Ronald Weinland: Discussion Part 2
As my previous posting on Ronald Weinland has garnered almost 250 comments and is now rather unwieldy, and as we still have some time to go before we know for certain whether he is as false as I strongly suspect him to be, I am closing comments on the old thread and letting the discussion continue here.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Just catching up with this debate and the usual illfounded allegations by some:e.g.
where the replacement disciple (matthias) was WITH the original disciples during the period of Jesus ministrty and post resurrection. He is being included as the 12th diclsiple in the later NT reference
“He appeared to 12 instead of 11 (Iscariot was dead!)”.
Read Acts 1:21-22
THINK and you wll find !.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Robert,
You are as right as rain my friend! I am speaking of course to the harm that is caused and of course I cannot speak intelligently for other people so my comments are strictly related to myself thus the “no harm done” comment.
I believe that the same can be said of pretty much anything in this life. It’s all simply a matter of how we decide to position ourselves in relationship to it.
It’s hard to believe that I was originally the 7th entry on 14 December 2007 hey Robert? A lot of discussion has been generated since then.
Cheers my friend,
Terry
January 14th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Leigh,
I take it that you tried that Easter challenge! Thank you for the insight. I had made an assumption that perhaps they were stating that out of habit but this information certainly aids the response.
Cheers,
Terry
January 15th, 2008 at 4:48 am
Wow.. that was a very long thread!
Hi Terry / Ironwolf / Everyone,
Hmm… Just going to put my 2 cents worth.
Just to start, for me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, I know there is (and believe) in God (Jesus).
Its the fact that I know these things, but yet I still muck around still not do more in life which makes me realise that I am so in need of Him (salvation, thankfulness etc).
My aunty has been a missionary since she finished her studies etc was in Afghanistan for 10 years (learnt to speak their languages etc), and have literally been through / heard / seen miracles.
One of the testimonies she shares is when she was in Papua New Guinea. She was there preaching to a couple of remote tribes. The chieftains were not there, and for some reason the two tribes were about to fight each other. (I havent got the complete details)
So what happened everywhere she goes, she fast and pray etc, and she told of this. One night, she literally heard the voice of God. Saying “My faithful daughter, tomorrow you shall see the flood gates of heaven open”.
After this, she was just crying, but she took the message to them (It would have been quite dangerous if she was wrong etc as they would have probably killed her if she was wrong). The fact that there was not a cloud in the sky, or nor did it rain for a month (months?) and the next day, not only did it rain, it rain so much that it burst open their well, and the two tribes were ’saved’ …
Turkey 2003 (or 2002) there was an earthquake. Nothing too much (compared to the real big ones) I think about 6 in the richter. I watched the news, didnt think too much about it (I’m in Australia). I found out a year later that she and her team were in the middle of it. The morning they woke, “as far as the eye could see, everything was flattened”, except her place… (Praise God!)
Afghanistan: few testimonies here. Including 1 1/2 day trips to a town, turned back because of a clear voice (this voice was the Holy Spirit - not like the one in PNG), and found out a week later, a group of preachers going there were actually killed, as the town were very hostile to foreigners.
People approaching her and telling her something which turns out to be true later on, saved from getting into big trouble in that place.
Scary visions of town where real bad things happening (she was with another missionary when that happen - and both saw at the same time)
etc…
Change of reasoning why I believe in God. (I’ll come to the Weinland part soon). Just every day stuff:
I went to the doctors recently, and asked a question to the doctor. I said, is it true that you cannot contract STD if you have a single partner, but if you have multiple, you can contract it? Whereas animals can go scott free with that? Well, sounds like an obvious answer? but she said good question (she doesnt believe in God), she said “I asked that when I was at medical school, but no one could answer. I know promiscious people in the same relationship and they never get it, and someone with just two partners got it”. My point is, the world is so stuffed now a days with their own selfish desires, that even truth like this is not published. ie. out of every single creature in the ‘animal kingdom’, humans are stuck with this ‘consequence’ of being unfaithful. - A lifetime of issues with STD.
Okay… to Wienland. hehe. Not to be arrogant in any way. He mentioned things in there that I believe a true ‘prophet’ like Moses in the bible etc would have known, but doesnt. Moses who wrote Genesis believed the world was literally a few thousands years old, and there is a branch of Christians / scientists (eg. Dr J Sarfati, Dr Don Batten, has given many ‘convincing proof’ that the world is literally young).. Since Wienland reckons that the world is ‘millions of years’ old and man, in the last 6000 years. He’s contradicting what the bible is saying immediately.
Personally, I always believed in the millions of years, but have read more and more articles in recent times, that I’m truly convinced that the world is not that old as it is claimed to is (primarily because it was introduced to side line the need of explaining that there is God.).
For example, if the world is young, ie. dinosaurs would be around humans etc… so do you see evidence of this? yes- definitely.. hundreds… see link below. There will be many ‘living fossils’ that will get discovered through time. - which has been proven so true… eg. coelancath, dinosaur plant in blue mountains, trilobytes, etc etc
ONE MAJOR THING for me that totally proves that evolution is quite flawed, is the fact they havent found any intermediate fossils. Ie. cats were cats, elephants were elephants (varieties called macroevolution of course exists evident by many breeds of dogs, cats, etc) but there is no half reptile / half bird - you will find just one of two in the news (out of the millions of fossils which says otherwise), but these always turned out to be fake or misinformed.
Oh. And check this out! Recently in the newspaper in Australia, they “Scientist discovered that Aboriginals are not of a separate branch of apes afterall, but were part of the ‘original settlers’ that came out of Africa” - I was like - no doh, doesnt take much to know that! We are all humans.
Check out this dinosaur art - to me its clearly a stegosaurus!
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm
Here are scientists that believe in this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp
creationontheweb.org is also a good site…
Hmm anyway gotta go sleep! take care guys, may the “Truth set you free!”.
Chuball
January 15th, 2008 at 4:54 am
oops I meant microevolution.. not macroevolution…
okay.. last time - Good night whoever is reading this!
January 15th, 2008 at 4:55 am
Chuball,
I have three words for you: talk.origins archive.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I’m not sure I heard this correctly from Ironwolf:
“Your faith is fine for you, but not all of us have been “blessed” by faith— perhaps you should ask your deity why, because as I understand the Christian God, it really is his choice. So who are you to argue with God, who has chosen that I be an atheist?”
Are you honestly saying, Ironwolf, that it is God’s decision whether or not you believe in him? That it is up to God to “grant” you faith in him? Because, as I understand it, faith is a completely voluntary action, which must be taken of your own initiaive.
You are saying that you do not have the faith and God must give it to you. So now God has to force you to believe in him? Wouldn’t that kind of discount the notion of free will?
You scoff at God’s inability to “write evidence” of his existence “clearly” - well, duh, that’s kind of the point of faith. It’s probably the reason the apostles constantly mentioned faith in the Bible. After all, if evidence for his existence were so readily available, what would be the point of faith? It would be completely unnecessary.
Faith in God would be about as necessary as faith in gravity, or faith in cold temperatures during winter, or faith that my finger will hurt when I cut it.
We are surrounded by evidence of many facts; however, the evidence for God is not nearly as clear-cut. And that is essentially your argument. God has not worked hard enough to convince you of his existence. God hasn’t shouted out of the heavens, “Ironwolf! I’m here!” - and because of that, well, you’re just gonna remain an atheist.
Well, guess what. God doesn’t go on your timetable. He doesn’t cater to anyone. He left scraps and pieces, doctrines and stories of his existence, a rather sizable amount, I’d say, and then left the rest up to you.
But another thing atheists don’t get is WHY he did it. It’s easy to be good when you know people are watching. It’s easy to do the right thing when you know someone’s looking over your shoulder. The question is, can you do it when it’s just you alone, nobody around to see your noble actions?
That’s where faith comes in. The inner core of strength, of believing that our actions matter, that no matter where we are, what we’re doing, is what makes faith so paramount to the entire doctrine of God’s existence.
Because, let’s face it, it’s easy to be an atheist. You can do whatever you like, say what you like, and know there’s absolutely no consequence in the next life. You can conform, go with the flow, compromise your standards, and have absolutely no fear of consequence in the hereafter.
