Posted by Jim Henderson on: 03.27.2006 /
As a Christian if I were to sound as vulnerable and positive about my experience after attending an athiest group as Hemant did abouy his experience with Via Christus - I know I would hear from some Christians who would be worried about me “crossing over the line” and sounding too supportive of atheists. It would just bug them to think that I was making them sound good in any light.
Maybe atheists are more open minded and intellectually sophisticated than christians are in this regard so maybe they aren’t “hearing” the same things I think I am. I would be interested in knowing if anyone thinks Hemant is getting a little soft or maybe slipping over a little too far to the other side.
Here are a couple of comments from his post that made we wonder about this
“One woman mentioned that she was feeling stressed/overwhelmed; that she wanted one thing, but it seemed God wanted another, and she didn’t want to fight anymore. It was brutally honest. And I empathized with her words, while thinking to myself that if I were in her shoes, I’m not sure what I would do. I would probably think that I’m not doing enough. I’d be frustrated that everything I’m working on seems overshadowed by something else. But for this woman, the dichotomy of her want and God’s want allowed her to see things from a different perspective, and that gave her the comfort she needed; something would work out eventually for her. Atheists don’t have that feeling– it might work out, it might not. There’s no guarantee of a happy ending. And I think that’s more realistic, but it certainly doesn’t make me feel better when times are rough. Even though I may not agree with her assessment, I’m not sure if I could tell her anything that would comfort her.”
“I liked the way Pastor Mike ran the service. It wasn’t just a “small group,” poring over Biblical minutia. It was a small gathering of people trying to grow their faith in a number of different ways. It’s a type of Christianity no Atheist should have a problem with. In fact, it seemed the only people who would be against it were conservative Christians like the ones who told Mike to leave the old place.”
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
1“Maybe atheists are more open minded and intellectually sophisticated…”
Or maybe… Hemant and many of the atheists on this blog are just way more decent and friendly than most people…
I think Hemant started out more open-minded (you can call it soft if you wish) than perhaps many of us thought he would. That’s what makes his insights so valuable to me as a church leader.
Comment by: Ir
2Yes, Hemant is definitely getting soft ;)
Actually, I would say Hemant has done very well at being fair to the the churches he has visited. He was more negative than usual in his write-up of Moody Church; the tone of his comments on Via Christus is more typical. Perhaps this is entirely due to differences in what he experienced there interpersonally and in content; perhaps he was having a better day on Sunday than Wednesday; perhaps a combination of both.
I’ve learned to be cautious about my reactions and responses to something, knowing that they do vary somewhat according to what mood I am in when I encounter a given situation. I would expect Hemant to find the same sort of variation in his reactions since he’s human — I believe all humans are that way. I’m not sure whether they all realize it — in my case my mood disorder made it obvious - ahem.
Hemant’s comments about atheism not having a comforting answer for people who want a happy ending showed the careful balance and ability to see the other side which is typical of him. I note that he didn’t say atheism’s lack of a guarantee of a happy ending is a problem; only that it meant he wasn’t able to provide the type of comfort she was relying on to get her through something. Atheists live without and Ex-Christians learn to live without the comfort that comes from a ‘guaranteed happy ending’ (or the guarantee that there is some ‘good purpose’ behind everything difficult we encounter in life). I’ve found that those guarantees are not necessarily for a happy and fulfilled life; however, when I was a Christian I probably assumed they were.
As for Hemant’s comment “it’s a type of Christianity no Atheist should have a problem with” — I don’t know exactly what he meant; my guess is that he didn’t mean “here’s a belief system all atheists could and should adopt!” I suspect he meant something like “here are some Christians who have enough in common with atheist goals for MTWAPB (making the world a better place) and who are good enough at avoiding believing/saying things that make atheists’ heads explode that I would think any atheists could work with them at MTWABP”.
Comment by: TXatheist
3Hemant soft? Nope, I perceive his insight as an honest first view of a church going in as someone who doesn’t believe. He literally is reporting on what he sees and hears with the natural human bias we all have. I’ve gone to church with my fundamentalist grandma about 5 or 6 times as she was searching for the right church. After the 6 visits she finally asked me what I thought and I explained I was an atheist. She couldn’t understand why I’d go with her. I told her why, I love you grandma and if xianity makes you happy then that’s fine. i also was the only one who’d go see the Passion. Most content atheists don’t hate hearing this stuff, it’s just the prostelytizing over and over that we get tired of. You can find a positve message in sermons, just no god, imo, if you’re an atheist with an open mind. I’d definitely say Hemant is intellectually sophisticated for his age and right out of undergrad/college.
Comment by: David S
4I think Hemant is making honest observations. He, like other atheists, know religion offers “answers” that you don’t have when you don’t believe in the supernatural. I don’t see this as him leaning toward conversion though.
