A bunch of useless crap
a less than elequent collection of personal thoughts
Published on April 27, 2004 By MasonM In Philosophy
I just finished reading Jill's article and the resulting comments regarding religion and Hell. Jill's thoughts on the subject are not new., and I greatly respect her right to have and voice her views. I have heard and read these views before from many people. Many of the comments also reflect many common ideas which have been around for a great many years.

Many scholors, philosphers, and religious leaders from all over the world have argued and debated these ideas for centuries. For this reason, I am certain as I write this that there is nothing my meager intellect, studies, and experiences could contribute anything of substance to influence these ideas one way or the other.

The only reason I feel compelled to write anything at all on this subject is the strength of my own convictions on the subject and the sadness I feel when I believe people have missed out on a great truth and wonderful gift from God. While I firmly believe these things to be true, I must say at this point that I have not always believed in this way. I was a very outspoken aethist for many years, and it was only my personal experiences which convinced me that I was wrong in that view.

While true Faith requires no proof, only a fool would have such a Faith without some pretty strong evidence upon which to base their a Faith. I will lay out a few ideas which lend some evidence to the idea that Jesus was and is in fact The Son of God as described in the Bible and believed by Christians. I use the word Christian here to describe all who believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour and not to indicate any particlular denomination as I belong to no denomination. I will also avoid any strictly denominational references.

Historically, we know that every single one of Christ's apostles, (the men who lived with Jesus, traveled with Jesus, and knew Jesus better than anyone), all preached that Jesus was the Son of God. They all preached that Jesus was executed on the cross. These men were eye witnesses to the death of Jesus. They also preached of the return of Jesus after being executed, to which they claimed to also be eye witnesses.

Ok, up to now this is the basis of what we know they all agreed upon and is commonly known about Christianity in general. Now, what lends credibility to these claims is the fact that every one of these men were imprisioned, beaten, tortured, and eventually executed for preaching these things. Any one of them, at any time, could have stopped the beatings and torture by simply confessing that what they were preaching was untrue. They could have saved their own lives by simply saying that what they claimed to be witness to didn't happen. To a single man, every one of them went to their executions still insisting that what they claimed was the Truth.

If they were simply trying to keep a lie going, they were sure pretty dedicated to that lie, weren't they? I can't imagine too many people willing to die for a lie that doesn't benefit them in any way. Can you? What could possibly motivate these men to go through all of that, including execution, except that they were witness to something very very compelling?

And then there's Saul. Saul was a very religious man. He believed that the Christians were preaching blasphemy and deserved death. He actively hunted these people down and brought them in for trial and execution. These crazy Christians would never give up their blasphemous claims. They always preferred to be executed. All of them. Every single one of them.

Saul truly believed in his cause to rid the world of these Christians and their false teachings. What could possibly change a man so much that suddenly he begins preaching the very same message as the people he persecuted? What could change him from Saul the persecuter of Christians to Paul the greatest evangelist of all time? That must have been some truly powerful event to change a man so greatly!

Many speak about the Bible as if it has undergone a great many changes over the centuries; edits, rewrites, etc... But I have studied the modern versions of the Bible as well as many of the old texts, including some copies of first century books of the New Testament and I can find absolutely no significant changes in the past 2000 years. Languages change, society changes, but the Bible has remained the same in all this time. Yes, there have been some attempts at creating rewrites and they can be found out there, but they have all been rejected by biblical scholars as soon as they appear. Personally, I prefer the NIV to the KJV because the language is easier to understand. I don't speak thee and thou and neither does anyone I know. I have compared the two, verse for verse, and except for the language differences, they are the same. They both contain the same message as the earliest manuscripts I have had the great honor to inspect.

The reasoning behind why Jesus died for us seems quite simple to me. Jesus was God incarnate; a perfect man. Only a perfect payment could be made to a perfect God for the sins of the world. Nothing we could do, as imperfect human beings could do it. Only God Himself could provide the perfect payment, so He did it for us because He loves us.

I know I have written nothing here that will make the slightest impact on those who refuse to believe, who ridicule Christianity, who refuse to believe that just 'being a good person' isn't enough . But that's ok. I am not writing this with any foolish ideas that I will somehow 'save the world'. I felt compelled to add my persective on the subject, and knew that it would take more space than a simple comment should take up.

Many people make all kinds of arguements about why God's plan of salvation is unfair for this reason or that, and they want their religion to fit into their ideas of what is right and wrong. Their fatal mistake is in thinking they can make God conform to their ideas instead of conforming their ideas to God. God created the world. His world, His rules. Personally, I think a being who can create a universe by simply speaking it into existance just might know a little more about how things should work than a mere human being, no matter how many intelligent-sounding little remarks that human can come up with.

These are my beliefs, and though they are thought to be foolishness to the world I find great wisdom and insight in the Bible and hold it to be the honest, inerrant Word of God. I pray that somehow, in some way, God will influence some of the people who's comments I have read on this subject and lead them to learn the Truth. I respect and love each and every one of them whether I agree with them or not.

Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 27, 2004
Very eloquent, Mason. Have you read Mere Christianity? What about anything by Lee Strobel? Those are my recommendations.
on Apr 27, 2004
Thank you Shulamite for your kind words. No, I haven't read it, nor Lee Strobel. I'll look in to them when I find the time. I am currently involved in a historical scriptural study which will likely take about 10 years to complete.
on Apr 27, 2004
Hi MasonM,

This is going to be a long reply. Normally I feel if replies are too long they should be in seperate posts but in this case I would like to take some of your points and give my views on them. Please do not be offended, I am actually in awe of people who believe very strongly in something. So, with that qualification, here goes:

"Historically, we know that every single one of Christ's apostles, (the men who lived with Jesus, traveled with Jesus, and knew Jesus better than anyone), all preached that Jesus was the Son of God. They all preached that Jesus was executed on the cross. These men were eye witnesses to the death of Jesus. They also preached of the return of Jesus after being executed, to which they claimed to also be eye witnesses."

I believe that John was the only one of the apostles to be present at the cross and it was he who wrote the account of the crucfixion. There is a school of thought that Jesus did not actually die on the cross. A healthy man could last for days before dying and yet Jesus was 'dead' in 6 hours. To cut a long story short, the theory says that Jesus was not actually dead when they took him down from the cross. For those who like 'rational' explanations rather than 'miraculous' ones this explains both the resurection as well as Jesus appearing to his disciples after his death. The story continues that Jesus then journeyed to India (outside the Roman empire) and there are credible reports of a prophet (Jus Asaf ) claiming to be Jesus appeared in Kashmir at the time of the crucifixion. The evidence to support this theory is circumstancial but the evidence of Jesus death on the cross also relies on one mans (Johns) account. There is a lot more to this theory that makes it credible but I will stop there for the moment.

"if they were simply trying to keep a lie going, they were sure pretty dedicated to that lie, weren't they? I can't imagine too many people willing to die for a lie that doesn't benefit them in any way. Can you? What could possibly motivate these men to go through all of that, including execution, except that they were witness to something very very compelling?"

Could the same not be said of Muslim suicide bombers in the Middle East? Their beliefs must be equally as strong but I do not believe in Allah either.

"Many speak about the Bible as if it has undergone a great many changes over the centuries; edits, rewrites, etc... But I have studied the modern versions of the Bible as well as many of the old texts, including some copies of first century books of the New Testament and I can find absolutely no significant changes in the past 2000 years. Languages change, society changes, but the Bible has remained the same in all this time. Yes, there have been some attempts at creating rewrites and they can be found out there, but they have all been rejected by biblical scholars as soon as they appear. Personally, I prefer the NIV to the KJV because the language is easier to understand. I don't speak thee and thou and neither does anyone I know. I have compared the two, verse for verse, and except for the language differences, they are the same. They both contain the same message as the earliest manuscripts I have had the great honor to inspect."

The current version we rely upon was translated in the middle ages. There are disputes about how accurate was the translation from the original Hebrew and Greek to 17th century English. There are also questions about books missing from the Bible that are mentioned elsewhere. Religious scholars give convincing arguments as to the fact that the real meaning was not changed or altered. But, for someone of a sceptical nature there is doubt as well. I have also heard, but I have not looked into, the fact that some books in the Bible describing Jesus's life were written long after the period (I have no evidence for this but do want to look into it.)

"I know I have written nothing here that will make the slightest impact on those who refuse to believe, who ridicule Christianity, who refuse to believe that just 'being a good person' isn't enough . But that's ok. I am not writing this with any foolish ideas that I will somehow 'save the world'. I felt compelled to add my persective on the subject, and knew that it would take more space than a simple comment should take up."

I apreciate your beliefs and your right to hold them is beyond dispute. But these points are just a perspective from the other side. I think we should all be grateful that we are in countries that allow freedom of religious belief and expression, there are many countries where it is not.


on Apr 27, 2004

Are you aware that Jesus never said he was the son of god?   In the original texts Jesus said he was "A" son of god, not "THE" son of god. 


I bring this up all the time, and i never get any responses.

on Apr 27, 2004
Greetings Gerry;

Thanks for your input.

I didn't post this article in order to foster any sort of debate, but I will answer a few of your comments.

I believe that John was the only one of the apostles to be present at the cross

Why do you believe John was the only one present? The book of John is not the only one which speaks of the death of Christ.

As for the so-called 'swoon theory' in which Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, the written evidence says otherwise. Firstly, the fact that the soldiers didn't break the legs of Jesus tells us he was already dead. Secondly, when the spear pierced the side of Jesus we are told out poured 'blood and water'. This is a very good description of the separation of the blood and plasma which takes place after death. Also, the Centurian, a man experienced in battle and surely experienced in seeing death, declared Jesus was dead.

Could the same not be said of Muslim suicide bombers in the Middle East?

No. They are acting on their Faith not on something they actually witnessed, nor are they killing themselves to help foster a lie in their minds. My point was, would the Apostles die for something they KNEW wasn't true?