Christians, on the other hand, have a code they must adhere to. A code to love all people, to be good, to set examples, to forgive, etc…
Christians are mocked for their “primitive” beliefs - and even Jesus said, “Because ye are not of the world, therefore the world hateth you…”
We yearn for a home that comes afterwards, knowing that the ridicule and hardship is but a small price to pay for the eternal joy we will partake in when at last Jesus returns.
-AIWI
January 16th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Aiwi,
You keep saying that faith is “necessary.” But why is faith “necessary?” I see nothing necessary about it: I get along just fine without it.
I do good because it is good: because I empathize with others and try to do that which makes life better for people now. You apparently do good only because you’re afraid of “consequences in the hereafter.” I think that’s a pretty pitiful ethical standard.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Hey. Back to the Ronald Weinland comments… Please be careful, Christians! I, too, read both books and was quite taken in with his answers to some questions that I’ve always had in the back of my mind about salvation, who God is, etc… Just know that this entire religion was developed by twisting scripture to “answer” questions that we all have. To give definitive answers from scripture that just aren’t there. Go back and read church history. There is NOTHING NEW here. The false teachers back in the first few centuries fought with the church over the concepts of the Trinity, Hell, and End times. Please don’t fall for this!! Remember john 1 which states (among many other verses) that in the beginning was the Word (Jesus) and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Then it goes on to say a few verses down that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus was CLEARLY part of the Father from the foundation of the Earth. To teach otherwise is HERESY. Matthew tells us that we will know a false teacher by his fruit. I challenge any of you who are buying Ron’s “Stuff” to do a google search and read about the infamous “Elijah” Mr Armstrong. If we are to know his by his fruit, he had a foul and rotten tree! He made so many predictions that never came true there are too many to list here. The “church” went back and deleted or changed much of his writings because NONE of it came true. I don’t think we can listen to a man who claims Mr Armstrong to be Elijah the end time prophet. He lied over and over again and these are recorded lies and predictions, mind you. Judge him by his fruit!
Another thought. I’ve always been taught of a 7 year tribulation. Mr W teaches of a 3.5 year trib and then the return of Jesus. Could it be that Mr W does have some inside information (from the PIT) and that much of what he says will come true for a while. And the at the 3.5year mark, when he says that Jesus comes on the scene, it is really the ANTICHRIST that comes and makes peace and starts the one world gov and religion. Then there are still 3.5 years where the antichrist which many believe is actually Jesus will decieve “even the elect if that were possible”… And our Savior Jesus will return at the 7 year mark and destroy him???? Just a thought.
Has anyone besides me thought about this possibility? I can’t wait till April to see. But either way know that Ron Weinland is NOT who he says he is. Nor was Mr Armstrong.
Also, what’s the deal with some on here writing G-d instead of God? Just wondering…
Katie
January 17th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Ironwolf,
If you’re an atheist, faith isn’t necessary. I assume that fact would be blindingly obvious.
But for the believer, faith is crucial. That is why so many books of the New Testament are devoted to this quality; this is why Jesus spoke of it so much.
And yet, the reason I bring this up is because you have inverted the reason for faith. We have faith because we believe in God; you don’t believe in God because you don’t have the faith. It’s a self-defeating argument.
You equate the evidence for Zeus with the evidence for God; I find that rather erroneous. I highly doubt there are as many corroborating sources for Zeus’ existence as there are for God.
For example, let me take the King James Version. In the Old Testament alone, there are 39 books, mostly written by different individuals, yet all share a remarkably cohesive thread throughout, speaking of the same God.
In the New Testament, there are 27 books. As with the Old, these are mostly written by different individuals, yet all for the most part corroborate the same tale; that of a God who watches over his people and in the end sends his son to speak for him.
I have omitted the Apocrypha because of biblical canon reasons. But even omitting the Apocrypha, I will ask you this; can you produce 66 separate corroborating accounts of Zeus?
Sincerely,
-AIWI
January 17th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
PS, I believe Ron W has some good points about the church being insanely corrupt… I agree with a lot of what he stated. Unfortunately, the blasphemy and scripture twisting… can’t go there with him.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Aiwi,
Well, sorry… I thought you mean “necessary” in the sense of, you know, well… necessary.
If I could, would you believe in him?
January 17th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Katie,
Jews never write down the vowels in God’s name as a token of reverence.
See: here and here.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Aiwi,
Correction: I don’t believe in any deities including your “God” because I don’t have the evidence.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Oh, cool. thanks for the info and for the great discussion, ironwolf!!
January 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
you dont have to wait until april to know if Mr Weinland is telling the truth. April marks when America gets attacked, but if you want proof of what he is saying then february is the month to wait for. feb 2nd to be exact. Now if you want to know what exactly is going to happen then i highly suggest that you do yourselves a service and reread the books and his websites. Evidence is already in the news and under your noses.
January 17th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Hey, Ironwolf, I have a question for you. IF Ron W gets it right and there is an attack on US soil in April of this year, would that be proof to you of the existence of God? Or would you see it as coincidence? I am totally curious of your answer. I don’t know many athiests and have always wondered what would be considered “proof” of God to you.
Katie
January 17th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Alex,
If nothing happens on February 2 will you be man enough to come back here and repudiate Weinland?
January 17th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Katie,
We have had attacks on US soil before (Pearl Harbor, 9/11.) Some would say that’s already evidence of prophetic something but others are still waiting for other prophetic somethings to occur. Pat Robertson predicted there would be “mass killings” in the US last year, but I’m sure if you asked him about that he would brush it off and point to other “hits” he’s had as evidence that he really does talk to God.
So would it convince me? No, not really. But would I write it of as “coincidence?” Not necessarily. Each point of data becomes evidence when it supports a theory. Weinland’s theory is that he’s God’s prophet. That’s a pretty tall claim, and it will require some pretty remarkable evidence to back it up. If he provides that evidence, then it will support his theory. However, if he fails to provide any evidence beyond what could reasonably be produced by guessing at future events, then his theory will be unsupported, and I would argue that his followers ought to reject him.
So there are basically two kinds of false prophets: the ones like Robertson who keep throwing little globs of shit against the wall and then fraudulently claim divine inspiration when something finally sticks, and the ones like Weinland who really do believe that they can throw an entire tub of shit against the wall in one heave, and expect it to levitate gently into place in the shape of a divine smiley face. Whether they intend to defraud or not, both kinds still damage people’s lives.
And if there are any true prophets, I’ve yet to see one.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Katie,
You also asked what I would consider proof. I have written about that in this posting. See point 9.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Of course I would and so would Mr. Weinland he has stated so in many interviews. The books are not here to convince you in any way, they are proof/witnesses of what will happen. Oh another thing I wanted to make clear is that he is not making any money the books are free and there is no DONATE button in any of the websites.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
katie you cant compare the coming destruction to pearl harbor or 9/11. you wont be able to compare it with any.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Alex,
I’m aware his materials are free. I have little doubt he’s sincere. There’s been a long litany of sincere people claiming to be “prophets” and “one of the two witnesses” before Weinland. And sadly, I’m sure there will be many after. So if sincerity were any kind of proof, then Jesus would have returned a long time ago.
So let’s schedule your repudiation for February 3rd, shall we? By then we’ll have completely gotten February 2nd out of the way. I’ve got it down on my calendar, so see you then.
January 17th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
lol i will be here feb 2nd, the 3rd wont be necessary
January 17th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
“Well, sorry… I thought you mean “necessary” in the sense of, you know, well… necessary.”
Yes, but the question is necessary to who? An atheist does not believe in a God; therefore, no faith is necessary.
A believer does believe in a God; therefore, faith is necessary.
“I will ask you this; can you produce 66 separate corroborating accounts of Zeus?
If I could, would you believe in him?”
You are now attempting obfuscation and misdirection, which is rather unattractive. The fact is, I have seen teenagers give me the Zeus argument, with a rather smug look on their face, as if they’ve just delivered some damning logical conundrum. And the truth is, the evidence for a Christian God is far more present than any other God you could cook up. You do not wish to acknowledge this, so you will attempt sophomoric redirection, which is understandable, as this is a core tenet of the atheistic position.
The simple fact is the “evidence” for the existence of Jesus far outweighs the “evidence” for the existence of Zeus.
