I fear you are as much a failure as an atheist as you were a Christian….. and rather than taking the responsibility for your failures you blame God and others who Love Him. Take responsibility for shunning God – because He is at your door and it fears you so that He is. Your self proclaimed intellect is useless against God. You would be better if you asked God for wisdom. If you spent as much time serving God as you do squirming from Him and Christ you’d be a mighty warrior.
You even deny your own religion and faith (atheism). You squirm at the fact it is a religion; for you to recognize it as a religion your own hypocrisies are revealed and greater minds than your own have proclaimed it so. And you are greatly troubled. For on one hand you were raised in a Christian environment; yet, being so doesn’t make you a Christian. Environments can’t save you – the family you’re borne to can’t save you – only the blood of Jesus Christ can save you, Arkenaten.
And this brings us to the question you posed to Citizen Tom. “Why was such a drastic and horrendous death required of Him?” The answer is quite simple, Arkenaten. Because man’s sins are great. In olden times each person brought a bull, pigeon, dove, goat or sheep which were spotless and pure to be sacrificed. Yet, this atonement was good for but one year and again such sacrifice was needed for man’s transgressions. God knew that as populations grew more sacrificial animals would be needed. So God sent His only Begotten Son to suffer the hardships, pain and death for us all. A punishment each of us justly deserved.
Set down your gavel, Arkenaten, for you are not a good judge of Christianity nor it’s people. For as you judge so shall you be judged – whether in this life or the next. Remember that and remember to seek wisdom over intellect……
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you, Arkenaten. Shalom.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, Tom, for your words and informative response. Greatly appreciated.
May the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob bless and keep you and yours.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You believe in empirical evidence and science right? So why not apply the scientific method? Instead of applying strictly metaphysical reasoning to dismiss Christianity or really any religion why not apply the scientific method?
For example, Ark, why not pray a 27-day Novena? why not? You’re a *scientist* right? Ask, God the question you ask Tom. After you do this, of course, applying the scientific method again, do another 27-day Novena. Compare the results.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Because such experiments have been done more times than you can feed thousands of people with a few loaves and fishes – with exactly the same results.
Maybe we should apply the scientific method to walking on water, coming back from the dead and getting a 14 year old girl pregnant without even a sniff of sperm?
And then maybe we can apply the scientific method to removing the giant nob stuck on your head?
How’s that work for you, phadde2?
LikeLike
Ahh, yes, the Atheist who is filled with programmed replies, instead of proposing your own hypothesis and testing for yourself , you simply accept the thoughts of others Dawkins, Hitchens, etc– As you are a ‘free thinker’…
So instead of applying the scientific method for finding the truth and actually striving for your own free thought, you instead dismiss others metaphysical concepts based on some sort of priori knowledge, how scientific of you… … The positive claim must provide positive proof is a copout position, it negates the responsibility of your own personal position to find the truth, which is the goal of science– the copout is the anathema of free thought.
For example, if I ask, why do you lack the belief in God? Sure, you can give me the programmed response that the burden of proof is on me; however, your response is still a positive one stating that you lack belief that God exists–therefore the copout is a fallacious position because your have in fact created a positive claim , “Presumptuous Atheism.” <— And none of us have seen you support this position without any proof.
LikeLiked by 2 people
By not providing proof for your actual positive claim, your tactic is simply to shift the burden of proof rather than support your own position. Fallacious.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, because I have studied and read several prayer experiments and they have all failed.
Even those sponsored by Templeton.
Do have a serious question or are you simply here to demonstrate what a dick you are?
LikeLike
Oh Okay, so you didn’t attempt any scientific experiments for yourself? You read others ideas, good to clear that up. Well, thanks anyway.
LikeLike
What possible benefit would be gained by conducting an experiment that has been done millions of time with absolutely no positive results whatsoever?
If you could offer a positive reply/reason to attempt such an experiment then maybe I would reconsider.
LikeLike
In accordance to Christian prayer, it would be better for your own personal results to pray in private, from the words of Christ ” 6″But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.” <— The templeton study would contradict this message. So the experiment would be one that would need to be done by you and you alone to assess the results.