The current version we rely upon was translated in the middle ages. There are disputes about how accurate was the translation from the original Hebrew and Greek to 17th century English. There are also questions about books missing from the Bible that are mentioned elsewhere. Religious scholars give convincing arguments as to the fact that the real meaning was not changed or altered. But, for someone of a sceptical nature there is doubt as well. I have also heard, but I have not looked into, the fact that some books in the Bible describing Jesus's life were written long after the period (I have no evidence for this but do want to look into it.)

True, the KJV was translated in the middle ages. The NIV was translated in recent years. The project started in 1965. Hardly the middle ages. It wasn't merely a rewrite of the KJV but was a fresh translation. There have always been rumors of 'missing books' but this isn't supported by the surviving remnants of first century manuscripts which contain no books not included in our modern ones. As to being sceptical of the translation, the NIV project involved many many people from many different denominations and all having different interests. Whenever any part of scripture was in doubt as to it's true meaning they selected by agreement the most likely meaning (some old hebrew words just don't have an english equivalent) and alternate meanings are included in the footnotes.

I don't see that the books could have been written much later as many first century Christians were executed for having them.

I respect your input, but many of the points you brought up are old potshots (some hundreds of years old) at the bible which just have never held water.

Thanks for your interest and while I doubt any of this will sway your thinking we can agree to disagree in repect.
on Apr 27, 2004
respect. sorry for the typo
on Apr 27, 2004
Jeremy refer to what is probably the best known verse of the bible: John 3:16. Says it pretty clearly.

"For God so loved the world, He gave His only begotten Son........."
on Apr 27, 2004
Goody, I inspired more intelligent conversation about the merits of christianity. I love it!

My only comment for now is this, unless you read the original Bible passages in the original language, you can't say it hasn't changed. Interpretation is so subjective. That is one of my biggest problems with the subject.

Great article!
on Apr 27, 2004
That is a good point Jill, and I can say it hasn't changed because, as I said before, I have had the pleasure of studying the old texts in Hebrew and Greek which are the languages in which they were written, otherwise I wouldn't have made the comment.

I am hardly fluent in ancient languages and the study is time-consuming and tedious but rewarding.

Another point: Most of us don't understand the complicated mathematics involved with astronomy but we still listen to and study the work of those who do when they interpret their work for us laymen. Why is it that people can accept these things (which often turn out to be wrong) when they come from "scientists" but are unwilling to accept these same lines of study from scholars who study the bible?

Scientists work is accepted as fact for many years until another scientist "proves" it wrong. Bibliccal scholars have agreed on the content of the translation of the scriptures for centuries without the same problems yet people refuse to accept it. Any time someone comes up with some new theory, rumor, or story in an attempt to discredit the texts of the bible people jump on immediately.

In the 1600s a French Science Academy published 34 "scientific facts" which absolutely disproved the bible. These "facts" were accepted by the greatest scientific minds of the time. Today your average high school student would laugh at these "facts".

People seem to want to trust fallible people more quickly than an infallible God. Oh well, such is the nature of the human being.
on Apr 27, 2004
This is a very well written article. Although never an atheist, I came to know Christ in a personal way. You can take time out to read C.S. Lewis and Lee Stroebel, they are quick reads. Your project sounds interesting.
on Apr 27, 2004
Thanks you Sherye. Actually I have read some of C.S. Lewis
on Apr 27, 2004
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. You know Aramaic?
on Apr 27, 2004
No I've never studied Aramaic as of yet. And actually the bulk of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew.
on Apr 27, 2004
I wasnt talking about what John said...i was talking about what Jesus said.  How does John know that Jesus is "the only begotten son" when jesus never said it.
on Apr 27, 2004
sorry, this will be quick b/c I have to go soon.


2 things. 1st, I am new, so hello everyone. And second, I am atheist. Take that as you wish.
k, a suggestion, please, PLEASE don't read Lee Strobel. Most of his arguements are unsupported and he never defends his positions against attacks.

"Many speak about the Bible as if it has undergone a great many changes over the centuries; edits, rewrites, etc... But I have studied the modern versions of the Bible as well as many of the old texts, including some copies of first century books of the New Testament and I can find absolutely no significant changes in the past 2000 years. Languages change, society changes, but the Bible has remained the same in all this time. Yes, there have been some attempts at creating rewrites and they can be found out there, but they have all been rejected by biblical scholars as soon as they appear. Personally, I prefer the NIV to the KJV because the language is easier to understand. I don't speak thee and thou and neither does anyone I know. I have compared the two, verse for verse, and except for the language differences, they are the same. They both contain the same message as the earliest manuscripts I have had the great honor to inspect."



I would disagree. There are many, many discrepancies (sp) between current and old translations. Look into the dead sea scrolls.

"the fact that some books in the Bible describing Jesus's life were written long after the period (I have no evidence for this but do want to look into it.)"


I beleive it is 50 or 60 years, which would account for the many many contradictions.
2 Pages1 2