Clearly you do not believe 66 books of evidence is enough, so I wonder if anything will ever be enough. You claim your lack of belief is due to the lack of evidence, but that argument appears rather laughable due to the overwhelming number of supporting books.
You require God to speak to you out of a burning bush, or rain fire down from heaven, or send an angel to you, which is simply not going to happen.
At some point, you have to simply calculate the odds of it all being some massive giant fairytale cooked up by medieval characters with nothing better to do than fool you, or you have to consider the possibility that it just might be true.
-AIWI
January 17th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Aiwi,
If faith is not necessary for atheists, then it is not necessary for humans, period.
However, if you want to believe whatever makes you feel good with out any credible evidence, then that is the definition of religious faith, and I suppose you could say, “Faith is necessary,” although I think tautologies are rather useless.
How do you know this?
January 17th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Ironwolf,
You continue this tiring evasion, so I will make my question simple:
Can you produce as much evidence for Zeus as there currently exists for the Christian God?
A simple yes or no will suffice.
And to the folks that are reading this, take not. Ironwolf does not wish to answer this question, because it would reveal the fallacy of his position. Take careful note of his response.
Sincerely,
-AIWI
January 17th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Aiwi,
Yes, take careful note people because Ironwolf— in a single stroke— is about to fail to prove the non-existence of Aiwi’s deity! Oh, and Zeus too. And Mithras. And Allah. And Vishnu. And leprechauns.
Your answer is this: by the standards historians and scientists use, the bodies of evidence for both Zeus and your “Christian God” are both piss poor. They both equally deserve the title “mythology.”
Christians have no standards. They have “faith.”
January 17th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Aiwi,
And I notice you never told me how you know that God will not provide some sort of miracle that will cause me to believe. As he did for Gideon. And Thomas. And Paul. And countless other Christians who claim that some kind of miracle brought them to Jesus.
You seem to think you know a lot. Is it too much to ask you to not evade my questions?
January 17th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Ironwolf,
Once again, you have failed to answer my question.
Do 66 books of evidence exist for Zeus?
A simple YES or NO will suffice. I fail to see how this answer causes you so much difficulty.
Thank you.
-AIWI
January 17th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Aiwi,
And I asked you a simple question to begin with: if I manage to gather together 66 “books” that talk about Zeus as an existent being, will you believe in him?
A simple YES or NO will suffice.
January 17th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Hey there, Alex. I never did compare what Ron prophecied about with 9/11 or pearl harbor. That wasn’t me. I did read both books, but for some reason, I don’t remember the Feb 2 prophecy. I am being VERY CLEAR to not say prediction, but to say PROPHECY because the Church of God’s way of getting around the countless failed prophecies of Mr Armstrong was to say that they were predictions and not prophecies. But wasn’t Elijah a prophet? Doesn’t RW call him the prophet Elijah? I’ll have to go back and find the Feb 2 prophecy. Man, 2 weeks 2 days and counting.
Also, I want to say that I am not on here to slam Ronald or Armstrong. I’m just stating the facts. I have a VERY open mind to the kinds of things that were addressed in the books. That’s why I was so taken with them at first. (Who says it’s ok that we switched the Sabbath? Who says it’s ok to celebrate Easter and not Passover and the other feasts and celebrations of the old testament? If the answer is “the Catholic Church” then I am NOT OK with that.) BUT then I read a few scripture about false teachers/prophets and how to spot them. I did a bit of easy googling, and I think it’s pretty clear that at very least Mr Armstrong was a false prophet. Ronald just loses credibility because he builds much of his eschatology theology on Mr Armstrong’s being the end times Elijah. Scripturally, I don’t think that’s possible because for decades Armstrong said things were going to happen that never did. Therefore, I thought to warn others to do a little more research before buying into the ideas in the books hook line and sinker. I remain open to the Lord and how He leads me — even if it goes against what I’ve been taught. AND as long as it is backed up and checked with scripture so that I know it’s really from Him.
Ironwolf, I just bet you are rolling your eyes all OVER the place!! SORRY!! : )
Katie
January 17th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Hey Alex, I just search both books for the word February and for the date 2/02/2008 and neither were found. Actually February was found but it wasn’t for this year. It was for past events. Are you sure the Feb 2 prophecy was in the books of could it have been in the interviews? I’d love to know what the prophecy is so that I will know when it happens.
Thanks,
Katie
If you don’t want to say, would you mind at least telling me more specifically where to look? I’d certainly appreciate it.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
As I’ve said here and in other places, I don’t begrudge people their faith as long as its personal, and not making threats or testable claims.
And I agree about the Christmas, Easter, etc. thing: it was humans who changed those observances in modern Christianity. But then, again, it was humans who established early Christianity, which came out of Judaism and quite clearly incorporates elements of other mystery religions widely known at the time. And it was also humans who established Judaism, which teaches that Jesus was a false teacher, and not the messiah. And Islam, which teaches that Jesus was a mortal prophet, and not God. See Syncretism.
January 17th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Since Ironwolf is too afraid to answer my question, I guess I’ll have to do it for him.
The answer is NO, there aren’t 66 books supporting Zeus’ existence.
See how easy that was?
-AIWI
January 17th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Since Aiwi is too afraid to answer my question, I’ll guess I’ll have to do it for him.
The answer is that there could be a thousand books written about Zeus, and he would still not believe. Because he does not believe based on the number of books of evidence: that is an irrelevant and disingenuous dodge. He does not even believe based on the quality of the evidence as judged by the historical method. He believes because he wants to believe, and he wants you to believe for similarly flimsy reasons.
See how easy that was?
January 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Ironwolf,
This is sad, the depths you have to go to, but I will respond, if only for the sake of the people.
My question had to do with a historical fact. Does X amount of books exist in support of said deity? A simple question that can be answered by a researched fact. Anybody can check the answer.
Your question had to do with a hypothetical. You knew there was hardly any supporting evidence for Zeus, and so pretended it was irrelevant.
Without answering my question, you attempted to redirect.
Then, you attempted to represent my thoughts concerning belief and standards of evidence. In short, your answer to your question was entirely subjective and not factual in the least. You attempted to distort my view dishonestly, in order to distract from the damning fact that your pitiful Zeus argument had just been shredded.
It’s sad, really.
-AIWI
January 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Katie,
I do not recall a specific Feb 2 date either, however, Ron did mention in some of the interviews that we will start seeing things commencing in February.
If I am not mistaken they were related to prominent sports figures and celebrities.
Here is an article discussing “Thunders” in February relating to Revelation I assume however nothing concrete or completely disclosed.
http://www.cogwriter.com/news/prophecy/ron-weinland-claims-thunders-for-february-2008-and-by-april-this-world-will-begin-to-be-shaken-to-its-foundations/
I hope this helps you out some.
Cheers,
Terry
January 17th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Katie,
One final point regarding the Sabbath Day. As a Christian and through my belief in the Bible I would have to agree with Saturday being the Sabbath. Is it truly important? The fact that Christians are supposed to be following the teachings of Jesus I would say it is. He has been demonstrated in the New Testament to observe the Sabbath according to the Old Testament. Noting that he never held back from challenging the religious figures at that time he never challenged the Sabbath except for what was considered by man to be work during that day.
So my stance once again says that even if he is wrong I still felt like there was some good information contained in the books and has caused me to become more thorough in my reading of the Bible.
Cheers,
Terry
January 17th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
AMEN, Terry. Hey, what did you think of my 7 year trib tought? I really thought I had something there for a second. But darn it no one has jumped on board! : )
January 17th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Katie,
I never answered because I didn’t feel it to stick with the topic, however, I will answer in respect of you asking me directly.
Satan has always been mentioned as a master deceiver. In one case in the Bible I believe he was revealed as a brilliant and beautiful light similar to an Angel or perhaps our depiction of what Jesus will be like.
I will say that it would be important for us to understand the Bible as much as possible so that we can know the truth at that moment and have faith that our hearts will know the truth.
Cheers,
Terry
January 18th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Aiwi,
So, you think that you are “shredding” the “Zeus argument.” What I find sad is your failure to understand that the “teenagers” who give you that argument are actually on to something. Your problem is that you really think there is a “Zeus argument.” But no atheist I know would ever claim that. What you appear to be too dense to understand is that mentioning Zeus is just a colorful way of putting the, “It’s stupid to believe out of proportion to the evidence” argument, also known as Occam’s Razor.