You don't believe all ready, for your own scientific purposes there'd be nothing to lose, perhaps you'd actually gain insight for your own cause.
LikeLiked by 2 people
But there is no evidence whatsoeverto demonstrate this works, so what is the point?
You were suggesting judging this from an empirical POV and this has been done, and has failed every single time.
Now, are you struggling with any of the terms or are you simply being an obtuse ass for the sake of it? Remember, you used the word empirical, yet here you are quoting the bible! To me! Hilarious.
Let’s try again, shall we?
And this time see if you can manage it without resorting to quoting biblical text, okay?
Right…off you go.
LikeLike
*roll eyes** I quoted the bible as a point of reference, If you were to apply Christian prayer, you would follow Christian words, hence, the bible quote. This would be reasonable to apply to any study. If you’d try other religions, I would point you to their books that instruct how to pray.
However, it seems you’re afraid or something so thanks anyway.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Afraid? *smile* er … no.
There are millions of examples of such failure from devout believers such as yourself.
If believers cannot get prayer to work – which supposedly relies heavily on faith – then how the hell do you expect an atheist to fare better?
I really don’t believe you have thought this through , now have you?
Again you were the one who brought up empiricism, therefore it is incumbent on you to at least demonstrate how such a feat would be possible, especially in the face of the great many experiments already conducted that have all been failures.
Oh, and should you come up with a way to at least demonstrate how this might work, which god do you propose I actually pray to by the way? You have yet to specify?
So .. once again, off you go..
LikeLike
Interesting, well I did quote the Bible as you pointed out so it would appear I’d be choosing God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The common Atheist trick is to posit a god pluralism, notwithstanding, This is false. There are not different gods, or a plurality of gods, ontologically.
But regardless of whether one group of people called god “Zeus,” “Jupiter,” “Yahweh,” “Allah” or “Shiva” makes no difference for the mere fact that the we’re addressing the positive claim of Atheism of no existence of a creator.
In comparisons to other religions God of the Hebrews revealed himself to them. So I’m simply proposing to allow him to reveal himself to you like accounts in the Bible, however, let us avoid common atheist presentism in those regards.
LikeLike
No, what I am saying is the evidence presented for all gods is unconvincing and thus, can be dismissed.
You have no evidence that Yahweh revealed himself to the Hebrews, so that is a problem straight off the bat.
And if there is no verifiable evidence this god has revealed himself to anyone else why would you expect him/it t reveal himself/itself to me?
LikeLike
You ask for evidence, however, what evidence could I supply from the divine spiritual world would you accept? None, because it’s metaphysical in its nature and you know this. The challenge is issued because it allows you personally to explore the concept of spiritualism in attempt to understand for yourself if spiritualism exists. If it exists, It’s something you couldn’t read in a study and know.
Again, you can try it or not.
LikeLike
If there is no evidence of spiritualism for the millions who have been indoctrinated into your faith alone why on earth would an atheist such as me encounter it?
And how would this be tested against all the christian failures?
Initially you said this challenge was to avoid the metaphysical.
Now you are using semantics when you trap yourself in a corner? Cute!
LikeLike
Futhermore, you’re avoiding the challenge to apply the scientific method by getting caught up on the word empiricism. You can either accept the challenge or not. It’s simple. Whether you’re a believer or not makes no difference, in accordance to Christianity, God will reveal himself or not. Due to your Atheism, you’re position is not. Pray a 27 day Novena for a petition and repeat it applying the scientific method for results.
Sure, you can hide behind no evidence, but when I go fishing in a new pond and I’ve never seen a fish caught out of it. I can take the word of others that fish are there or not, but regardless casting out my line is testing the position that fish might be there.
LikeLike
But your proposal has failed every time it has been attempted by devout believers. Thus it seems rather silly that a non-believer would even attempt a pointless stunt.
Although, for what it’s worth non- believers have previously conducted prayer experiments with a 100 % failure rate.
Again what do you expect empirically such an experimental would show and how many failed experiments of praying to an unspecified and unverified deity would it take to convince YOU that prayer does not work?
