There is no doubting that so-called 'Christians' have done some incredibly evil things in the world. One doesn't need to look further than the Crusades to see supporting evidence for that. However, what we need to remember here is that Jesus did not tell us to go rape and pillage, and then to kill lots of Muslims. Nor did He say to hate other people just because they have different beliefs to you. I'm sure if (and when) He comes back He will be appalled at some of the things that have been done in His name. What I'm hinting at here is the need to differentiate between organised religion, and religious belief. Acknowledging this, can we say that a belief in God is evil? Of course not- that's utter lunacy!

I was given a book fairly recently called 'Can Man Live Without God?', authored by one Ravi Zacharias. A great apologist, no doubt about that, although the title is somewhat misleading- the content leans more toward answering the question of 'Should Man Live without God?'. Anyway, I digress! I mention it because I remember reading an analogy in this very book that I feel is rather relevant to this dilemma. In this, Zacharias quotes Marie Chapian's book 'Of Whom the World Was Not Worthy' which talks of the Yugoslavian Church struggling because of the stigma placed upon it due to previous atrocities committed by 'Christians'. She mentions a man called Jakov who was an evangelist, sent into a town to 'spread the word'.

When talking to an elderly man called Cimmerman about the love of Christ, this man quickly spoke of how he wanted nothing to do with Jesus and the Church, reminding Jakov of the atrocities. Jakov responded by saying, "Cimmerman, can I ask you a question? Suppose I were to steal your coat, put it back on, and break into a bank. Suppose further that the police sighted me running in the distance but could not catch up with me. One clue, however, put them onto your track; they recognised your coat. What would you say to them if they came to your house and accused you of breaking into the bank?" Of course the elderly man said he would deny it, and in response Jakov said, "Ah, but we saw your coat". Suffice to say, Cimmerman was a bit miffed and ordered Jakov out of his house. However, eventually the evangelist warmed the old man's heart and he enquired into Christianity. Wiping away his tears, Cimmerman became a follower of Jesus, thanked Jakov for being in his life and pointing to the heavens he whispered, "You wear His coat well".

So, what can we get from this analogy? Who do we say is guilty in the stolen coat scenario? Cimmerman, or the man who simply donned the coat to carry out the crime? Of course, it's the real criminal. The same goes for Christianity and evil. I continue to be confused by how people generalise and say that all of Christianity should be labelled as evil, merely because hundreds of years ago a group of psychotic zealots killed and plundered for their own benefit, in God's name.

Aside from this, if one really wants to point some fingers, perhaps we should point them at 20th Century atheistic governments. They have been recorded as to having committed more murders and atrocities than in all of Christianity's 2000-year history. For example, Stalin the leader of an officially atheist country by ideology, killed 20 million, fascism (which couldn't be further from Christianity) killed 6 million Jews and millions of others, the Vietcong in the Vietnam War killed thousands, Cambodian leader Pol Pot killed 60 million () and the Chinese haven't got a clean record either!. All this in just the 20th century! Using the logic I spoke of earlier, should we assume that an (general) atheistic lifestyle is evil? No, that's also lunacy!

You simply cannot afford to brand all of Christianity as evil just because several hundred years ago a group of Christian leaders got together and decided to do some pretty horrible things (among other reasons- this is simplifying it somewhat). Like I've stated, if the rest of the world followed the same logic then we would have to brand atheism as evil, and pretty much all of the western world as decadent exploiters. Can we afford to do that? I sincerely hope not.

The bottom line is this- yes, so-called 'Christians' have indeed done terrible things; however religious belief and religious institutions should not be confused; and if we do that then logic tells us that we should label atheism (and pretty much all the world's inhabitants and philosophies) as evil. We shouldn't dismiss religious belief just because of human mistakes. It's the equivalent of a mass-spiritual brush tarring! 

Revised- 6th May, 2004.

IMPORTANT NOTE- This is a potentially offensive post, however it needs to be made clear that I am not saying that atheists are immoral, evil or anything else. On the contrary, almost every atheist I know is intelligent, moralistic and sensitive. If you read my following article closely, you will see that it is atheism as a belief system that has this particular problem, not atheists themselves. So please, take this article with the good will in which it was given and take a time to ponder on what I am saying about atheism's view on evil. Thank you.