So, way to shred your own straw man, Aiwi.
Let’s go a little deeper. There are many deities and supernatural “happenings” that people believe in (or did at one time) despite a lack of evidence. Really, there are thousands. Some of them are from “dead” religions such as Mithras, or the Greco-Roman pantheon (people certainly did believe that Zeus was a literal being.) Others are from “living” religions such as Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. The last three— the so-called “abrahamic” religions— trace their ancestry back to the story of Abraham, but they could hardly be said to worship the “same god,” as they do not agree on God’s attributes, past actions, or intentions. About the only thing you can say is that they all have a god. And, they all claim to be the “one true religion,” but it’s easy to see that they can’t all be right. However, they can all be wrong. This might be a clue for you: The Jews still hold the Old Testament as authoritative about their god as they understand him. But they do not hold it as authoritative about your Christian god. (In fact, they don’t even call it the Old Testament because they have never recognized a “new” one.) So for the vast majority of Jews, the very same scripture speaks of another god, and most definitely not yours.
The burden then, is on believers such as you to show that your beliefs are based in fact. Sufficiently establishing the factuality of your beliefs would simultaneously disprove most other competing religions, because they usually contradict each other quite blatantly. But since your beliefs are based purely on a document that can— at best— only rise to the standard of mythology when judged by critical historical standards, of which Occam’s Razor is only one, you are in a hopeless bind. Believers then attempt to cover this embarrassment with vacuous fig leaves such as “faith” and “piety”, and by vilifying unbelievers such as myself, who have honestly (and often quite deeply) examined the evidence and found it wanting. Another common tactic among the evangelicals, which apparently number you among them, is to set up a “show trial” of a straw man, which brings us back to poor, shredded Zeus. Occam’s Razor, however, is still alive and kicking.
Really, you are only embarrassing yourself.
Oh, and you still haven’t told how you know that God won’t help me to become a believer through some miracle. Aren’t you limiting your god? Or is your certitude due to his personally vouchsafing you this particular knowledge?
January 18th, 2008 at 3:37 am
Hi Ironwolf. Heh, you are a bit of a tough cookie arent you?
Why dont you truly open your heart and ask God whether he is real or not?Perhaps if you are going through a tough time, take a step of faith in believing for an answer like you never done before. Whether its at your work, and your relationships with the team, or things going on at home.
I truly hope that you will one day find true joy, a joy that cannot be taken away but can only be overflowed and want to be shared around.
Peace be with you.
January 18th, 2008 at 4:51 am
I just finished listening to Weinland’s last radio interview that he gave on December 15, 2007. It’s quite in-depth. His interviewer was another more mainstream Christian who, while giving Ron his say and trying to be fair, was also obviously trying to have a little fun with Ron’s weird beliefs (of course, not realizing that to a non-believer his own beliefs sound just as weird.) Throughout, Ron’s tone is matter-of-fact. He is simply God’s prophet, and it’s not a job he asked for, but he’s doing it because God told him to. And things will come to pass exactly as he says. And there’s not anything that anyone can do about it.
The thing that I think a lot of people who hear it will fail to realize is that virtually none of Weinland’s teachings (save his particular dates) are original— they are all clearly derived from the same interpretations that Herbert Armstrong taught for decades in the Worldwide Church of God. His interpretation of Revelation. His belief in British Israelism. His belief in no heaven or hell. The sinister nature of the European Union. His teachings on the Saturday Sabbath and Holy Days. His teaching against Christmas. Dozens of other details— even his take on health-food, for crying out loud! And while Armstrong never publicly claimed to be one of the “two witnesses,” the WCG was always rife with rumors that he might be— until he died, of course. Armstrong was continually preaching that these were the “last days” and pointing to particular current events as “signs of the end,” just as Weinland does.
Armstrong was a false prophet, and Weinland completely apes that false prophet’s teachings.
The main difference I see between Armstrong and Weinland is that Armstrong never got too specific about when exactly the end would occur: oh, he got pretty specific at times: for an eye-opener, check out this online version of Armstrong’s classic 1975 in Prophecy. But in the end he always had a hedge. Weinland, however, is so specific in his claims to knowing God’s time line, that if things don’t go exactly as he pronounces, his credibility will instantly flame out. He even stated as much, which is admirable.
But I have a serious question for Ron that didn’t come up in that interview. A question I think he would probably refuse to answer at this point, and for which I agree it would be unreasonable to expect an answer of him right now. But I shall be very interested in asking it of him later, so here it is as an open question to him:
Ron, it’s clear that right now you feel that you have nothing additional to add to the prophecies you’ve made, and that you feel you have nothing to prove. But for a moment, let’s assume it’s a few months in the future and your prophesied events have not come to pass as you have said, and you end up admitting that you were a false prophet. Now: how do you, an obviously intelligent man, explain your mistake? You’ve already ruled out saying that you are still a “true prophet” who made an error, and now have a better date still-to-come to pronounce. It would also seem that you’ve ruled out God changing his mind. So, in the face of your failure as a prophet, do you still hold to the majority of your theological beliefs: that we are still living in the end times, but that the true prophet must be someone else? Or will you modulate your beliefs to completely avoid a literal interpretation of Revelation? Or, will you be willing to undertake a top to bottom review of all your beliefs, including your very belief in God? In other words, if you can believe so completely in something and then prove yourself so utterly wrong, where do you go from there? Will you feel any hint of responsibility to publicly warn others to avoid the same sort of mistake? Or will you simply fade into obscurity and let the next false prophet follow in your footsteps?
This is a question that most Christians will never have to face personally. They will write Weinland off as just another misguided kook, while continuing to hold their own unsubstantiated beliefs about the end, placed comfortably at some vague future time. This is a time-honored Christian tradition.
If any readers know Weinland personally, please remember this question when late April rolls around.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:09 am
I just realized that listening to Weinland was also very much reminiscent of the character Ford Prefect in the comedy science-fiction classic The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Ford is an extraterrestrial who has been slumming on Earth, trying to act human. His unsuspecting human friend Arthur Dent is preoccupied trying to keep the authorities from knocking down his house to build a highway bypass. Ford learns that the entire Earth is about to be demolished in order to make way for a “hyperspace bypass,” and decides to try to save his hapless friend from the impending fate of the rest of humanity. He convinces Arthur to follow him to a bar where the following conversation ensues…
Ford: Six pints of bitter, and quickly please, the world’s about to end.
Barman: Oh yes sir? Nice weather for it. Going to watch the match this afternoon, sir?
Ford: No, no point.
Barman: Foregone conclusion you reckon sir? Arsenal without a chance?
Ford: No, it’s just that the world’s about to end.
Barman: Oh yes sir, so you said. Lucky escape for Arsenal if it did.
Ford: No, not really.
Barman: There you are sir, six pints.
Ford: Keep the change.
Barman: What, from a fiver? Thank you sir.
Ford: You’ve got ten minutes left to spend it.
Arthur: Ford, would you please tell me what the hell is going on?
Ford: Drink up, you’ve got three pints to get through.
Arthur: Three pints? At lunchtime?
Ford: Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
Arthur: Very deep. You should send that in to the Reader’s Digest. They’ve got a page for people like you.
Ford: Drink up.
Arthur: Why three pints?
Ford: Muscle relaxant, you’ll need it.
Arthur: Did I do anything wrong today, or has the world always been like this and I’ve been too wrapped up in myself to notice?
Ford: Alright, I’ll try to explain. How long have we known each other?
Arthur: Five years, maybe six. Most of it seemed to make some sense at the time.
Ford: Alright, how would you react if I said that I’m not from Guildford after all, but from a small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse?
Arthur: I don’t know. Why? Do you think it’s the sort of thing you’re likely to say?
Ford: Drink up. The world’s about to end.
[A crashing sound is heard in the distance.]
Arthur: What’s that?!
Ford: Don’t worry - they haven’t started yet.
Arthur: Oh good.
Ford: It’s probably just your house being knocked down.
Arthur: What!
Ford: It hardly makes any difference at this stage.