This is the real question, surely?
Furthermore, the deity you genuflect to is apparently omnipotent so therefore prayer should be unnecessary, surely?
LikeLike
At the end of result, empirical observation would either reveal that you’d changed your metaphysical beliefs or not. Folks, including believers would have to take into account your when discussing topics on the blogosphere. It’s a personal journey rather than academic on your end.
LikeLike
Whether I had changed my perspective is not evidence that there is evidence of the metaphysical.
Surely you are not that stupid?
So, as we have noted that every experiment of this nature has been shown to be an abject failure, and any change in perspective I might have is purely subjective and quite likely something bordering on delusional, do you have anything sensible to add?
Evidence perhaps?
LikeLike
Well you’ve said every experiment has failed, but haven’t referenced everyone so, again, for all I know, you making suppositions based on priori knowledge.
However, The observations of your testimony would be empirical enough for me, and others, as a historian, I use personal testimony all the time.” So and So thought this at this period, this happened, now he think this way based on his writings.”
Perhaps you believe all history is bunk, but it’s not an entirely shared academic position.
LikeLike
No, all history is not bunk. Superstitious nonsense is bunk.
Maybe you have some verifiable examples of prayer that has worked?
Oh, and as a historian what do you say about different criteria being afforded the bible over other historical texts.
As an example, Gibbon considered certain ancient Christian claims hokum, did he not?
LikeLike
Gibbon’s bias is notoriously noted in the historical community as being an Anti-Catholic bigot. You SHOULD know this bringing him into the conversation. Gibbon’s grand work is nothing more than a polemic against the Catholic Church.
LikeLike
Really? So you believe in the veracity of the claim Nero burned Christians wrapped in animal skins do you?
LikeLike
And???… I know it’s recorded by Ancient sources, and I know modern historians have doubted the claim.
LikeLike
So, do you doubt the claim as well or believe it?
LikeLike
I don’t have an opinion on it. I’d have to analyze the assertions of modern historians more.
LikeLike
But you are an historian and this is a very well know historical claim. Are you telling me this is the first time you are considering its veracity?
Furthermore, you say you are a historian and I presume not just an amateur so as an historian what do you really think of this claim?
I am getting the feeling you don’t want to commit?
LikeLike
Seriously? This era of Classical Rome is not my expertise, which current academic studies focus on certain areas.
By not studying more on the topic, I’d say Nero most likely did persecute Christians as Tactius was a near primary source ; however, he probably gave an embellished account.
It’s not a solid answer because I’m not equipped to give one.
LikeLike
Clever answer. Neatly sidestepping. Well done! You’re good at this, aren’t you? 😉
LikeLike
It’s just the honest truth.
If you wanted more depth from my historical perspective I could give you some information of the economic history of the United States from 1791-1865
LikeLike
Yet you were lightening quick to disparage Gibbon when I first raised Decline and Fall.
LikeLike
Gibbon basically wrote a polemical dissertation on blaming the Church for the fall of Rome more or less did he not? I’m not the first to express the thought.
LikeLike
Perhaps, but I wouldn’t ask Martin Luther his observations on Judaism.
LikeLike
But never mind, it’s noted that you’re unwilling. Thanks.
LikeLike
And back to the asinine. You are very good at it.
Well done.
But as you seem to hold stock in this novena experiment I take it you have done it. For only an idiot would recommend it if they had not done it themselves, right?
So, what were the results for you?
LikeLike
Asinine? What is asinine is asking me the question of my own prayer. I will say all of my results of prayer are positive ones, but , again, what’s the point of asking me this question with our prior discussion, as my testimony will be dismissed?
Again, :You can either do it and see if there are results or not.
LikeLike
Evidence is what I am asking for.
You obviously believe in prayer so it seems only right that you should produce at least a modicum of evidence for the skeptic.
LikeLike
Again, why ask these questions? what will constitute as evidence for you of something that is inherently spiritual? I could say, during a period of my life, I had an illness and no doctors could treat it. I prayed and the illness went away. However, you and I both know this will not suffice for you.