Evil- a word that is commonly used in today's society. Whether it be a religious zealot spotting the ills in an immoral society, or it could be a sceptic pointing out religion's 'evil' affect on the world (something that I addressed in the article, situated above). But there is a problem here. Whilst people with a religion have the ability to label things as 'good' or 'bad' (as a result of their Holy Books, or what they would perceive their Maker as approving), sceptics and atheists in particular should have a problem. After all, if there is no God then what makes something evil or 'bad'? Well, the only option left is fellow human beings. But there we have another problem- why should we listen to what a fellow animal believes? Surely his or her beliefs are relative to his or her position and environment?  Then we have another problem- if we should ignore this person's beliefs or morals, then how do we distinguish between good or bad? Answer- we can't. If atheism is true, then nothing is evil, nothing is good- we as individuals should decide what to believe in regards to this and let others get on with their beliefs. Sounds decent so far, you may say, but what if I said I wanted to go and molest children, or murder someone? Given what I've just said, is this wrong? Well, no of course not, because my perception of right and wrong is relative to me, why should I listen to what a fellow animal believes?

Can you see what I'm saying here? If atheism is true then there is no good and evil because any moral system is relative to the individual, not for society at large. Therefore, I could go and molest children and atheism can't say it's wrong because I believe it's ok. There is no moral lawgiver, there is no judgement, there is just perception. If I perceive that murdering someone is ok then why should I let someone else's perception get in the way?

Of course, this isn't the case. We all know what's right and wrong. Atheists are very moralistic. Even though there are cultural differences, there are basic morals that spread from country to country, from age to age. For example, even though in an ancient society stealing from a foreigner may have been ok, it was still wrong to steal from your own. So we can see there a basic moral law- do not steal. The same goes with murder, sexual immorality and so on. Where did these morals come from?  If there is no God, should we obey them? Why should we obey them?

An atheist once told me that if evolution is true then we should obey them because laws such as 'do not murder' are advantageous in spreading our genes, in the 'survival of the fittest'. However, this is a cop out of the highest order, and as such it just doesn't work. It merely pushes the bar back a little bit- why should we have to spread our genes? Does it make any difference to us? And besides, 'do not murder' is just one moral law. What about do not steal, or do not torture people? You can still spread your genes if you engage in such activities, so why not? How and why should an evolutionary theory of 'evil' stop me from doing these things? A quick answer? It can't. There are not many good atheistic theories into this subject, none that I have seen anyway!

It always comes down to this bottom line- if there is no God and no moral lawgiver, then all morality is relative- no moral law is absolute and relevant to all peoples at all times. If morality is relative, then what I do is right to me, and what you do is right to you. And if that is the case, then what makes torture, child molestation, murder etc. a bad thing? It doesn't paint a nice picture, let's put it that way .

Revised- 6th May, 2004.

In Short:

The argument in question is that religion and/or ‘faith’ acts as a crutch- a sort of ‘strength for the weak’. The underlying line of argument is that religion was constructed purposely to provide for this need, and if you are mentally, physically or emotionally strong, you do not need religion, and all who are not strong in said ways, do. There are several problems with this:

• The argument is too vague; it does not define religion, it does not specify what characteristic of faith or indeed which religion acts as a ‘comfort’. In particular, the broad tarring of all religions as acting as a ‘crutch’ ignores huge differences in theology and practice between the faiths.
• It assumes that weakness in the adherent equates a falsehood in the ideology they are adhering to. However, this does not follow logically.
• Religion (especially Christianity) does not always put an emphasis on comfort; in fact the opposite is true, suffering and persecution are seen as virtues! Why would this be if my faith had been made as a crutch?
• Equally, one could argue that a lack of belief was made up to comfort those fearing a spiritual judgement, using the same logic.

Read the full article for more problems and a bigger explanation.

-----------------------------------------------------

I’ve observed that a fairly common argument in younger sceptical circles (but in no way is the argument age specific) is the notion that religion or faith (or both) acts as ‘crutches’, and religion in particular being constructed for the weak. Strains of such an argument can be found in Karl Marx’s statement that religion is “the opium [a drug that nulls pain] of the people”, or in Sigmund Freud’s understanding of religion as being a delusion by which the weak are supported.

It’s a fairly emotional topic and can be quite a powerful argument when properly delivered. However, the question is, does it work? How can we respond to such arguments of religion and faith being for the weak minded, and a method by which we are comforted from the rubbish in the world?

There are certain problems that this sort of line of thinking develops:

1)      The argument when used of religion in general is far too vague and leaves too many question marks. For example, do all religions comfort? What of differing religions and their very different approaches to the notion of suffering, doesn’t that affect the argument in any way? What of modern religions that have very obvious purposes separate to comforting, do these count too?