Arthur: My god it is! What the hell are they doing? We had an agreement!
Ford: Let them have their fun.
Arthur: Damm you and your fairystories, they’re smashing up my home! Stop you vandals! Homebreakers! Stop!
Ford: [calling after him] Arthur! Come back, it’s pointless! Barman, quickly, can you just give me four packets of peanuts?
Barman: Certainly Sir, there we are. 28 pence.
Ford: Keep the change.
Barman: Are you serious sir? Do you really think the world is going to end this afternoon?
Ford: Yes, in just over 1 minute and 25 seconds.
Barman: Well, isn’t there anything we can do?
Ford: No, nothing.
Barman: Well, I suppose we had all better lie down and put a paper bag over our heads.
Ford: If you like.
Barman: Well, will that help?
Ford: No. Excuse me I’ve got to find my friend.
Barman: Oh well then. [To the other patrons] Last orders please!
January 18th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Chuball,
“Believing for an answer?” That’s just crazy talk, man. Sounds like “bobbing for an apple.”
Hm, and here I was thinking my life was already pretty joyful. Or am I too dour around false prophets for my innate joyfulness to shine through?
January 18th, 2008 at 7:32 am
You summed up what I was trying to say about Ronald very clearly. I am just wondering how anyone views him with much credibility when he is basing his theology on someone who by biblical definition is a false prophet. This is not hate speech toward Mr Armstrong as the COG would claim. I don’t hate him whatsoever. BUT by the guidelines presented in scripture, he IS a false prophet… PERIOD. You must deny some scripture to say otherwise. Then you are going by what a man says (who has nothing but his word as a witness SO FAR) over what the inspired word of God says (I know Ironwolf questions this since the Bible was written by man, but my belief in the Abrahamic God of the Bible hinges on the Bible being God’s Word… So bear with me here.)
So I am agreeing with Ironwolf on this. BUT I do have a bone to pick with you, sir, if you would be so kind. BE an athiest if that’s what you wish. BE ONE with all your heart. That is your choice. But what’s up with the language throughout this site that seems to want believers in God to join you? I have reason to want you to be a Christ follower. I believe with all of my heart that if you are not, you will spend eternity in a not so nice place to put in mildly. So I am actually loving you and showing great care for you to tell you of the truth that I have found if this is what I truely believe. OK? You have to see that my motivation is CLEARLY wanting good things for you. What other reason would a Christian have to share his faith and try to get others to come on board with that belief? But as for you, why would you want others to come to your side of belief? What harm is it doing me to have hope and faith? I am not out there proclaiming the end of the world and destruction, MOST Christian are NOT. I do not think my faith harms others. But yours would. You even admit that it’s a difficult thing to adjust to the finality that you believe death contains. Why would you want to strip my hope? If it’s your way and there is no God, what difference does it make? If it’s my way and He will actually judge you one day, isn’t it the RIGHT thing to do to tell you about Him and pray for you?
Katie
January 18th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Ironwolf,
I don’t need to prove anything to you. You’ve seen the same evidence I have.
The only difference is you seem to think all religions are wrong, or mythology, or fairytales. I can’t help you with that.
As far as I know, I’ve read 66 different books, for the most part written by different individuals, all with a remarkably cohesive thread throughout, all generally speaking of the same God. The question becomes, what to make of these books?
Were they part of some grand conspiracy many years ago, to fool the simple folk into believing a carpenter from Nazareth was really the Son of God? A conspiracy that spanned decades and centuries?
Or were they just myths written by many different people, who somehow, through remarkable coincidence, happened to share a vein of similarity in their writing?
Or perhaps…
there’s just a teensy bit of truth in it?
I know what I’ve decided. I could honestly care less if you hold up somebody else’s standards. You’ve got a head on your shoulders. I’m sure you can make up your own mind.
And to say that Orthodox Judaism conflicts with Christianity is a stretch, to say the least. The only difference between the two is that Orthodox Jews don’t believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecies in Isaiah. That’s it. And as a result of that, they have to discount the entire New Testament, which is really a shame.
Whereas Christians consider the New Testament a logical following of the Old Testament.
So, to be quite honest, I could care less about whatever burdens of proof you try to put on me. Every man must decide for himself. I see you have. You’d better hope you’re not wrong, though.
-AIWI
January 18th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
actually another difference between judaism and traditional christianity is that the jews keep gods sabbath which is on sat. in all reality both have there own traditions which contradict gods word. maybe thats why ironwolf doesnt believe in god, because of mans selfish ways in not taking gods words literally and just adding there own ideas. then again he should do himself a service and actually read the bible and pray that god opens those blind eyes
January 18th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
ironwolf ron NEVER said there is no heaven! if u actually stopped and paid attention you would know thzt what he was actually saying is that everyone who has ever lived is currently resting/asleep. jesus says also that no man has entered heaven.
as for your question ron has already answered it. he has said already that if nothing happens he will simply admit he is false and thats it career over.
January 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Hey again, Alex. So what are the specific prophecies for Feb 2? A couple of us on here that have read RW’s books and listened to some interviews cannot find this specific phophecy. Could you help us to find it?
Katie
January 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
its the coming economic collapse of the usa. if you watch the news you can see it
happening before your very eyes. he just gets specific so you can know that its not coincidence.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Alex,
Where did you hear the Feb 2 date?
Cheers,
Terry
January 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Here is my question for Robert. It has been niggling away at me.
Robert: You state at the outset of this blog that you are 99.9% certain that Mr.Weinland is a false prophet.
If you have in front of you a rather large body of evidence, conradicting his veracity in terms of its biblical base, including his “Elijah’s” erroneous unfulfilled claims, then upon what criteria (-on) here do you actually base that .01% of plausibility? Even theoretically, assuming in that the Bible were correct in its own indications of false prophesy.
Ostensibly, there seems to be no rational proof or substantive evidence for this .01% allowance, that would apear to motivate you. Yet you allow for this possibility, without a shred of evidence to support it (that I have noticed so far, correct me and I am sure you will, lol) It may be a small number, but I think it is quite signficiant.
I have a lampost on my street. No one that I can recall seeing put it there. I assume it was manufactured, somewhere, by someone. Similarly, I assume someone installed it…. Am I a fool for making these assumptions without any shred of substantive evidence, or am I a fool for not accepting the most likely of all possibilities? Someone created it , and someone placed it.
Nothing comes from nothing. The Bible clamis that the evidence for God’s existance is all around you, in his creation. If you choose, to say sorry, not good enough for me, then you sit down and try to create a cell. Out of nothing.
Nothing comes from nothing. Except God. And if he WAS capable of actually conjuring up this universe, planet, world, life, then why would even that be a such a stretch?
My point is, if there is even a .01% chance in your mind that God could exist, then if He did, I would expect the mystery of Him and all that it entails, faith included, would be pretty hard to make neat intellectual work of. Which you are valliantly trying to do. With your quest for quantifiable hard “data”.
What you are attempting to do is to remove faith from the entire equasion, which would also render the Bible fallacious, as He says no man can come to Him but by faith. So since you cannot commit the intellectual suicide that you feel faith entails, you reject all belief systems as faulty logic.
So it comes down to this: you yourself “claim” (without any hard evidence I may add) to have had some form of supernatural experience, that probably would be difficult to explain away in sheer scientific terms. Does this mean it in fact did not occur, or does this mean that you simply do not have the technology available to measure and prove it to others that did not have the same experience, in any objectively measureable way? If this is the case, then it does not mean it did (does) not occur, it merely means you do not have the ability to with any precision explain it.
Why does “faith” need to be so very different?
Just a thought. Feel free to denigrate my lampost analogy as false dilemas, I know what is coming…..but I needed to use it anyway, please forgive.
(btw, onboard with the 3.5 year inconsistancy of Weinland, nice catch, Katie)
January 18th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
In sum, if you take both faith and the veracity of the Bible out of the debate as unprobable speculations, then you are completly correct in realizing that a faith-based Christianity is incompatable with logic, as faith is based on the Bible being the uncorruptable Word of God, is the foundation upon where that faith rests.
Making the bible untrue, would therefore make faith unfounded.
Unfounded faith makes a fairy tale out of belief systems.
You simply can’t have one without the other, which is what this whole athiest-christian debate hinges upon.
