I’m afraid that seems like speculation to me. Christians disagree over this and so far as I can tell God hasn’t turned up to resolve the dispute.

As a result you can say what you think God ought to be like: “I would think hes bigger than that” while others can say he’s completely different. If we’re interested in what’s true, this isn’t especially helpful.

Garnett

** according to physics (which i know a little something about), everything must have a cause and something cannot come from nothing.
I see. Like all other Christians, you also assume I know nothing about physics.

Take it easy. To be fair, I don’t think Jason was implying that you (or any of us) don’t know about physics.

However, I do think he’s falling into the trap that he sees something in science which is not fully understood or maybe beyond our knowledge and leaps to the conclusion that the entire Bible is true. Jason, I’m sure you’ll insist that there are a few steps in between there, but that’s basically how it looks from here.

Why are you looking for a moment? De-conversion isn’t a moment. It’s a process. After a while, the evidence accumulates and you walk away disheartened but sure that Christianity is a well-concocted myth.

** you were very displeased with the character of some of the people that attended your church

My church? More like 25 churches in several countries. I saw it all and heard it all, Jason. Including going to Bible school and reading the Book several times in two different languages.

Seeing the inconsistent beliefs and behaviour of other Christians pushed me to research whether the Bible was for real, and it wasn’t.

** if matter and energy can neither be destroyed nor produced, where then did it come from?

Evolution is on my to-be-studied pile, Jason. It isn’t important enough to me, because I do not need to know where everything came from. I know for sure, though, that the creation story is a ridiculous children’s tale, unsuitable for intelligent adults.

** according to physics (which i know a little something about), everything must have a cause and something cannot come from nothing.

I see. Like all other Christians, you also assume I know nothing about physics. Regardless though, even though I haven’t studied evolution enough to argue in its defence, I have a hard time believing that scientists postulate that everything came from nothing.

Most likely what they’re saying is that some ENERGY transformed into differently shaped ENERGY. Keep in mind that pure atomic energy did destroy Nagasaki & Hiroshima.

** In simple terms, every cause must be at least as great as the effect that it produces—and will, in reality, produce an effect that is less than the cause. That is, any effect must have a greater cause.

Ha! The physics professors that gave me the A’s would laugh at your “simple terms,” Jason.

As for the greater cause, I’ve never seen any evidence of it. But if there be one, it surely wouldn’t be the arrogant, self-centered, blood thirsty God of the Bible. That I know. The Greater cause would be a humanist, not a mass murderer of women and children.

what exactly, then, is the issue? i have read through the earliest posts of the archives on your blog (i know i said i wouldn’t but i changed my mind) and i haven’t yet read anything specific that points to the event or moment that you came to the realization that you no longer had faith. of course, it might be there, i haven’t read through all of it yet. i did read a few passages in which you were very displeased with the character of some of the people that attended your church and the hypocrisy you saw in them was disheartening for you. was it more than this? an accumulation of things you witnessed at your church? i’d be interested to know.

to be fair – i’ll tell you what it was for me. it was logical really. the moment i realized that there must be a creator was the day i asked myself this – if matter and energy can neither be destroyed nor produced, where then did it come from? you see, according to physics (which i know a little something about), everything must have a cause and something cannot come from nothing. even today there is no sufficient explanation for the origin of all the matter and energy in the universe. sufficient, of course, being the key word as i’ve heard theories ranging from – it all leaked in from another parallel universe where the laws of physics are radically different from this universe’s (no kidding – an actual respected particle physicist believes this) to the good old big bang which again cannot sufficiently explain the origin of the singularity that caused this universe-forming explosion. i thought about for some time and could only conclude that it was created by a source that itself had no cause because if it had a cause it would produce an infinite linear paradox.

only years later did i come across this idea expressed by someone else only in a more eloquent manner –

There are two other “Universal Laws” that we see demonstrated in everything we examine in the world around us.

1. There is no new mass/energy coming into existence anywhere in the universe, and every bit of that original mass/energy is still here.

2. Every time something happens (an event takes place), some of the energy becomes unavailable.

The First Law tells us that matter (mass/energy) can be changed, but can neither be created nor destroyed. The Second Law tells us that all phenomena (mass/energy) continually proceed to lower levels of usefulness.

In simple terms, every cause must be at least as great as the effect that it produces—and will, in reality, produce an effect that is less than the cause. That is, any effect must have a greater cause.

When this universal law is traced backwards, one is faced again with the possibility that there is an ongoing chain of ever-decreasing effects, resulting from an infinite chain of nonprimary ever-increasing causes. However, what appears more probable is the existence of an uncaused Source, an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, and Primary, First Cause.

Jason,

I don’t believe that the Bible is either innerrant or inspired by a God, so you may cite verses galore and it will make no difference. To me, Paul was a schizofrenic, legalistic, women hater cult leader. Sorry, but the issue is deeper that the interpretation of a single verse.

The Bible I know. Whether the writers were for real is a different ball game.

When I was a Christian, by the way, I was your type of Christian. So, I know exactly what you are trying to say. But I already rejected those explanations. Nice try, though.

i also meant to extend an apology to you in the last post. if i was condescending and that was hurtful and/or insulting to you i am sorry – that wasn’t my intent.

he then goes on to teach on a number of issues prefacing each one with “you have heard it said…”. well, said by who? naturally, the teachers of the law – the pharisees – for he is speaking about the law. he then goes on – “but i tell you…” and then finishes each teaching. its clear that jesus is teaching his disciples to not do what the pharisees do, don’t use them as an example – but to listen to him instead because as he stated earlier, he was the embodiment and the fulfillment of the law. and to emphasize his point he illustrates a number of the things the pharisees did which the disciples should not emulate – praying in an obvious manner in a public setting, giving to the poor with fanfare so that others may see it, when fasting, making it obvious with facial expressions, etc…

these passages are clear, concise, laid out well and well written. i just don’t see that they are open to interpretation. a little study of the full gospel to gain an understanding of the setting and the context is all that might be required for the meaning to be made clear. i suppose anyone, though, can use the excuse of “there’s too many interpretations to know what to beleive”. and if you think about, anything and everything could potentially be open to interpretation – robinson crusoe could actually be about a man that takes an extended, tropical vacation and meets some eccentric culinary artists while there.

There we go. A long winded explanation for a piece of scripture so it will fit your own particular brand of Christianity. Bible verses could easily be arranged to arrive at a completely different conclusion. Others interpret the Sermon differently, and because it doesn’t fit your “theology,” you call it “bad theology.”

But there are tens of ways to explain that passage, Jason. Describing an interpretation which differs from yours as “wrong” is plainly arrogant.

As for me, the fact that someone’s eternal salvation may depend on a particular manipulation of this-or-that Bible verse makes the Bible completely unreliable and unworthy of a so-called just, loving God.

Regarding the word DEBATE, this became a DEBATE the second you minimized my Bible knowledge by calling my statement BAD THEOLOGY.

Perhaps if you are not interested in coming across as a debater, you should stay clear of language that may sound condescending to your readers.