This causes a redundant discussion on the topic, what moves it forward is saying, well why don’t you try it and get back to me on your experience.
LikeLike
So therefore if you consider your testimony will not suffice then why on earth did you suggest a prayer experiment when all we have is subjective testimony and no evidence of answered prayer merely an illness that went away.
LikeLike
I explained this earlier with your positive claim. It has nothing to do with me, you’re simply shifting the burden again.
LikeLike
Either accept the challenge or not. Thanks.
LikeLike
But I told you it was a waste of time right up front and you have yet to offer a single piece of verifiable evidence of is efficacy.
And you never did identify which god I was supposed to pray to either?
Which one did you pray to cure your illness?
LikeLike
I did identify God, read back if you must.
Evidence?
A 2003 levels of evidence review found “some” evidence for the hypothesis that “Being prayed for improves physical recovery from acute illness”. (Powell LH, Shahabi L, Thoresen CE (January 2003). “Religion and spirituality. Linkages to physical health”. The American Psychologist)
23 trials of 2,774 patients. Five of the trials were for prayer as the distant healing method, 11 were with noncontact touch, and 7 were other forms. Of these trials, 13 showed statistically significant beneficial treatment results, 9 showed no effect, and 1 showed a negative result. The authors concluded that it is difficult to draw conclusions regarding distant healing and suggested further studies” (John A. Astin, et al. The Efficacy of “Distant Healing” A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials Annals of Internal Medicine June 6, 2000 vol. 132 no. 11
Like this? or what it? It shows that studies haven’t been 100% failure which I would say 99.9% would indicate a reason to at least attempt for yourself.
But again, you don’t have to accept.
LikeLiked by 1 person
WHICH god?
LikeLike
You couldn’t read back or retain what I wrote? “God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” was my quote.
Regardless, again, ontologically speaking, one God, and not presentism of plural beings. The Atheist positive claim doesn’t require anymore from that as it simply dismisses a creator regardless.
LikeLike
Ah Sure, Jesus Christ, but God works too.
LikeLike
Jesus Christ is my God through the trinity, the only begotten Son of God. Apostolic Tradition observes it as well. Again, you can either accept the challenge or not.
LikeLike
Do you accept my challenge?
LikeLike
Ark and Tom,
It’s fairly obvious that God required the blood sacrifice of a sinless and completely innocent person for the sin of others who were guilty, by the way.. Eze 33 I think says one person can’t pay the debt of another and God won’t punish the innocent for the guilty.. Ie won’t accept the righteousness as applied to the others account. But never mind what the ot says.
We are his creation and subject to whatever treatment he deems fit and proper, God is not good perse. It’s good because God says it is, divine command. “Whatever the president does is legal”-r Nixon.
But can we rightly question an unfalsifiable, unchallengeable God?
Only if he exists. If he doesn’t, there’s no point arguing with people who only have ” God said so” as an answer
LikeLiked by 3 people
I am uncertain what you think you found in Eze 33. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 presage the coming of Christ, and there are the prophecies He fulfilled. Nevertheless, even the apostles were puzzled as to why Jesus did not behave like the Messiah they wanted and expected.
However, I concede your basic point. To validate “God said so,” we must validate that God said so. Hence, the argument is over whether or not the Bible is the Word of God.
LikeLike
Which we know it is not.
LikeLike
Sorry. I misquoted. Ezekiel 18 is the chapter. My bad. Good to hear from you again tom
LikeLiked by 1 person
@KIA
Sorry for the delay. Too much to do. Too little time.
Finally got around to Ezekiel 18. I think Ezekiel 18 says God won’t punish the son for the sins of the father or the father for the sins of the son. As far as I can tell, Ezekiel 18 does not say that someone who has lived a perfect life cannot sacrifice himself for the sins of all.
Since none of can live a perfect life, none of us could sacrifice our self in payment for the sins of another. Without the sacrifice of Christ, we could not even withstand the debt we would otherwise have to pay for our own sins.