That’s not to say he couldn’t convert. He could. I think almost anyone might be a particular strong emotional experience away from conversion. Some ministers and missionaries know this (or are trained) and work to induce emotional experiences and help seekers identify the emotions as the “spirit” reaching out to them. I understand at the end of the Alpha dinners there’s a very manipulative meeting where various techniques (similar to ones used in stage hypnosis ) are used to induce strong unexplainable emotional (”spiritual”) experiences to convert. People (atheists, or whoever) that think it can’t happen are perhaps even more susceptible. I have some background in this sort of thing and yet I still respect that as a human I’m susceptible (though it would be difficult). I don’t know how aware Hemant is of these things or how open he might be to them.
After the sale/conversion is another story of course. Is there the intellectual depth in the religion to keep someone as well versed as Hemant after the emotion fades? I dunno what the fall away rate after conversion on the Alpha dinners is for example, but I suspect it’s reasonably high based on fall away rate from the church I worked for.
I’m not suggesting all conversion is done like this, I’m just mentioning some things I’m aware of on the issue of gaining new converts.
Comment by: Rick
5Having visited this blog right from post #1, I have seen a similar change as Hemant has. Am I any less a freethinker? Nope. Am I getting soft? Yes.
So far the modus operandi of most freethought groups was more or less confrontational. The focus was on finding all the differences between us, and those who believed in faith based religions. Now that I look back, it was making the chasm more and more wide.
The thing which Hemant set out to do was long overdue I guess. It was a time not to stress on the differences but to rediscover the commonalities we shared as human beings. Once you start thinking from a christian point of view, things don’t seem as bad as they appear from the atheist side of the fence.
In the past month I have attended 2 church services just to get the feel of the congregation. One was a southern baptist (not of the fundamentalist school) and another, a Unitarian church. The folks were quite understanding and actually had no problem accepting my non-religious status. Quite a splendid bunch. Now we are working on a inter-faith/non-faith dialogue between our Birmingham Freethought Society (link in my signature) and some members of the Baptist church that I visited. Note, its gonna be a dialogue, not a debate. We would be working towards bringing about a shared understanding, without expecting people from either sides to cross the fence.
The OTM has played a crucial role in bringing about a new wave of acceptance between various groups, and I hope this brings about a change for the better in tomorrows world.
Comment by: Ir
6Wow - that sounds very similar to OTM’s vision, except that in your case a freethinker is initiating dialog rather than followers of Jesus.
What you wrote also reminded me that the powers-that-be at IIDB have also insisted that ‘finding common ground with theists’ is part of their mission - even though some members have insisted that there is no common ground to be found.
If freethinkers as well as followers of Jesus initiate joint ventures, a lot might get accomplished…
Comment by: Jim Henderson
7Ir - Good job noticing
Comment by: Jason L
8I disagree. My name is Jason, and I am helping to do the church plant of Via Christus, and I disagree that he is “getting soft” as you say, but in fact, what he experienced is what we at Via Christus want to make it, a non-threatening church. Essentially, a chruch for people who hate church. And since Hemant was really our first visitor not in the clique of people who either go to Via Christus’ parent chruch, or the people that knew Pastor Mike from his Wheaton days, we accomplished what we hope to, providing an atmosphere of love and open dialogue. I believe that absolutely anyone feels more open and free in these situations, rather than services dictated by rituals or lectured services.
Comment by: Westy
9Very insightful, Rick. Obviously let’s hope all of us are more aware of where someone who disagrees with our faith (or lack of) is coming from.
Is Hemant getting soft? Probably not. I have the feeling his comments were offered in a slightly more friendly context since he had personal interaction with Mike and it was a smaller setting. I think it’s our tendency to go easier on someone we actually got the chance to interact with and discovered was a decent individual, and that’s what happened here. I have the feeling that if Hemant had personally interacted w/ the pastor at Moody last week, his critique would have sounded different.
Comment by: Tom in Sacramento
10I don’t think Hemant is getting ’soft’, at least wrt “getting converted”. Rather, I think that he, probably most of us, are getting ’soft’ in our definition of “the problem”.
You’ve heard the old sayings:
— the enemy of my enemy is my friend, or
— the friend of my enemy is my enemy.
Too often it has seemed that people on both “sides” have identified the “enemy” as the person on the other “side”. But, as we’ve gotten to know a bit about each other, perhaps what hasa happened is that we’ve discovered that the real “enemy” is rooted in things that affect us all.
Ir bravely shared her mental/emotional struggles. Those things affect people on both “sides”. Someone else shared about her struggles with chronic pain; no respecter of religious affiliations. And if all of us were similarly courageous I suspect that we all have pain of one form or another that has affected us.
Furthermore, we have come to see that the “enemy” manifests in ways “out there”, too: poverty, social injustice, etc. Those are things that, whatever our respective motivations, concern both “sides”.
So, it just makes sense, if we both struggle against some of the same “enemies” then let us not fight amongst ourselves. Let’s look for the places where we have shared interests and work together.