2)      It assumes that an acknowledgement of weakness somehow is a fault, or even worse logically, a statement on reality. In other words, so what if I say I’m weak and need help? What does that matter? To think that all one’s problems are solved entirely on one’s own doing is not necessarily sane in itself. Moreover, if I admit I am weak and my religion appeals to that admission, does that mean that the religion is automatically false? Indeed, surely if my faith was true and was authored by my Creator it would appeal to my nature which at times needs to be supported and comforted, just like all of us (religious or not)?

3)      The argument suggests that religion was either gradually or instantaneously created for a specific purpose. However, a religion with a focussed purpose (to comfort) has to be there in its entirety (otherwise how would it be developed enough to comfort anyone?), so it couldn’t have been created gradually. And as for it being created instantaneously, this is not in any way substantiated by the evidence.

4)      Why, if my faith was purely about comforting a ‘weak mind’, does Jesus say that Christians are to be persecuted, that persecution and suffering is a virtue? This doesn’t make any sense. If my faith is indeed meant to be one of comfort and an easy ride, it does a darn good job of doing the opposite at times.

5)      What is the logical difference in saying ‘Religion is for weak people, those who need comfort’ and saying ‘Non-belief is for people who can’t handle the prospect of judgement’? Not much really, each of the statements are as illogical as each other and assume/ignore a whole host of realities.

6)      The argument assumes and mistakenly thinks that the purpose and focus of religious belief is an afterlife, that ‘pie in the sky after you die’, something to comfort us in our dark days and keep us clinging on. However, with regard to Christian belief, the focus is not necessarily an afterlife but rather on Jesus, on the death and resurrection of Jesus and all that these entail. Certainly, an afterlife is heavily linked in with both but they are merely part of the package, part of the real focus which is- Jesus. Very few Christians claim that the promise of heaven keeps them going, but rather Jesus Himself. Whether this is true or not is not the point; the point is that heaven does not enter their priorities on the same sphere as the figure of Jesus does.

7)      And finally, there is simply no evidence whatsoever to suggest that religion was made up to comfort people. Religion does comfort people, but that comfort comes through other realities not as a reality in and of itself. Translation? Well, think of Christianity. When I’m low, I am comforted by the thought that Jesus went through sufferings and I find peace in prayer. However, I only know, acknowledge and take part in these things because of the reality of the Crucifixion and the Resurrection.

Overall, then, the argument that religion was simply made up to comfort people, that it is but a crutch, a delusion that dulls the pain of existence, it just doesn’t work too well. I wouldn’t tear your hair out on this one.

Further Reading:

Well, if you couldn't get a worse example of generalisation! Unfortunately, this is a relatively common claim by sceptics (among similar ones such as all Christians are bigots, or all Christians are boring).

Such statements tar all Church-going Christians with one brush. The person making the claim may have had some unfortunate (and reasonably rare) experience with Christians that has led them to believe this, or alternatively they may have just assumed that all of us are hypocrites without having any experience or evidence to back up their claim.

Either way it is important to note two things. Yes, in some churches there are hypocrites. But no, churches aren't full of hypocrites. Like all human beings, Christians aren't perfect; we're merely trying to follow Jesus' teachings. I say 'merely' in the loosest sense of the word; it's far easier said than done! Because we're not perfect, some of us are going to have less-than-attractive personalities or characteristics. It can't be helped. But not all churches have a congregation 'full' of hypocrites. Some may have one or two, but they are in the minority. Of course, the question is also one of how loose an individual's definition is. Anyone can be labelled anything as long as we cast the net in a specific way. For example, the early Christians were called atheists () because they didn't believe in the gods of the Roman Empire. Some titles, such as 'bigot' or 'homophobe' generally depend on the individual's definition, usually it isn't a problem but several people's definitions are either far too specific or far too loose!

Revised- 7th May, 2004.

The following is a kindly submitted article by a fellow young Apologist, Peter Frizelle. He has not got a website of such nature nor has he had any formal online debating presence, but he is (in my humble opinion) a fantastic and well-learned defender of the Faith. In what is to follow, Frizelle offers us a sensitive response to an acquaintance (who wishes to remain anonymous) concerning a variety of objections to Christianity. I hope you will find it as interesting and as enlightening as I did. Contact details for Peter can be found at the bottom of this article. 

------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER: This is in no way meant to offend. It has been written in an attempt to answer the questions posed and if anything is offensive it is not intended to be. I apologise ahead in case of offence caused. If this is the case then it can be discussed to see where the offence is and try to overcome it. These answers merely seek to show what is generally believed by Christians.

What is God?