Until that issue is decided, they are simply speaking at eachother with diffent languages. Neither decipherable by the other, and with it the natural resultant mutual frustration.
Does that make any sense?
January 18th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
hey terry he reveals the date in one of his sermons.
January 18th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
i have read all his material and the comments most are making prove you have not read more than the cover. mr weinland writes that tribulation starts in april 2008 and there is a period of five months or so september is the month he preaching, than the the destruction of america, britian, western europe, australia, new zealand, and canada by atomic bombs in cargo containers(1st trumpet), then bombs are detonated in ships in ports(2nd trumpet) by russia and china. the third trumpet is destruction of clean water, food and thus source for life is shrinking (fallout probably), the fourth trumpet in the more of the first three over and over. the fifth trumpet is the rise of the beast, roman empire or europe today in partnership with the pope(the false prophet). in the first trumpet most of europe is impacted but germany and eastern europe and italy will survive mainly intact. the beast will arrive six months later(march\april) in america pretenting to help us in our time of need and stop us or what is left of us from attacking russia-china and take our weapons and resources. the sixth trumpet is sounded thirteen months later and russia-china arrives as europe is taking over the world. the seventh trumpet is sounded at the beginning of the very last day of tribulations after the sun has set from the day before(night before day as israel is today) and jesus is in the sky and is seen by everyone. for 24 hours the seven bowls of the seventh trumpet are poured out on what is left of mankind. tribulation is 42 months long and april 2008 to september 2011 is 42 months. all this about feb. 2008 or the year 2012 being the beginning or end is not in his book. but his sermons he is not as precise and tells his flock that it could happen tomorrow.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
your correct david about feb 2 not being in the book. he actually reveals it in his sermon, before that he had stated that he was not allowed to reveal the date untill later on.
January 18th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
hey david one more thing he never states that it could happen at any time, he is specific for a reason
January 18th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
..so glad to see you have a sense of humor, Robert. Love the heavily ironic tone….
btw, what am I supposed to worry about NOT happening in feb 2 again? I can’t remember which pestilence to not expect….
January 18th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Alex,
Weinland clearly states that heaven is where God is, not where the “saved” shall be. “No heaven” as I used it means the contradiction of the teachings of mainstream Christianity about heaven, as originally taught by Herbert Armstrong.
That’s it, career over? After all his hoopla about being one of God’s end-time witnesses? If he’s wrong, he’s got to live the rest of his life with the knowledge that he made a huge mistake. My question is about his future explanation as to the causes of that mistake, and whether he will feel any personal responsibility to rectify the harm to others it is now causing. I don’t think he has answered my question, and you certainly haven’t either.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Robert,
My personal assumption would be that he would admit it and then fall into seclusion or perhaps even something more dramatic. The impact would have a serious affect on his church and in the splinter groups as well.
I do believe it will have an adverse affect on multiple others as well. I don’t think it could possibly be exclaimed unless of course he uses Satan’s deception as an excuse. For some reason I don’t think he would do that but I could very well be wrong with this assumption.
That’s a tough question!
Cheers,
Terry
January 18th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
ironwolf,
you are wrong. your right about no man being in heaven now, but you fail to realize that the saved must first live gods government here on earth, then the earth is burned up and finally heaven. not as men as you simply understand.
then again your an athiest and cant be expected to comprehend such knowledge
January 18th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Alex,
Yes, and you’re a Christian and can’t be expected to even know how to spell “atheist.”
January 18th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Katie,
I’m not sure what you’re taking that way, Katie. I have never said that believers should become atheists. You are entitled to your beliefs no matter how ill-founded or far fetched.
However…
• Your beliefs require that you get into the face of non-believers like me, who already understand them quite well, and preach them again and again.
• Your beliefs require you to think we are at best foolish, and at worst evil, and in either case unworthy to stand as equals with you in the public square. (Polls have consistently shown that atheists are the most despised political minority in the United States.)
• Your beliefs threaten incredible eternal torture (which you delicately put as a “not so nice place to put in mildly”) for failure to believe, no matter how honestly-intentioned the non-believer.
• Your beliefs require you to re-write the history of the intent of America’s founding from one of secular tolerance to one of latent theocracy.
• Your beliefs devalue human efforts to improve things now because, after all, God’s going to wipe the slate clean when the events in Revelation come to pass.
• Your beliefs justify death in the name of your God: a trivialization which has been used throughout history, and which is still planted in the shape of a cross on the grave of almost every soldier coming home from Iraq in a bag.
Forgive me if the preceding statements don’t quite reflect your individual views; but I believe they are based on a fair composite of Christendom as a whole: a millieu of which you are a part and for which you are therefore responsible to change, should you even think any change desirable.
If your beliefs were truly benign, then I wouldn’t feel the need to rail against them. There are quite a few other religions that aren’t in my face as Christianity or Islam are, and their beliefs are just as nutty. Generally I leave them alone because they leave me alone. But people like Weinland, who prompted this conversation, don’t leave people alone: they aggrandize themselves and play on people’s superstition and fear. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing, and yes, I know that’s a biblical reference. If you truly want to be a sheep, then act like one and go away quietly and be at peace. Sheep do not get in people’s faces.
Pray for me if it makes you happy. Hope all you want. You can go to your grave believing you will drink mead and have really great brawls for all eternity with the gods of Valhalla for all I care. Whatever gets you through the day. But when your beliefs threaten me with hellfire for honest disbelief, or claim that I cannot even disbelieve honestly, or claim that I am an unfit parent, or threaten my civil rights and free society, that’s when I respond: that’s when I fight back.
So spare me the, “I’m just a good little Christian who wants just the good for you poor lost atheists,” crap. My responses to it are to show you the reasons I think your beliefs are not merely wrong, but harmful too.
Worse for you, I may just laugh.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Sue,
OK, let’s try to untangle this a little bit.
You wonder why I allow for a 0.01% chance that Weinland could be correct. The first thing to notice is that no-one bets on those kinds of odds. However, allowing for some degree of uncertainty allows new evidence in as it presents itself. If (against all odds) everything begins to happen exactly as Weinland has predicted it: day after day, month after month, year after year, and I somehow survive it all, then I would be a fool for thinking it’s all coincidence. In that case, Weinland’s world view would certainly begin to appear as a working theory, and I would want to understand it better. But to say that I have no expectation that his predictions will come to pass is a far cry from saying that I know they will not— that would be having a “negative” sort of faith, and I don’t truck with any sort of faith, positive or negative. However, for those whose mind is truly closed— who’s belief system is truly “air tight”, no amount of evidence would be enough to sway them. And contrary to what many Christians I’ve conversed with claim, most atheists (including myself) do not “presuppose” the non-existence of God: we proportion our beliefs to the evidence. However, there exists within mainstream Christianity a very clear presuppositionalist camp that starts with an article of faith that God exists and that the Bible is his word, and goes from there. In doing so, they put their minds out of reach of any contrary evidence or reasoning, and so they devalue their minds and make themselves intellectual buffoons. Their prideful fig leaf is that “God chose the foolish of the world.” And yet they also preach that “The fool says in his heart there is no God.” They want to have their cake and eat it too, and it’s quite pitiful to watch them try.
The usual objection raised at this point is that I’m not really an atheist, but an agnostic, since I can’t claim to know that God doesn’t exist or that Weinland’s prophecies won’t come true. But this misconception is based on a shallow understanding of the history and usage of words like “agnostic” and “atheist,” which I have discussed elsewhere.
With regard to your lamppost analogy: you don’t “presuppose” it was manufactured. Your experience with life has reasonably led you to provisionally believe that it was manufactured and placed there by humans. But if I had convincing evidence that lampposts really grew from planted seeds, then by presenting that evidence I might sway you over to that world view, assuming you were open to it. But even if I was right, and all lampposts really did grow from seeds, if you were a “presuppositionalist” with regard to the manufacture of lampposts, you would claim that the things I grew from seeds were not “real” lampposts, or that I was working evil magic to deceive the true “lamppost manufacturists.” A basic skepticism about the idea that lampposts grow from seeds is honorable. But continuing belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not.