Tom
Comment by: Matt Rupert
11“Maybe atheists are more open minded and intellectually sophisticated than christians are in this regard ”
Not in my (Christian) experience. Christians are as open minded as anyone. Not all of us, certainly, but most of us. It’s just that the obnoxious loud ones shape opinions of us.
Comment by: TXatheist
12Matt,
Is it just as likely that Zeus is the one true god as Jesus?
Comment by: Ir
13TX - the Christian answer is no, but a Christian could ask you “Is it as likely that God exists as God doesn’t exist?” and also get the answer no.
Comment by: TXatheist
14Ir,
Not true for me but I know what you mean. I’ll answer later to your point;) I would like to see if Matt comes back and answers.
Comment by: Matt Rupert
15No. And now you’re going to say that I’m not being open-minded. I know where you’re going.
“Open minded” doesn’t mean unwilling to accept anything as true or untrue. It’s not that. I’m open minded in that I can appreciate your perspective, and even though I disagree, I accept that I don’t know everything there is to know about God, and nor do you, and here we are, in very different places based on very different experiences.
What I’m saying is that we Christians aren’t all Jerry Fallwells and Pat Robertsons. Read Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell, or The Gutter by Craig Gross, or Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller–you’ll start to see that there are many Christians out there that you may well enjoy going out and having a beer with.
Comment by: TXatheist
16I certainly don’t think all xians are Jerry Falwell’s but it is just as likely that Zeus is the one true god as Jesus based on the same reasoning. There is no difference of perspective between the belief in Zeus and the belief in Jesus other than the variation in stories. As far as knowing all there is to know about god, I do, you don’t:) I am not the one who needs to do some reading on mythology variances but thanks.
Ir,
I acknowledge god is real. Really exists as a myth and as a character in stories.
Comment by: Julie C.
17“I certainly don’t think all xians are Jerry Falwell’s but it is just as likely that Zeus is the one true god as Jesus based on the same reasoning.”
which is why my faith is not based merely on knowledge but on faith. I choose to believe in Jesus and I think it is “right belief”. Otherwise, why would I bother? :)
Comment by: TXatheist
18Julie,
Have you bothered to look into Zeus as the one true god?:) I don’t doubt you believe in Jesus for your personal reasons and that’s fine.
Comment by: Ir
19Ah…I should have phrased my question differently, I guess ;)
Comment by: TXatheist
20Ir,
Don’t worry about it…please. It boils down to this, imo, if someone says there open minded and they have one god I find out why they don’t believe in any other gods, less hindus, and the usual answer is they are sure they have the right god already.
Comment by: Westy
21TXatheist, I know it sounds like you’re not much into reading more, but the book I’d recommend that approaches this from exactly the perspective you do is Jesus Among Other Gods by Ravi Zacharias. I, nor anyone on here I suspect, will be able to give you a satisfactory answer, but I’d hope the book would help.
Comment by: Ir
22Westy, I read Can Man Live Without God? by Ravi Zacharias (which is about atheism).
Basically, I agree with Jeff Lowder’s review that a) it’s an “emotional tirade against atheism“;
b) Zacharias writes with an “inflammatory patronizing tone”; and
c)”many atheists would not recognize what Zacharias calls ‘atheism.’.
In view of that I’m reluctant to recommend any of Ravi Zacharias’ other books.
Comment by: Char
23TXatheist wrote:
Wouldn’t it be better to phrase the question, “is it as likely that Zeus is the one true god as the Christian’s God?”
After all, Jesus is a independently verifiable historical figure. He just claimed to be the Son of God.
Comment by: Mike
24I’m not really sure I get your point TX… by your definition it’s pretty much impossible for anyone to be “open minded” unless one has no firm opinions on any subject whatsoever. Does being a convinced atheist make you not open minded because you haven’t thoroughly researched all other possibilities?
I guess I’m just not sure what you’re trying to prove through this line of reasoning.
And for the record, yes I have considered the possibility that Zeus (or any other member of a polytheistic pantheon) is the true god, and I have rejected polytheism as highly unlikely. Not impossible, just not as philosophically consistent and satisfying as monotheism.
But of course, in describing Zeus as “the one true god” you’re basically equating him with a monotheistic deity, in which case what’s the difference between Zeus and the Christian God? I suppose I could just admit that version of Zeus to be my God by a different name.
But again, what was your point with all this? Who exactly were you trying to make look stupid?
Comment by: Ir
25Mike - I think it’s best not to infer motives from someone else’s post.
I like that you asked TXatheist what his point was. I thought that was a good question :).
It would have been good to end with that question, because having just shown you don’t know what his point is, it doesn’t make sense (in my opinion) to then go on to assert (by implication) that his point is to try to make someone look stupid.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
26Merriam Webster defines “open-minded” as “: receptive to arguments or ideas” I don’t think that implies receptive to any and all arguments and ideas. I just thought we’d chew on that before we go to far down the path to absurdity.