Anyway, I think you are reading too much into that chapter. The point is that because God does not hold the son accountable for the sins of the father or the father accountable for the sins of the son we probably should not do so either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And the soul that sinneth it shall die. No one can die for another’s sin is what the gist of the larger group of passages actually say. One person sacrificially atoning for another person, with their own blood, no matter how righteous, is a foreign concept to the ot. That’s what I was trying to say. It has to be ‘read’ backwards into the ot from the new
LikeLike
@KIA
Well, here is the context.
When we say something, do we want our words taken out of context. Why expect something different from the Bible?
Personally responsibility for sin is an Old Testament concept, but so is the concept of a Messiah, and if we don’t need to be saved from our own sinfulness, what else is there that we need to be saved from? Well, there is no doubt the Jew had other ideas. They wanted a king who would make them rich and powerful. Nonetheless, passages like Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 suggested God had a different kind of savior in mind.
What Leviticus does is explain the basic concept of a blood sacrifice. As inspired by God, Moses taught the Jews to sacrifice animals for their sins. The Book of Hebrews explains how sacrifice of Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins once and for all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The amplified bible is not context. It’s paraphrase. And Leviticus explains concepts of animal sacrifice not the efficacy of one person’s blood sacrifice for another.
LikeLike
@KIA
I cannot read the Bible in its original language, and I doubt if you can. So we are both stuck with consulting various translations and commentaries. May when I retire I will learn ancient Hebrew and Greek.
I think it is correct to say that what Jesus did confused the Jews. However, it is also correct to say Jesus fulfilled what was prophesied about Him.
I suspect that when Jesus comes the next time, He will confuse people again.
LikeLike
Why would you doubt that a person who actually is multi lingual, so, grm, Korean, and eng, and a former minister of 25yrs would be able to read or understand from orig languages?
However, commentaries help, and paraphrase do also, but just a pointer… The Jews of ot or even current times would be horrified to consider that the books they wrote (to them were committed the oracles of god- rom 2) had anything whatever to do with or were to be interpreted as even alluding to human sacrifice, even of the righteous messiah
LikeLike
I know nothing about your background, and what people say about themselves on the Internet generally cannot be verified.
Imagine the possibility we were speaking face to face, and because we have friends in common I know you. Thus, we begin this discussion.
When we have to make an argument based upon our own personal authority, it is kind of pointless. Generally, we first have to convince the person we are trying to convince we have earned the right to claim any such authority. It is not your credentials that matter. It argument, your ability to present that argument, and your track record. Neither of us has a track record that the other knows.
Was the crucifixion of Jesus a simple, straightforward human sacrifice to an idol? That’s what the Jews would have rejected. That is what God taught the Jews to reject. Yet those Jews you say would have piously rejected human sacrifice demanded Jesus’ death as a sacrifice.
This is a concept of human sacrifice we understand all too well. It is a concept that does not belong to the Jews alone.
Anyway, you had nothing to say about Isaiah 53 or Psalm 22.
Over the years I have noticed that those whose case is weak focus on only a few points. They see something they think wins their argument. It becomes their fig leaf, and that is all they want to talk about. For example, the only subject Arkenaten cares about is “evidence.”
You appear somewhat more reasonable than Arkenaten, but I wonder what caused you to become former minister. Is there a little detail forms your excuse, or do you truly have a well-reasoned argument against the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Tom. First off, my point as to linguistics was because you assumed to tell me what you didn’t know, whether I could read the original languages just because you admitted to not being able to. (I know there must have been an apology in your last response somewhere, but I couldn’t see it. No worries.)
As to your comment regarding unverifiable background claims, were you implying that I was somehow lying for advantage? Not a very kind way to enter a discussion either, but again… No worries.
Thirdly, I am in the midst of an ongoing series on my blog setting out some of ‘my journey’ and have posted occasionally snippets in my other posts. I apologize that due to my monthly blog purge of non poetry posts that some of these are no longer extant.
I will attempt to keep back some of these in the future for availability sake. Overall, I don’t want my blog to be primarily focussed on deconversion, so that’s why the purge. Hope that helps, but please drop by and read some of my posts for additional details. -kia
LikeLike
@KIA
Because much of what is said on the Internet is utter nonsense, when someone I don’t know tells me something I neither believe nor do I disbelieve. Why such skepticism requires an apology, I don’t know.