Now, if you want to extend this explanation to the “watchmaker,” or teleological argument by saying that since lampposts are “designed” then so must the entire universe and everything in it be, you have a problem because then even God requires a designer. And if you exclude God from this regress, which you appear to be trying to do with your “nothing comes from nothing except God” statement, you must provide reasons and evidence for this part of your argument. And if you fall back on “faith” and not reason and evidence do that, then you have not really made an argument: you have simply asserted your faith.
So to conclude this point: I need no “proof” to be open to new evidence. Open-minded non-belief is the essence of skepticism, which I hold as a highly honorable intellectual position.
The problem you have here is that you don’t accept the consequences of what you are saying: if “faith” is a valid reason for believing, then anyone’s religious faith, no matter how contradictory or anathema to yours, must also be totally valid.
To the rest of the readers: Sue is mentioning something from an e-mail exchange I had with her— so far this has not come up here.
Sue, I never said my experience was supernatural. In fact, I stated bluntly that I had no reason to believe it was, and in fact I brought it up as an example of a claim that I had no external evidence for, and which I could therefore never prove actually happened. But assuming it did actually happen to me, I actually have no difficulty at all explaining it in scientific terms. However, I also stated that many people having similar experiences would take them as supernatural simply due to their culture-borne credulity. I also stated that I thought that experiences like mine would account for a commonality of experience across many religions including some forms of Christianity— a far cry from a testament to Christianity’s uniqueness.
You replied with a rather stereotypical response that my experience was probably the result of demonic influence. Talk about culture-borne credulity, eh?
Faith is by definition unfounded. If your beliefs are founded purely on evidence and reasoning, then it is not faith. If you insist on saying that every belief is based on faith, then you have no need of both words: you can equally say “everyone has faith” or “everyone has beliefs.” If that is the case, then I do have faith, and I guess I’m going to be saved. Oh, you mean there is a difference? Then I guess I don’t have your kind of faith. But I do have beliefs. Let’s keep those two terms straight.
January 18th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
By the way: if anyone would like to look this atheist heathen unbeliever in the eye, I do video chat. For Windows or Mac users I’m usually on Skype as “robertmcnally”, and for Mac users, I’m usually on iChat/AIM as “ironwolf515″.
See you on teh intartubes!
January 18th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
ironwolf
lol i guess you better thank me for that mistake, because by the looks of it you would not have had a response at all. you still need to read alot more on this subject because you are still wrong. you dont believe because you dont understand.
ps your welcome, you needed that
January 18th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
All,
For the benefit of everyone involved I do believe that it is pertinent to understand that their is a difference in the definition between belief and faith.
From what I have learned that made practical sense they are synonymous to a degree but the difference is based on percentage of truth. Belief is commonly defined as representing historical truth. It doesn’t represent 100% however does contain some form of truth. Faith is commonly denoted as believing in something without any proof.
I read a very simple example somewhere that depicted this difference quite nicely and it had to do with a tightrope walker across the Niagara Falls.
Most believed that he could carry a person on his back across the Falls but only one had the Faith that he could and thus climbed on his back.
This is why (as a Christian) I can honestly say that I lose my Faith at times but my belief remains. This obviously and generally is a result of times I experience in my life.
If anyone wishes to refute my description I am really interested to hear it because this is something that has become apparent to me.
Cheers,
Terry
January 18th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Alex,
It’s “You’re welcome,” not “your welcome.”
You’re welcome.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
whats wrong ironwolf? Cant focus on the subject? this is a blog on ron weinland not a spelling bee.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Terry,
You start off well enough by claiming to agree that there’s a difference between belief and faith… then you go horribly astray.
This is glurge, Terry: It’s fictional, contrived, designed to help you feel warm and fuzzy about “Faith,” (with a capital ‘F’ even!) and horribly fallacious. In real life anyone who would climb on a tightrope walker’s back would not do it out of “faith” as used in the religious sense, but out of a high degree of certainty based on prior experience that they would make it across. And if you want to say that a “high degree of certainty based on experience” is faith, then re-read the last paragraph of my message to Sue, above. If it is a historical truth that a particular rope-walker has crossed many chasms of varying depths many times under varying conditions, then it is not “belief without proof” to think they can do it again any more than it is religious faith that you will not be hit by a car the next time you cross a street.
Again, why have two words if you are going to split such hairs over their meaning? Faith is a religious term, belief is a mundane term.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Alex,
Last time I checked, this was my blog. And right now I’m having fun making you out as the buffoon you are. Don’t like it? Then start your own blog, little boy.
Don’t go away angry; just go away.
January 18th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Robert,
As always my friend I Believe that you may be right but I have Faith that I am right (hahahahaha)
Take care all and have a great weekend!
Cheers,
Terry
January 18th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Hi Ironwolf. Thanks for the response. I really can see where you are coming from as far as how my faith could potentially “hurt” a non-believer. It’s a tough spot to be in as a Christian; when you fully believe with all that you are that you know and speak with people daily that are going to go to hell. The only compassionate thing to do is to then overlook the hurt that you may cause in light of the greater good. I do try to share my faith only with those who are open to hearing it. And I hope from any of these entry’s on your blog that I never came across as all knowing. I am open as the L-rd leads me. See? I learned something from our Jewish friends already. I saw the value, checked with the Word, and have attempted to change my behavior in light of the new information. We all have room to grow.
Katie
January 18th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Katie,
Yeah, gosh, that must be hard. My heart goes out to you.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Hey Robert;
Thank you for dignifying my effort, without a painful shredding of my dignity.
However;
You failed to respond to my afterward about settling on your terms before any sort of rational argument can commence: IF we do not have any mutual agreement on our commonality of terms ie infallability of the biblical word, then there is no beginning point of which to launch any sort of rational debate on faith NOR belief, quibble as you will of the definitions of both: we disagree fundamentally (not in the FUNDAMENTALIST sense of the word, pleeeeese) on our definitions of biblical truth, therefore we, again, speak Greek and Chineese and counterproductively expect the other to understand. As I am sure I do not to remind you, the basis of any rational debate is to first define one’s terms.
There is no Christian faith , or belief, with out Biblical truth: If you deny this, then yes in your defintion of things, our faith is pathetic and way off base and in fact we would be completely deserving of your disdain. To this I conceede without caveat.
However, I notice you are particulary sensitive about the possibility of being “threatened” with the proberbial hell-fire and brimstone….
….methink he doth protest too much??
Because frankly, if you threathened me with the Leaprechan’s equivalent, and it was called , for arguments sake, “(*&)(^*&^”, then it would have no power to even offend me. I would toss it off as your benign illusion, or delusion. Let a Hindu or Catholic tell me am going to wind up in their version of Hell or Pergatory, and frankly, go for it. It does not have the power to elicit any sort of respose short of…pity.
But if in fact I had some vestige of a hint of a latent fear of the remotest 0.01% possibility that I was wrong, then the sheer possibility of “)(*)(*&(*” would in fact have some measure of threat to me, and thereby cause offence. Or some galvanic skin response of some type.
You are still to some degree a product, Robert, no matter how you try to distance yourself. You carry the possibility in your heart, and if you were the raving rabit athiest you think you are, I don’t think you would even bother entertaining us “delusional” folk or wasting your time on us. In Your Face> then why invite us into your very living room, as you phrase it? Conjure up a blog for your select circle of athiest friends if entertaining the “enemy” is that repugnant to your superior sensibiliites. You know the only ones reading about Biblical Prophesy would have some predialection to Revelations being valid. Or at lest it would be a reasonable assumption. Don’t put honey out and complain that you are attracting ants. (lol)
Again, let me probe: you say you have not shut the door completely on NO GOD categorically. What makes you so sure? Where is your reluctance to say 100%? Where is your proof to be so completely SURE? If you have any sort of reservation, that it all MIGHT be true, even if it (the bible) is somewhat perverted by years of interpretation, what might that reservation be? What is your sneaking suspicion, devoid of quantifiable data, that makes you think the whole God-delusion just might have a flake, a MODICUM, of plausibility?
It would take a very intellectually honest man to answer that question without any confabulation.
Interested.
p.s. am a lousy speller and did not spellcheck … I conceede, I give.
No, we can’t categorically prove God. But likewise, you cannot with any intellectual integrity disprove it, either. We are in fact on even ground. Admit it. Lack of evidence does not make something nonexistant: it simply makes it as of yet unproven.