The physical manifestation of our desire as a race to believe in a purpose, a reason for being here in this time, this place, this situation? The desperation in hoping that there is something after death? Or the need to take what is divine within us, amplify it, and worship it as something beyond the triviality of existence? Is God, in fact the mere image of us at our best?

Your first suggestion has been put forward by some as the only reason for the concept of God; but believers do not quite see it this way. Couldn’t it be that God fulfils our desire for a purpose because he has a purpose for us, rather than our desire for a purpose manifesting a God?

You are right in thinking that many long for something after life, most people fear death. But believers do not believe in God because they want to believe in life after death; instead they believe in life after death because they believe in God. But, shouldn’t a belief in God encompass much more than just an afterlife?

You could imply that amplifying the divinity in us is God, which is interesting, because it is a contrast with most faiths. Isn’t it possible that the divinity in us comes from God creating us; instead of God being created by the divinity within us? Surely the divinity in us at all implies something divine.

The idea of us at our best has been said to be about us becoming like God (or becoming Christ-like). Surely God cannot be us at our best when we haven’t reached our best and can’t know what it is like. Instead we at our best can be compared to becoming more like God, or Christ.

Shouldn’t the question therefore be: who is God?

We are led to believe Jesus is God incarnate. Why?

Because he performed miracles? Because he came back from the dead (technically another form of ‘miracle’)? Or because he died to save us all, to forgive us our sins?

Jesus has been described as the most important man in history and it is easy to see his impact on the world. 2000 years after a poor carpenter was put to death as a common criminal, people are still affected by him. His very birth dictates our measurement of time.

Jesus made many great claims in his life, but he was not a boaster. When Jesus talked, people listened, and his words still hold great meaning to people today. And Jesus made some outrageous claims, one of his most famous (and controversial) being, “I am the way the truth and the life, no-one comes to the Father except by me.” Jesus claims were always high. In fact, in his first public teaching, he took a word from Scripture and said it was about him, which was a brave thing to do considering that it caused a riot and he was almost thrown off of a cliff! Jesus referred to himself as the ‘son of man’, which comes from the book of Daniel and refers to God, and many times spoke of returning to His Father in heaven. Furthermore, many of Jesus addresses about himself began ‘I am”, and in Hebrew “I Am Who I Am”, or Yahweh, is the name of God.

But Jesus was followed. His actions are also something to consider. Philippians 2:6 says “[Jesus] being in very nature God, Did not consider equality with God something to be grasped”. Jesus life was not lived in a way to make financial gain, or to get power for himself, or to have people serve him. Instead, it goes on to say that he “made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant”. Jesus did not act as a superior person, despite having every right to be, but lived with, and for, everyone. He spoke to anyone who was willing to listen, helping out in every possible way that he could. Jesus spent time with ‘sinners’, the outcasts of the period. Jesus did not discriminate, he spoke to people from all walks of life – the highly religious and regarded, (John 3), to the low, such as tax collectors who were hated (Luke 19). Jesus would teach to massive groups of people (one crowd was 5000 large without counting women or children in Matt 14), showing them how to live better and more fulfilled lives. He also went around healing those who were sick and dying, and even managed to raise the dead.

Jesus spent his time ministering to everyone and anyone, and ironically it was the religious leaders who tried to stop him. Jesus presented a way that was not typically religious, and the religious leaders didn’t like it. Eventually, Jesus was arrested by these leaders, who tried to charge him but couldn’t quite do it: “Some stood up and gave false testimony against him… Yet even then their testimony did not agree”. But they asked him if he was God, and charged him of blasphemy when he answered. A man who had committed no crime against anyone was put to death in what is considered the most painful and torturous method of death in history.

But Jesus story does not stop there. The claims follow that on the third day Jesus was not in the tomb that he was buried in. Despite being behind a 2 tonne rock, guarded by Roman soldiers who would be executed if their orders to guard the tomb were not followed, deserted by his closest friends who were hiding and fearing for their lives, and having been tortured in a most horrid way and having his death confirmed, Jesus body wasn’t there. It is this that the Christian faith hangs on. If Jesus came back from the dead, he was able to defeat sin, and he is God. If he just died and stayed dead, he would be just another person, another body. But Jesus subsequently went on to appear to over 500 people, before going up to heaven.

C.S. Lewis once said that, given the evidence, we had to make up our minds as to who Jesus was – Liar, Lunatic or Lord. He has to be one or another.