I don’t want to be, in the words of Steve Taylor, “so open-minded that your brain’s leaked out” either. but then, I don’t think ANYBODY here is like that. You’ve all proven that over the past few weeks.
Comment by: TXatheist
27Char,
Please cite any evidence for the “historical” Jesus. I suggest we move on personally because in the 100’s of discussions no one has done such.
Zeus was a monotheistic creator of the universe just like Jehovah and had a son, Thor.
How can one reject Zeus anymore than Jehovah? Now, I might not agree with your answer but I don’t think you are stupid. As far as your consideration of saying your god may well be Zeus by a different name, there we absolutely agree and neither of us is stupid:)
Peter,
Thanks for the definition:)
Comment by: Mike
28Sorry about that Ir (and TX)… you’re right, it did seem to me that TX’s comment was meant mainly to try and make Xians look stupid for trying to claim to be open minded, but I shouldn’t have assumed that without knowing for sure. TX’s comments came across to me in a rather condescending tone, but perhaps I was just reading into it a tone that wasn’t really there. If that’s the case I do sincerely apologize.
Didn’t mean to be disrespectful to anyone here. Please forgive…
-Mike
Comment by: Ir
29Mike, I can’t speak for TXatheist but speaking for myself, I do forgive you.
Not that I was particularly offended - it was more that I wanted you to see what you did and be careful about it in future because you’re a pastor. Some people will be watching you and ‘idolizing’ you (I mean, they will have unreasonably high expectations of you) because of your role and when you make the same mistakes as other humans make, they will be more hurt and disappointed than if someone else made them.
Perhaps this will be less true in a church like Via Christus than some other types of churches, but I expect you will run into some of it there too.
And maybe I’m not saying anything you don’t already know by now about being a pastor ;)
Comment by: TXatheist
30Oh, sorry, didn’t mean to not comment…forgiven…absolutely.
On that note I also meant to say I am absolutely open to Char finding something and remain open to the idea of god.
Comment by: Mike
31Once again I’m confused (sorry :) )… are you implying that Jesus of Nazareth, simply as a Jewish man who would have lived in first century Palestine, never existed?
That seems like a pretty far-fetched premise to me. How would you explain the existence of the entire Christian religion if there was no founder? Or what do you do with the extra-biblical references to Jesus, like the ones found in Josephus’ history? Whether or not you think Jesus was divine, or whether the stories in the Bible about him are at all accurate, it seems pretty likely that someone named Jesus existed who became the basis for the new Christian movement.
I think you’re mixing your mythologies. IIRC Zeus was a Greek deity and Thor was a Norse deity. I don’t know that those mythologies would have ever directly crossed paths, since Greek mythology had pretty much died out by the time Norse mythology became prevalent.
And unless you’re referring to some other sources that I’m not familiar with (which of course is entirely possible), Zeus I don’t think was typically viewed as a monotheistic creator god. Most of “creation” was already well in place by the time Zeus came on the scene. He was the son of Cronus, one of the Titans, who himself had been born from the union of Gaia (Mother Earth) and Uranus (Father Sky), and they in turn had been born from Eros (love), which had arisen out of the Chaos. (If I remember my Greek mythology from high school correctly. :) )
If we’re talking about a truly monotheistic creator God, then I don’t care if we call him Zeus or Yahweh or Tom Bombadil, it’s the concept, not the name that is important. And I think we’re in agreement there.
I would think the question at issue between Christians and atheists is not which God actually exists, but whether any God does. And that question, regardless of which side one comes down on, requires a leap of faith. Neither point of view can be proved or disproved through irrefutable arguments.
Just my .02
Peace,
-Mike
Comment by: Westy
32Very well put, Mike.
Therefore the question of which particular belief in a “monotheistic creator God” is true is an issue between differing religions. For the atheist, only the question of whether God exists is at stake.
Comment by: TXatheist
33Mike,
A little ironic you used the words far fetched. Some guy dies and floats from the grave, heals people by touch and was born of a virgin. Anyway, Josephus works were altered by Eusebius. How would I explain Xianity? The jews made up the first 5 books and Paul made up the rest to which other people simply elaborated on this myth. It seems pretty likely most people don’t care about the historical coverup or are unaware of it.
Sorry, wrong son, Dionysis or Hercules. Different mythology than the current christian myths.
Comment by: TXatheist
34Westy,
Hindu’s don’t believe in a monotheistic god but there is no question to this atheist as to whether god exists, some people believe their god exists and I accept that.
Comment by: Mike
35I am aware of these kind of “historical coverup” theories, and I’m also aware that most serious academic historians don’t buy into them at all. Looking at the evidence, I have to say that they don’t seem all that likely to me either.
The thought of a bunch of first century Jews sitting around dreaming up stories about a Messiah that never actually existed, and then sticking to their stories to the point of being persecuted and executed? Why would they do such a thing? Seems like first century Jews would have cared a lot more about finding an actual Messiah to liberate them from Roman oppression.