Years ago no doctor washed his hands before delivering a child, resulting in untold premature deaths….this does not mean the virus was not very real, very alive, very virulent. The evidence was all there: just unrealized.
It’s not that despotically God prevents you from noticing the evidence: you prevent yourself from recognizing it as such. You want the flaming bush. He has been there, done that. Someone recorded it. You would have him to appear before every human, so as to render the crux of faith unnecessary? Well, I guess when you are God, and you make your own universe, you will be able to organize things as you see fit. Until that point, I will hedge my bets with the historical one for which there is the most cumulative, cross-reference-able data.
Caveat Emptor.
Many types of viruses. Many types of evidence. Many types of disease.
Faith of a little child, is all He requires, or else He WOULD be the despot you claim. And I would agree with you.
You believed once: were you less intelligent then? Or perhaps less cynical. Symptom of youth? It would take a pure genuis to notice the subtle difference. You seem to think you are more “evolved” because you survived thru your faith and made it thru to the other side, while us poor unenlightened deluded beings flounder in our ingorance.
Who is in whose face? Believe what you want. We agree on Weinland.
On eternal perpetual nothingness, evolved from nothing and going back to it? Not so much. Seems to me it takes more faith to cover up for the gaps in science (see Missing link), than it does to figure that we are here for a reason, with some sort of intellegent design being both our source and our destiny. I see patterns in the universe, I see organization, I see hierarchy.
It just makes sense to me and my little mind. But I am not rabid about it. It is not I that damns you to hell….but if the book I believes does, don’t blame me. I just wish to know that I have a voice. For all your humanistic rationale, it all boils down to what makes sense to you.
Patterns. Re-occuring themes, scientifically, historically, geologically. I don’t see the random chaos, I see themes. It is my predilection and I am not alone. This begs an origin. I’m simply going with what has the greatest preponderance of evidencial fact, flawed tho it may be.
Even you are not going to posit that your viewpoint if flawless.
Glad as usual to be able to challenge myself against your formidiable talents.
(yes, yes i know my spelling suks, don’t bother with that)
January 18th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
…that’s RABID ATHEIEST LOL, not rabit mispelled
that old I b4 E rule sure got ingrained in us all!!
January 18th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
…yes yes let me save you the time, “confirmation bias” and “false dilemma”…
My overall point is that perhaps the world has secrets, or mysteries , that are not all explained by verifiable, quantativie hard core data. Like UFO’s, like the supernatural in general.
If you choose to live in a construct where you only accept what is obvious, then you commit the intellectual sin of not allowing for the hitherto unseen or unproven.
Look at scientific principals that were inconceivabe 200 years ago…they were not NON existant, just not yet revealed. This did not diminish their provablility: only man’s inability to comprehend.
And that is what I think, if there is a God, he must be Pretty Inconceivable.
We look through a glass darkly. If there is a creator, then man, he must be pretty mindblowing. I allow for this.
To my mind it fits, and I thank you for actually forcing me to look more closely at what I believe, and why I do so.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Robert,
I never like to throw things in anyone’s face however the story I referred to earlier is not glurge.
If you wish to stick by the basis that the term Faith can only be applied from a religious perspective I will agree, however the story I used was not fictional.
Here is the link if you are interested:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/30339/the_great_blondin_first_tightrope_walker.html
Cheers,
Terry
January 18th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Sue said:
In sum, if you take both faith and the veracity of the Bible out of the debate as unprobable speculations, then you are completly correct in realizing that a faith-based Christianity is incompatable with logic, as faith is based on the Bible being the uncorruptable Word of God, is the foundation upon where that faith rests.
________________________________________________________________
Sue, atheists don’t believe because they wish not to believe. Let me ask you this; what kind of incontrovertible evidence could you produce?
Videos? Your average atheist scoffer would say they could have been digitally altered.
The same with pictures.
Books? Your regular atheist loon will rant about how they could be fiction.
Artifacts? Why, they could have come from anywhere…
Do you see what I mean? Short of an intense, personal experience with God, those who wish to choose disbelief will receive disbelief. Those who wish to believe there is no God will get exactly that. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EVIDENCE.
Sure, God jumped through some hoops for Gideon - when he needed his help for an attack.
Same for Paul.
Thomas? Well, he was already a disciple. Jesus didn’t need to convince him of his existence.
Do you see? It’s a pointless discussion. The Bible says, “Let those with ears to hear, hear…” Atheists do not wish to hear. They put their fingers in their ears and sing, “La la la…” It’s easy to stand for nothing. Why do you think so many of them do it?
-AIWI
January 18th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Hey Everyone,
I would like to submit my final farewell to all of you that I have known, responded to and/or became friends with through this Blog.
I feel that at this point int time there is little else that I can contribute to this subject and have other issues that I need to deal with at this time.
Y
I have learned much through following the conversation here and am grateful for all of it.
You will all be in my heart and prayers and perhaps for me this is the best measure a man can show his fellow man. You are always welcome to contact me if you like at:
christian@1gr8site.com
Robert,
I wish you all the best and want you to remember that although we have our differences you will always be considered a friend to me. The pool and pints day is always a welcome invitation and although I don’t travel much anymore I hope that you will look me up if you are ever in Austin.
My best wishes to you all,
Cheers,
Terry
January 18th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Terry,
I’m happy to acknowledge the historicity of your tightrope-walker story. But I would still contend that you lowered it to the status of glurge by drawing from it as an anonymous source and attempting to turn it into a story about the “faith” of the man who Blondin’s carried— that’s how these idiotic urban legends get started, and you aren’t helping any by doing that. Reading the story, I see no reason that anyone had to have anything like religious faith in Blondin’s ability.
In any case, thanks for the link.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Aiwi,
You seem to wish to continue to embarrass yourself with childish arguments. The fallacy is that even if I could “choose to believe,” in which of the thousands of religions and sects should I choose to believe in? If they are not all the same, then how does one “choose” among them? If you are right that people who convert to Islam “choose to believe” in Islam, where’s the harm in that? It is the world’s fastest-growing religion right now, you know. How about people who “choose to believe” in a sect of Christianity that you think is misguided?
If there is sufficient evidence to support a theory, I will provisionally accept it.
Christianity, like Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Scientology, and so many other religions, doesn’t stand up to logical and historical scrutiny. History itself does. Science itself does. I’ll take those over religion until the believers can put up evidence that carries its own water. Until then, you’re just blowing self-righteous smoke.
January 18th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Terry,
Thanks for your friendship, and I’m glad to return it. I may be in Austin sometime, and I’ll look you up.
Best,
Robert
January 19th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Sue,
You think I’m complaining?
However…
As for much of the rest of your long comment, I believe I’ve been over most of that ground numerous times in these threads, and elsewhere on my blog. I think by now you have a pretty good idea how I would respond to most of what you’ve written. If you honestly don’t, then ask a succinct question and I will try to answer. Also, I think the links I’ve provided over this time should give you quite a bit of research material to find your own answers about what atheists think, should you choose to pursue that knowledge. Writing my own long responses is quite time-consuming, and I agree with Terry that the time comes when letting what has been written stand is probably the best approach. Believe it or not, I have a life too… and it’s calling me.
So I’m taking a break. We’ll see what happens in the coming weeks, and I expect to re-convene here for at least a brief postmortem on Weinland’s prophecies sometime in early February, and again in late April.
Best wishes,
Robert
January 19th, 2008 at 12:17 am
BTW, everyone…
Starting now I’m going to get extra-strict on the off-topic debate and banter. You know who I am, and I know who you are. Stick to Weinland, OK?
January 19th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
What was the original topic, anyway? Haha… kidding.
January 19th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
here is your specific question:
You say you have not shut the door completely on NO GOD , categorically. What makes YOU so sure? What is the miniscule reservation that explains your reluctance to say 100%? Where is your proof to be so completely SURE? If you have any sort of reservation, that it all MIGHT be true, even if it (the bible) is somewhat perverted by years of interpretation, what might that reservation be? What is YOUR OWN sneaking suspicion, devoid of quantifiable data, that makes you think the whole God-delusion just might have a flake, a MODICUM, of plausibility?
It would take a very intellectually