Jesus’ life had not been lived in a disagreeable way. His life showed no signs whatsoever of anything that could be claimed to come from mental instability (asides this disputed claim of being God). He was a well balanced person who didn’t think he was above or below either the low or the high. He was also honest in all of his endeavours, and perhaps told ‘life truths’ to the crowds to help them. He had a fascinating understanding of life and spoke openly to anyone that asked. If you take away the claim to divinity, Jesus was a very honest man, well-balance and able to perform great miracles. Without that one claim it is hard to make any claim for Jesus being a liar. Furthermore, without this claim, Jesus shows nothing that could lead us to believe he was mad. In light of this, and taking into account his resurrection, is it not reasonable to at least consider his claim to be God?

It is the last one that this ‘New Testament’ dictates we believe is the reason for God being Jesus. It is this last one I am having difficulty with.

Question: How do we know that God is Jesus? Is there any textual proof? The Bible- which has been so corrupted over time that to find the most trustworthy eyewitness account is impossible. Other than that? No.

            How can we know? We were not there, we did not see.

The most important documents concerning Jesus are obviously the ones found in the New Testament. There are other documents that make a reference, but don’t have nearly as much as to say as the New Testament. Josephus made reference to Jesus, Tacitus did as well. But the best accounts to consider are the Gospels.

What leads you to believe the Gospels are an untrustworthy account? One way of considering a document’s reliability is to consider when it was written in relation to the earliest copy still around. Then it is good to consider how many early copies there are. Below are some examples of ‘reliable’ histories:

WORK	WHEN WRITTEN	EARLIEST COPY	TIME SPAN (IN YEARS)	NUMBER OF COPIES
Herodotus	488 - 428 BC	AD 900	1300	8
Thucydides	c. 460 - 400 BC	c. AD 900	1300	8
Tacitus	AD 100	AD 1100	1000	20
Caeser’s Gallic War	58-50 BC	AD 900	950	9-10
Livy’s Roman History	59 BC – AD 17	AD 900	900	20

Now consider this. The New testament was written between 40 and 100 AD, with the earliest full manuscript known dating to AD 350, giving a maximum gap of about 300 years. Immediately you should notice that this is much closer to the original writing than any of the other history that we accept as fact. Furthermore there are 5000 ancient Greek manuscripts, 10000 ancient Latin copies and 9300 other ancient copies, giving 24300 ancient copies. Much more evidence towards the Gospels being relevant than any other accepted history.

The oldest piece of the New Testament found dates to within 20 years of Christ’s death (and resurrection). Archeologically speaking this is no time at all, the writings contained can’t really be said to have changed at all in this time span and it is nowhere near enough time for a legend to develop. And the script found is not some obscure part mentioning Jesus’ name. It is from 1 Corinthians 15 and says the following:

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

This shows that Christ died, for sins, was resurrected and appeared to many witnesses. Considering that this was written only about 20 years after it happened and refers to key events, as well as the fact that most of the witnesses are still alive to disagree with the writer if he is lying about them, is it not worth at least considering as possibly true? 

Historians will tell you that the gospel accounts are incredibly reliable, but it is up to you whether or not you will believe them. The evidence for it is surely worthwhile considering, is it not?

Question: How can we believe Jesus speaks the truth? Because he is God and therefore honest? A self-defeating argument: we cannot believe Jesus to be telling the truth until we know for a fact that Jesus is God.

See above

Question: If he died for our sins, will everyone go to Heaven? (It would get a little crowded…) If so then why have religion and the belief in Good and Evil at all? Did anyone ask him to die for our sins? No. But what makes him so much more special than those men who have given their lives for us in war, than those people who have risked (and lost) their lives to save one individual? Why aren’t they divine? I think they are… angels… why is Jesus God? Why not an angel? Why ‘The’ Saviour instead of ‘A’.

            Human fixation on stories? One hero?

Jesus died for our sins, making it possible for everyone to go to heaven, but not making it so that they would. The gift of forgiveness is that – a gift, and a gift cannot be applied to the person unless they take it themselves and use it. God will not force anything on people, because that would bypass their freewill and would not be fair. Because of this, no one can get to heaven unless they personally choose to accept the key in. It is like someone trying to get through a door, when the only way in is with a key. Jesus stands around trying to speak to the person and give them the key, but unless they take it themselves, they cannot get in. Jesus will not take the persons hand and force them in when they won’t go themselves. Eventually, night comes and the person is left outside in the cold and rain, uncomfortable. This is not because of a mean owner (who had actually tried to get them in), but because they themselves wouldn’t take the key.