Of course you’re welcome to believe whatever you want about these things, but personally, I don’t buy the conspiracy theories. They just don’t seem all that credible to me.
Comment by: TXatheist
36We just have to disagree then. I’m sure you think the Catholic Church moving and hiding the pedophile priests is a conspiracy cover up? Oh well. The Mormons don’t hide things like their finances? I’d have to say Earl Doherty at http://www.jesuspuzzle.com would disagree. Actually Gerd Ludemann tried to be a religious scholar in NY and they silenced him when he said jesus was a myth.
What is with this word evidence? There is no evidence for jesus, there are stories. You don’t think the martyr thing happens today? Jim Jones, Waco, Heaven’s gate? Those people died too for their beliefs. Why would they do such a thing? I know why but I ain’t saying. I’ll give my 2 cents. Heaven, they really believed they were going to heaven is as nice as I can put it. We can disagree on what’s credible but there is no evidence that I am aware of and that’s a credible statement:)
Comment by: Mike
37Of course. Isn’t that the whole premise of this dialogue? :)
Don’t worry, I have no need or desire to try and persuade you of anything you don’t want to accept. Just enjoying the mutual exchange of differing perspectives.
Peace,
-Mike
Comment by: TXatheist
38Thanks, and if there ever is evidence for god/jesus I won’t have to accept it, it will be true on it’s on merit:)
p.s. I wasn’t worried as I’ve had 100’s of discussions on this but thanks for the kind respect.
Comment by: Mike
39Perhaps… though personally I doubt that anyone will be able to argue you into the faith based on “evidence”. I find that it so rarely works that way in any area of human life, whether in religion or science or whatever. Usually we humans are good at making the evidence say whatever we want it to say. Believe there is no God? The evidence can point that way. Believe God exists? The evidence can be made to support that too.
In my opinion pretty much anything we come to believe (whether atheism or theism or Zeus-ism :) ) requires us to make a leap of faith at some point in the process. Not just blind faith mind you. Evidence is still important, but it’s almost never conclusive, at least not in my experience.
But again, that’s just my .02 as one of those goofy postmodernists that doesn’t believe in things like absolute rational certainty. :)
Comment by: TXatheist
40Once again we’ll disagree, there is no evidence for god. I have made no faith in being an atheist. I’m open to evidence at any time. You believing something is evidence for god is whole issue in itself. Atheist is my description by default. Do I believe in any gods? Nope, but I’m open to any evidence for one and then can change my mind:)
Comment by: Mike
41So what kind of evidence would you require to start believing in a god? What would work for you?
Just curious…
Comment by: TXatheist
42Tangible, logical, repeatable, sound. The standard scientific tests.
Comment by: Lisa W.
43Tx- do you ever feel even slightly that you may be missing out on something?
Comment by: TXatheist
44Lisa,
If we continue this I think Jim would appreciate us going to the discussion board? If you want that just say so..please. Missing out? Nothing, I’m content as can be. I still have drive but not greed for things.
Comment by: Lisa W.
45Ok. That’s all I was asking.
It was just a Y/N question.
Comment by: Mark
46Hey Tx,
Have you heard of Lee Strobel?
Comment by: TXatheist
47yes,
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_doland/strobel.html
Comment by: Kari
48Since you’re searching for evidence of Jesus, I came across an interesting read; from a zionist rabbi who researched and found Jesus as the Messiah. Attached is his booklet-for free
http://www.prophecyrevealed.com/page1.html
Comment by: TXatheist
49Kari,
Have you seen http://www.jesuspuzzle.com ?
Comment by: Kari
50I’m not searching for Jesus as you said you are open to doing. I recommend you read this, it’s fascinating and it is written by a man who had long denied Jesus as Messiah.
Comment by: TXatheist
51I’m searching for truth and that means I expect others to as well. I’m content discussing the idea but not be blown off and asked to read another idea on the guy that will only waste my time. Care to share what I might get out of jew for jesus guy? I don’t care for the idea that there are jews who accept jesus as the messiah, they are xians to me.
Comment by: TXatheist
52From the booklet to which I say hogwash!
What are the credentials of the Scriptures?
The Scriptures are 100% scientifically, mathematically, prophetically, archaeologically, and historically accurate. They even make hundreds of detailed predictions that have ALL come true! Did you know that? But how could that be? Weren’t they written by mere men?