Good luck with your blog.
LikeLike
An apology is expected when one assumes both the lack of knowledge and the dishonesty of another without knowledge. But no worries, you’re off the hook. I won’t expect any such from you
LikeLike
@KIA
Thank you.
🙄
LikeLike
Arkenaten, welcome back;
Before we enter into any further dialog and fresh questions; I’d like you to finish responding to my last question I posed to you. Let me give some background to refresh your memory.
You claim to be an atheist and we all know that atheism is a religion. Also, you proclaim without reserve that you are a practicing atheist.
I find it, therefore, quite alarming that you find all religions, including your own, as being “equally ridiculous and equally disgusting.” I presume then you feel the same about your own? I find it equally astonishing that you profess; even your own religion is built upon lies and superstition and promoted by ignorant delusional people.” What is it then you are saying about yourself? Would not atheism also be built “upon lies and superstition and promoted by ignorant delusional people, such as yourself?” After all you did say “all” religions….. didn’t you?
Explain yourself, Arkenaten. How is atheism, as a religion, different than say, Christianity, Hindu, Islam or Judaism? Can you enlighten us?” This should be an easy, no brainer, for someone as yourself – being an enlighten and intellectual person that you are. Then we can move on to which God I send my blessings through.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As we discussed, atheism has a belief system and an indoctrination. After all we did mention atheists have their own churches and so forth. Additionally the indoctrination is trying to persuade others into a disbelief of deity….. much like a catholic trying to persuade a protestant to Catholicism and faith.
Faith, the third element of belief… as you have shown numerous times – your faith in there being no deity. Or, perhaps you’re unclear as to what your faith and belief is? It seems quite evident you are unable to support your own belief. You have no faith in your belief then. So how can one as yourself indoctrinate others to atheism if this is the case? Isn’t that a bit hypocritical?
So, how are you able, or capable, to persuade me to become an atheist if you have no faith in your own belief and it’s system??
LikeLike
Always go to the expert, Arkenaten. So I come to you.
You have made several blanket statements [“equally ridiculous and equally disgusting” and built upon lies and superstition and promoted by ignorant delusional people.”] Even the courts have declared atheism to be a religion and protected under the Establishment Clause. The court’s have gone on to say that “there doesn’t have to be a belief in something for it to be practiced religiously. So,I want you to back up you statement(s)…….. Thank you.
LikeLike
Many here in the United States.
Atheism is a religion according to a 2005 Wisconsin Federal Court ruling on the matter of Kaufman v. McCaughtry, as well as the Torcaso v. Watkins case that was affirmed by the 1961 U.S. Supreme Court–the highest court in the land–where court rulings become national law. However, atheists routinely argue they do not belong to a religion because, according to them, non-belief in God is proof positive that they are not religious.
Based upon numerous court rulings that atheism is religion, it is obvious that belief in a supernatural God or gods is not a requirement for being considered part of a religion.
U.S. Supreme Court
TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
367 U.S. 488
TORCASO v. WATKINS, CLERK.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
No. 373.
Argued April 24, 1961.
Decided June 19, 1961.
and cases cited therein.
LikeLike
The Scopes Monkey Trial was in 1925. That case opened the way for Atheism to be classified as a religion. It was not until 1961 that the U.S. Supreme Court—the most important court in the land—cemented atheism as a religion in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins. As you know, U.S. Supreme Court rulings become the law of the land. In its ruling, the 1961 court mentioned Secular Humanism, which as we all know is the default religious ideology of atheism.
LikeLike
Again, you duck away from truth and you misguide your intend, Arkenaten. You’re a coward and a fraud. And, you again refuse to acknowledge a case that set the precedent…… You see, and others will certainly agree – atheism is a defined religion. Only you seem to be the only one who doesn’t recognize it. Why? Because it disproves your whole philosophy?
Just answer my question, Arkenaten…..
LikeLike