Christianity, a so-called religion, is not the same as religions who teach that we should do more good than bad to get into heaven. It is not concerned with good or bad in this respect, but with following a gracious God who helps us along because we mess up and can’t get it right ourselves. God requires people to be perfect to get into heaven, so if a person has any bad then no amount of good outweighing it will matter because they cease to be perfect. Instead God has made a way for us to become perfect again, by taking our imperfections on himself as Jesus and dying as the rightful punishment.

It was only Jesus that could take this upon himself rather than anyone else. The people that have died to save the lives of one person are very noble and to be upheld as such. They are noble but still only human, not angels but great people. But Jesus did much more than this. He died so that not one person, but everyone who asked, could be saved, and not their life which is limited, but their soul which is eternal. Only Jesus could do this because it was only he himself that was perfect. The sacrifice required a swap, our imperfection for Jesus perfection. One person cannot die to save forever another, because the best they could do is swap imperfection for imperfection, an only for one person. Jesus, however, could swap perfection for imperfection, and for more than one person, being God and having an infinite amount of perfection. Jesus limitless perfection overcame the vast but limited amounts of imperfection that he was left with, defeating death and coming back to life.

Therefore, Jesus had to be God to do this, and not just an angel. Furthermore, Hebrews 1 discusses how Jesus is not an Angel:

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs. 5For to which of the angels did God ever say, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father”? Or again, "I will be his Father, and he will be my Son?” 6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, "Let all God's angels worship him." 7In speaking of the angels he says, "He makes his angels winds, his servants flames of fire." 8But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom. 9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." 10He also says, "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. 12You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end." 13To which of the angels did God ever say, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"? 14Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

Jesus is part of the trinity of the one true God. As discussed above he is the only one who could have done what he did, no one else could have done it. This means that He is The Saviour, rather than A Saviour, because no other can be a saviour in the way he is.

Question: Why should we believe Jesus when he says he is God any more than a ‘mad’ old woman making the same claim? Has nobody considered the lunacy of Jesus? Has nobody thought that he might have been a tad egotistical? Could he have been a fraud? The miracles ‘smoke and mirrors’? Is this questioning or blasphemy? Will I go to Hell for questioning? If so, God isn’t that different from humans: elitist prig! (*joke* don’t smite me!)

As discussed earlier, Jesus claims were backed up, and the gospel evidence can be shown to be reliable, he showed no signs of egotism, did impossible things (i.e. raise the dead).

Questioning is good, not blasphemy, you should never have blind faith, but base it on the facts.

Also, God doesn’t send people to hell, he wants all to go to heaven, no elitism, it is up to the people where they go.

Why do people want to smuggle Bibles?!! Porn, yes, but Bibles?

People smuggle Bibles so that others can learn about what God has done for them. so that these people can have a relationship with God themselves, so that they can choose Jesus. Surely this is much nobler than porn, which degrades people and does nothing good for them, because they are trying to save them for eternity?

Question: What about the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Muslims, the agnostics? How do they fit in? Do all their ‘God’s exist for them, made real by the power of their belief? Or is there just one God?

Speaking from a Christian perspective, gods do not exist because someone believes in them anymore than my believing £1,000,000 is in my bank makes it so. By Christianity there is just the triune God – Father, Son, Holy Spirit – nothing more. Whilst these other belief systems may have some truth about God or life, Jesus said he was the only way.

What happened to the Greeks and Egyptians? They had no concept of Christian ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’. Did they go to where they believed? Or did ‘God’ send them all to Hell for believing in Gods (plural)? Bit harsh, allowing whole civilisations to form (with plumbing in Roman times!) only to send them all to an eternity of torment. Same for cavemen (minus the plumbing. Maybe they deserved Hell due to lack of sanitation. And brains…).

The Greeks and Egyptians had Israel, the Jewish nation, to know God by. Egypt came up against him personally and didn’t fare to well. But it is always the individual’s choice who they follow when it comes to God.  Christianly speaking, in the same respect to creating gods, one cannot create where they believed. Civilisations form, but God can always be found. Besides, the Roman Empire did become vastly Christian. God does deal with civilisations but is interested in the individual, so it is always up to them what happens to them.

WHAT ABOUT THE DINOSAURS? If that meteorite hadn’t had conveniently hit Earth then dinosaurs may have involved into dinomen, forming a complex infrastructure of society and communication, with family ties and moral obligations to the poor and needy. Maybe God didn’t like lizards. Explains the whole ‘Satan = snake” complex.

That’s provided that that is how Earth history panned out. But lets say they did so that there weren’t humans but the dinosaur equivalent, given a soul and freewill, God would probably deal with them as he does with humans.