Comment by: TXatheist
53The next page he says that Noah’s ark was a fact and references ron wyatt. A xian has something to say about that fraud.
http://www.tentmaker.org/WAR/
Since the magazine “Dew from Mount Hermon” published the article “A Great Christian Scam” exposing the so-called discoveries of Ron Wyatt as nothing more than a great hoax perpetrated upon the Christian community for money and fame, Joel Davenport, the manager of WAR’s Internet site has published an article located at their web site accusing me, Gary Amirault, of not telling the truth. In the article I did not disclose the names of my sources since the article only went to a few hundred subscribers who trusted my reporting. I didn’t feel providing names and addresses was necessary. But since Mr. Davenport’s extremely distorted assessment of the accuracy of “A Great Christian Scam,” and since WAR and associates are continuing to defraud the Christian community by selling videos, books, speaking engagements, trips to Israel, enticing investors in further digs, etc., all based upon discoveries which were never made, I feel it is time to lay out enough evidence to make it perfectly clear to any sane individual that we are dealing here with nothing short of an outright scam.
I have telephone interviewed most of the people on WAR’s Noah’s Ark video. Not one single person I spoke with on that video presently believes that Ron Wyatt’s site is Noah’s Ark. Some are outraged that Wyatt is still using film clips which make them look like they are substantiating Wyatt’s claims when, in fact, the opposite is the case. Listed below are some of the individuals who appear on the video. Compare the story WAR continues to sell with the actual words written by the scientists after doing extensive research on the site. They no longer believe it is Noah’s Ark. They believe it is a natural geological formation. As to the so-called discoveries on Ron Wyatt’s video entitled “Presentation of Discoveries,” those interviewed whom Ron Wyatt presented with his “facts” put little or no archaeological value on any of the material. “Fraud” was the word most often used when discussing these so-called discoveries. Read the letters from archaeologists within Ron Wyatt’s own denomination, Seventh Day Adventist, and you will see that even those who would have an interest in substantiating Ron Wyatt’s claims find little or no scientific evidence to support any of these discoveries.
As to Ron Wyatt’s organization being non-profit and as such having no investors, I spoke to businessmen and television producers who have invested money into Wyatt Archaeological Research for television rights. There have been many tens of thousands of dollars invested in WAR. To date, none of those who invested this money has seen a shred of scientific evidence substantiating Ron Wyatt’s claims. Where is the report from the blood sample analysis of what Ron claims is the blood of Jesus Christ? Where is the Ark of the Covenant? Which museum is housing the ancient chariot wheels he claimed to have been from the Red Sea Crossing? There is no evidence because the video is a fraud. On the Noah’s Ark video, all the so-called scientific data cannot be duplicated, a clear sign that what was given the labs was false data. (Read John Baumgarten’s and Tom Fenner’s letter)
In summary, “A Great Christian Scam” was written to warn the readership of “Dew from Mount Hermon” magazine of Ron Wyatt’s deception. That was as far as I planned to tell the story. Since the story appeared on the Internet, we have received many inquiries from many Christian organizations asking for more information. Since Joel Davenport has chosen to publish a very misleading article written to discredit my article, I felt it necessary to release further documentation of the overwhelming evidence against WAR’s claims of the greatest archaeological discoveries of all time. Read the letters. Write or call some of them. Those professionals who have seen the evidence (or lack thereof) and those who have had dealings with Ron Wyatt will make it plain to anyone that WAR’s discoveries are hoaxes.
Comment by: Kari
54And you only got to page 3. Well let’s discuss pages 1-3.
The paragraph after the one you quoted, the bible was written by many men from different backgrounds… “Because God, who knows the end from the beginning, chose each of the people to write exactly as He inspired them.” If not-it would be chaos. I believe that to be true. What’s your thoughts?
Here’s an article published not even a month ago regarding new images from space of an anomaly close to the Wyatt location. (In the mtns of Ararat.)http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49203 These have yet to be proven so as for me,I wouldn’t go making presumptions yet about them. Keep on reading. I’ll point out a few things I really enjoyed:
pg. 8: No archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Just the other day they discovered the road leading to the second temple in Jerusalem. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498772581&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
pg. 10-11 Prophecy- in Revelation it says Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. His examples he noted from the bible are 100% accurate. I think you might find this part compelling.
I like from pg.13 + as it tells from the OT the prophecies about Jesus.
It sounds a little bland what I wrote above, I hope you’ll read it for yourself.
Comment by: TXatheist
55No thanks. I’m looking for Jesus as much as you are looking to find out he’s a myth.
Comment by: TXatheist
56Kari,
Does it even bother you in the slightest that Ron Wyatt is a con artist and that your recommended reading is using him as a reference?
Comment by: Kari
57We are not perfect, we make mistakes at times, and that kind of error can be forgiven. I’m not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I’m willing to read what you want me to after we discuss the one I proposed first. Fair enough?
Comment by: TXatheist
58Mistakes? Creating a fraud and profiting off the lie is not cool with me. Coming out and admitting the ark is impossible structurally and there was no world wide flood according to all geological institutions would be a start for this guy. Has Ron W confessed he lied? How far do I have to go before you realize that rabbi is full of it? The bible is scientifically and historically accurate? You don’t believe that do you?
Comment by: TXatheist
59Ok page 4.
How about evolution?
What if I told you that scientists are now more convinced that a hurricane has a better chance of blowing through a junk yard and accidentally assembling a perfect F16 fighter jet than a man has of evolving from a single non-living cell! Think about this: A single cell is vastly more complex than even our most sophisticated computer. If you saw a brand new laptop computer sitting on a rock in the middle of the desert, would you say, “Gee, I bet this formed out of raw metallic elements tossed around over millions of years”? No, you’d probably ask, “Who made this and why did he put it here?” I don’t think you’d say it had no maker.
But many people today still believe that the theory of evolution is a fact. In his impressive book The Intelligent Universe, the distinguished astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle concludes, “As biochemists discover more and more about the awesome complexity of life, it is apparent that its chances of originating by accident are so minute that they can be completely ruled out. Life cannot have arisen by chance.”
Even Darwin himself states in his own book The Origin of Species “To suppose that the eye, with so many parts all working together could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
Scientifically speaking, the evolutionary theory breaks the second law of thermodynamics, which is: All energy/matter goes from order to disorder. For example metal eventually turns to rust. However, rust never turns back to pristine metal.
If you believe that man has evolved over billions of years and the Scriptures are wrong, why have the evolutionists been unable to find ANY of the missing links? Famous paleontologists at Harvard, the American and even the British Museum report they have NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE of evolutionary transition at all. This shows just how out of date our science books are.
If evolution is true, you are the latest result of an accident. That would make life pointless, with no reason to have hope or anything to live for…
But how can any honest and thinking 21st Century person believe in the Scriptures that give the account of God creating the heavens and the earth in six days? Haven’t we been taught that the universe is about 15 billion years old? So which is true? Here’s what science just learned.
TX:There is not a scientist I’ve read that doesn’t realize it took a great and almost impossible number of factors for life to arise on earth. That doesn’t mean it was god. God must be shown to exist and have created the earth scientifically for that idea to be possible.
2nd rule of thermodynamics is talking about a closed system.
There are plenty of transitional fossils. Archeopteryx is one despite claims by creationists that it’s not.
I also suggest we go back and forth. Your turn to evaluate one of my references, that sounds fair.
Comment by: TXatheist
60http://wyattmuseum.biz/shop/product_info.php?cPath=21&products_id=30
The guy is still selling this lie for $30 a piece. I don’t see any mention of him admitting he lied.
Comment by: Kari
61I’m not talking about Wyatt, I was willing to forgive the error of the rabbi if it was an incorrect assessment of the Wyatt discovery.
To prove God exists and made a plan from the foundation of the world to redeem us, broken humanity, is this: The bible says that when the fullness of time came, God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, into the world. (Gal 4:4) The timing was impeccable, as you read on the booklet, you’ll see the prophetic implications from the bible, but to just to look at the worldly governing systems over Israel at the time: Roman rule served as the model for Jesus’ teachings about his kingdom. (Rome ruled as a kingdom under Caesar, -there was a physical equivalent making His message easier to understand for the people who listened to Him.)Israel was under the authority of Rome. The jews were awaiting a messiah to come as a conquering king, but in Isaiah it is said he was coming as a suffering servant. It was at just the right time under Rome rule that he was crucified-their method of punishment of death- confirming in Isaiah that he will be ‘lifted up’. (and also bruised, and pierced.) But I have gotten off the subject of the booklet.
Archeopteryx…some say yes, others no to a transitional species, so there’s no agreement on that one.
As for pgs 13+ I’m interested on your thoughts. I don’t want to go jumping around from mine to yours, that sounds like it would be ripe for confusion.
Comment by: TXatheist
62I was talking about the christian wyatt. He is lying for gain. Once again does that bother you in the slightest that he is taking money from christians when it’s a lie?
Comment by: Kari
63Only God can judge what’s in a man’s heart. Did he really think he was spot on in finding the ark? Or was he openly lying and and gaining from it? Two questions I don’t have the answer to. If the latter was correct, I would be upset by it.
If you would like, let’s start on pg 13 and start talking prophetically. I’m interested to know your thoughts.
Comment by: TXatheist
64The idea that you can’t call him a con-man taking advantage of gullible people honestly wishing for Ark evidence is troubling.
Your take on this from http://www.jesuspuzzle.com is:
QUICK ASSEMBLY
Putting the Jesus Puzzle Together in 12 Easy Pieces
Piece No. 1: A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE
The Gospel story, with its figure of Jesus of Nazareth, cannot be found before the Gospels. In Christian writings earlier than Mark, including almost all of the New Testament epistles, as well as in many writings from the second century, the object of Christian faith is never spoken of as a human man who had recently lived, taught, performed miracles, suffered and died at the hands of human authorities, or rose from a tomb outside Jerusalem. There is no sign in the epistles of Mary or Joseph, Judas or John the Baptist, no birth story, teaching or appointment of apostles by Jesus, no mention of holy places or sites of Jesus’ career, not even the hill of Calvary or the empty tomb. This silence is so pervasive and so perplexing that attempted explanations for it have proven inadequate. [See "Part One" of the Main Articles]
Home Page … Next Piece
Comment by: TXatheist
65Also, I can judge a man on his actions and I do with Ron Wyatt. I don’t wait for god as that doesn’t do any good.