So what happens to those cultures without ‘Christianity’? Does God send them, too to an afterlife of eternal torment? What about those individuals who believe in ‘God’, but not as Jesus as his physical manifestation? Is there some kind of halfway house between Heaven and Hell? It seems a little unfair…

God doesn’t work on a cultural level but with individuals. It all depends on the individual at hand. Jesus says he is the only way to the Father, so without a belief in Jesus it looks bleak. But it is not clear as to those who have no opportunity to hear the Gospel, so in that case I cannot comment. But it is clear that those that hear the Gospel can either receive it or reject it. Get the key or stay out in the cold. It depends on the individual’s choice.

Question: Regardless of the ‘Jesus Issue’, is God not supposedly all-encompassing? Then why does he not encompass all cultures? They know no ‘better’ (assuming Christianity is the ultimate ticket to Heaven). I cannot, and will not bring myself to believe that this benign omniscience will concentrate on one narrow area of ‘Worship’. What about the billions of other galaxies out there? Isn’t he supposed to administer to them all? Is he therefore stretching himself too thinly? Can he only focus on this one narrow slice of devoted mankind?

What is meant by saying that God doesn’t encompass all cultures? It’s not like God likes British culture and no other. There are Christians in every culture there is. God is at work in every culture paying attention to everyone. God knows each and every individual. God does not focus on 1 type of worship but on every type that brings him glory.

And the bible says that God knows each and every star by name. He is involved everywhere. Whether or not there is life out there to administer to elsewhere in the universe is another argument.

Why should people who go to Church on Sunday be fit for Heaven?

Why not those who ‘pray’ in their own way?

They are not fit for heaven because they go to church or because of anything that they do themselves. It is only through Christ that anyone can get to heaven. Not everyone in church on Sunday follows Jesus, it cannot be said that going to church makes you fit for heaven. Only Jesus makes you fit for heaven.

Why? Why? Why?

Because! Because! Because!

Is it right to sin, as long as you beg forgiveness afterwards? Can a person then murder and still go to Heaven? Does this not only go to show how selfish the human race is, and how desperate they are to convince themselves that they personally will go to Heaven despite their imperfections? Is it not all a matter of primal fear? Fear of the unknown? Ironically, I don’t know.

It is not alright to sin. “For the wages of sin is death”. Sin leads to imperfection. It is not at all right to sin because you know that you can be forgiven, this is in no way Godly, or taught in the church. Paul wrote to the early churches warning against it. It is an incredibly selfish and wrong thing to do. People sin and ask for forgiveness but not because they can ask. Or at least they shouldn’t. Christianity is about Jesus forgiving sin provided the person truly asks for it. This means that, yes, a murderer can get forgiveness, provided they truthfully seek it, regret it and don’t want to do it again. If they are murdering and just assuming forgiveness, this doesn’t work and is wrong.

Whilst It is argued that it is about fear, Christianity isn’t just a belief – people get things back. People do not believe in Christianity because they fear death or the unknown etc. People believe it for now, they live now and it affects them now. Not because they have rules but because they have a relationship with God. He talks to them now and they hear from him now. They are not trapped in belief by fear, but believe because of evidence that it is true from experiences now. Everyone wants heaven, but Christianity shows that no one deserves heaven, but we are allowed by God’s grace.

Why if God believes Christianity to be the one truth, do so many other belief systems exist? Why does he let this situation remain? It cannot be that these non-Christians are being punished for sins in a past life, bad karma, because reincarnation is not a Christian concept.

What if it is and no one knows it?

It is not a case of God believing something, but what God has actually done. Belief systems exist because of people and what they choose to do. As discussed, God will not impose on freewill, and so many contradictory religions have sprung up from different people. God must allow people to do as they wish, and therefore allow many belief systems, so that he can allow freewill. It is not punishment that there are other systems, these are the doing of the people now, not earlier. But God does tell us what is right in Jesus Christ. He showed the way in his only son.

Are we made in the image of God, or ‘he’ in the image of us?

We, in the image of God. But beware of Idols, in the image of us.

If we are all made by God, is it not like a sculptor making figures from clay? Do we not still have his fingerprints upon us? His fingerprints would be divine; it would imbue us with a divinity. Jesus was divine, God or not. As are we all, if we so choose.

There is biblical reference to us being like clay that is moulded by God:

Job 20:9 - Remember that you molded me like clay.

Isaiah 29:16 - You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"?

Isaiah 45:9 - "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands'?

Isaiah 64:8 - Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.