Comment by: Kari
66The bible does say you can know them by their fruit. Why are you dodging the prophetic implications of the bible in regard to Jesus?
Comment by: TXatheist
67The bible says Joshua made the sun stand still. Why are you not comprehending jesus never existed?
Comment by: TXatheist
68http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502369.html
Transitional fossils are a fact.
Comment by: Kari
69That in no way proves transition. In my local paper one person working on the discovery said it PROBABLY had lungs and gills. To believe in this hypothesis takes greater faith than to believe in the bible. If you’re still looking for truth- read this:
This is the part I found interesting (pg 16 of the booklet)
You may be saying we (Jews) don’t believe the Messiah has come yet. But did you know that God tells us exactly when He will come?
In Daniel 9:2526, it says, “Know and understand this From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One (Messiah), the ruler, comes, there will be seven `sevens’, (`sevens’ means seven years), and sixty-two `sevens’. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two `sevens, `the Anointed One will be cut off (killed) and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come (Romans) will destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (Second Temple)…” (Explanations in parenthesis are not part of the original text).
If you add seven `sevens’ (7×7) = 49 years + sixty-two `sevens’ (62×7) = 434 years, you get 483 years. (49+434 = 483 years)
So what does this have to do with anything? Read on… Here is where our Scriptures tell us when our Messiah would come:
As we just read, 483 years after the decree was given by King Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem, the Messiah would be revealed and then killed, and the city of Jerusalem and its temple would be destroyed. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Artaxerxes Longimanus became king of the Medo-Persian Empire in 465 B.C. Nehemiah 2:1, says: “In the month of Nisan in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes when wine was brought for him, I took the wine and gave it to the king. I had not been sad in his presence before; so the king asked me, “Why does your face look so sad when you are not ill? This can be nothing but sadness of heart. I was very much afraid, but I said to the king, `May the king live forever! Why should my face not look sad when the city where my fathers are buried lies in ruins, and its gates have been destroyed by fire?’ The king said to me, `What is it you want?’ Then I prayed to the God of heaven, and I answered the king, “If it pleases the king and if your servant has found favor in his sight, let him send me to the city in Judah where my fathers are buried so that I can rebuild it. `Then the king, with the queen sitting beside him, asked me, `How long will your journey take, and when will you get back?’ It pleased the king to send me; so I set a time.” In Hebrew tradition, when the day of the month is not mentioned, then it is given to be the first of that month. In 445 B.C. (20 years after the beginning of the King’s rule), the first day of the month of Nisan corresponds to the 14th day of March. This date was confirmed by the British Royal Observatory and reported by Sir Robert Anderson. On March 14th (First of Nisan) of the year 445 B.C., King Artaxerxes gave the Jews permission to leave Babylon and rebuild Jerusalem. Do you know that exactly 483 years later, (173,880 days) to the very day, a man claiming to be the Son of God rode into Jerusalem and for the first time, allowed himself to be proclaimed the Messiah?
What does the Talmud say about these verses? In Megillah fol. 3a it says, “…a Bath Kol (voice from Heaven) came forth and exclaimed, `Who is this that has revealed My secrets to mankind?’ Jonathan B. Uzziel thereupon arose and said, `It is I who have revealed Thy secrets to mankind. It is fully known to Thee that I have not done this for my own honour or for the honour of my father’s house, but for Thy honour I have done it, that dissension may not increase in Israel. He further sought to reveal (by) a targum (the inner meaning) of the Hagiographa, but a Bath Kol went forth and said, `Enough!’ What was the reason? Because the date of the Messiah is foretold in it.”
But even with all of this evidence of who the Messiah would be, God knew we would still REJECT HIM. It is clear from Scripture that God was to give us His Son, and in doing so God made the ultimate sacrifice for us.
***********************************************
From my understanding, to see bible truths you need to have an open heart as well as mind, and you have built up a huge wall around you.
Comment by: TXatheist
70I don’t agree with you nor that I am the one with the wall. See you response on transitional fossils? You’ve avoided answering my questions, you’ve not read that jesus was a myth and you keep asking me to elaborate on jesus fulfilling messianic requirements. Jesus never existed, the bible is nothing more than a fairy tale with god as the main character and an imaginary one. Take care, goodbye.
Comment by: Kari
71Don’t leave yet, we’ve got plenty to discuss, and I’m feeling that we haven’t even started yet. You’re evading the above and I want to have an open discussion about it. We can discuss my topics first, then we can discuss your jesuspuzzle. If we go back and forth it will only lead to confusion, can we stay on task and talk about Daniel’s 70-7’s? :)