As mentioned earlier, we can all become Christ-like, but not gods. But it is agreed that we can all become Christ-like, if we so choose, and this is what I try to choose.

No more questions.

Dear Lord,

Thank You for giving us a desire to know you. We ask that you will help us to know you deeper and better today. Please be involved in our lives and reveal yourself further to us. In Jesus’ name, Amen.

------------------------------------------------------

If you wish to discuss any of the above with Mr.Frizelle, please contact him via this address: amanofgodforever@hotmail.com. He has graciously told me he is willing to talk either through e-mail or MSN Messenger.

If you want to offer a similar Guest Article, contact me at nathanpaylor@hotmail.com or nathan_paylor@yahoo.co.uk.

This statement I always find a bit funny as it reminds me of myself when I was a bit younger. I always used to say to my Mum, 'I don't like broccolli, it tastes disgusting', even though I hadn't tried it once. Then when she put it on my plate and I ate it alongside my Sunday Dinner, it made the whole meal that bit better.

It's similar with God, except He doesn't make your life a 'bit better', He makes it a HUGE lot better. But, in the sense that you don't know whether you need God or not till you have faith in Him, this is very true. I know and have read many testimonies of people who thought they had a great life, they went out every week (or even every day) and got plastered, took drugs, had lots of sex- the works. They thought they had it all, until they started to wonder whether or not there is more to life. They search and they search, going from money to career, from career to hobbies, and still they don't find fulfillment. Then as soon as they find God they acheive what they have been longing for and realise that things of this earth isn't everything. Hedonism is a lie, people.  As such, we have to acknowledge the fulfillment that a belief in God can bring, we can observe this just by looking at the type of people i've just spoken of.

Thus, the statement, "My life is just fine as it is, I don't need God", is flawed in two areas- 1) you don't know until you try (a bit like a celestial vegetable), and 2) there are clearly more important things in life than just alcohol, drugs, food, sex, and adrenaline rushes. It is hard to ignore the spiritual renewel of someone who has turned from a hedonistic life to a life dedicated to God.

This is a complex statement to answer as there are many things we have to qualify, so let's hope that I get through it in one piece. Basically, we have to first define what a miracle is. Whilst there are many definitions banging out there, ranging from the one written by David Hume to ones written by opinionated Christians (such as myself...), I think one definition most of us can agree on is that a miracle is an act that cannot be explained by the laws of nature and scientific analysis. In a religious context they are often attributed to an act of God. An example of this would the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which was perpetrated by God but cannot be explained by science (however hard the atheists try).

It is also important to acknowledge that what a person believes concerning God is integral to what they believe concerning miracles, for if one does not believe in God then they have no reason to accept the possibility of a miraculous event occurring. However, this approach could be seen as rather close-minded. A believer is likely to entertain the thought of miracles not being possible, but a sceptic cannot do the same but in reverse. Some of them say that miracles CANNOT happen as they contradict science, full stop, no debate about it. This position is flawed in several areas. Firstly, to adopt this type of opinion requires an actual knowledge that miracles can't occur, however (like with God) you can't KNOW something like that. To do so would require knowledge about everything in the universe, which suffice to say none of us have. And secondly, just because a miracle 'contradicts science' does NOT mean it is impossible. In our society we have this weird fascination with the infallibility of scientific analysis, as if it cannot be refuted. What most fail to realise, however, is that science (even though I fully realise and thoroughly admire what it's done for us) is just a study of physical matter and the laws of nature as we know them now, and even within science there are divisions. It's not all a matter of 'fact'. And because of these things, we can draw parallels to the time when, several hundred years ago, people believed that maggots appeared in rotting meat out of 'nowhere' (a bit like how atheists believe that the universe 'popped' out of nowhere) and that the world was flat. They didn't know any better, but they still stated these things as fact. Today people don't know any better, but they still find the time to dismiss miracles in spite of the fact that billions of them have occurred and still many of them remained unsolved by scientists.

My point here is that a belief in miracles is not logically flawed. Firstly, it is accepting the fact that there are still many things in this world that science has not explained. Heck, I think it was just the other day that I heard that we know more about the surface of the moon than the surface of the seabed. And secondly, it ties in with the possibility of God's existence, which in spite of some people's claims is still a STRONG possibility. Therefore, the only thing that should be stopping someone to believe in miracles is a belief in God, or rather the entertainment of the though of God's existence. That's all you need, you don't need to be religious to accept the possibility of miracles. You just need to be open-minded. What about you? Are you open minded enough to accept the possibility of miracles?