Recently on CNN I caught a video showcasing the story of a very gifted 12-years-old artist named Akiane Kramarik. There have been several young artists in the past, but I find Akiane rather unique.
What makes Akiane so fascinating is not so much how well she paints, but rather the subject of her work and her inspiration. Akiane claims to have met God when she was just 3. He told her that she needs to paint and help the less fortunate. He also noted that he’d be there to guide her along the way.
It gets more bizarre when you discover that her mother is an Atheist and her father a recovering Catholic. Religion was never discussed in the house and the kids are all home schooled.
Before you write her off as a freak, watch the report below, read this, and take a look at her art.
April 22nd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
how wonderful time will tell,be still be quite just watch all will be reveled to you , you will be amazed.
the olive branch
April 21st, 2007 at 8:01 pm
“I never spoke with God,
Nor visited in Heaven;
Yet certain am I of the spot,
As if the chart were given.”
–Emily Dickinson
April 21st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Well, that girl is obviously psychotic. Please get her some help.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:17 am
You have found peace and tranquility through meditation, and in the silence you found a way of coping with your ADHD - that was your own personal experience and I am very happy that it has helped you.
My experience of meditation is that in the stillness when my mind is quiet if I ask a question it will be answered and in just as you said my thoughts become clearer.
At that moment I feel that all my lifetimes are as one -you may call it your subconscious - I see it as being in a place where there is a light of love all around me. What do you wish to call this moment? Some people call it God .
And I agree with you, God does not will us to benefit from meditation as we each have free will.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:09 am
So because i took the initiative to study meditation and began to practice it everyday and i saw results that proves that there is a god? No god wills you to benefit from it, its because you are basically conditioning yourself to focus on one thing at a time or let other thoughts and concerns pass by without affecting you. Using your logic I should also thank your god for being able to bench press more after spending time in the weightroom.
April 18th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Iv been meditating for a few years now, i use it to help with anxiety and pretty severe ADHD. It definitely helps me clear my head and focus on the day ahead, but how is that “God”?
April 18th, 2007 at 6:44 am
Although it is hard to give physical proof of a spiritual phenomenon it can be done as anything is possible.
Try this experiment yourself;
1. Look up Meditation
2. Practise Meditation for a week.
3. Note down any changes in yourself.
4. The results noted is what I call God.
5. Please give us your conclusion.
Love and Light, Tiana x
April 18th, 2007 at 5:17 am
No, your god is just one of the thousands of gods before it, so ill use lower-case. Sooner or later your god will go the way of Zeus and Ra. In a scientific sense if you want to prove to everyone that the god you believe in is in fact real you need to present evidence for it, not just the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you think of it.
April 18th, 2007 at 5:07 am
I have no burden upon me,
but I do have the proof
it is in my smile and in my heart.
And an educated person such as yourself knows that God is spelt with a capital G not a baby g !
Are you afraid that by giving love a name it may mean you believe in it?
I do hope you find what you are looking for….and that it makes you happy when you find it!
April 18th, 2007 at 4:00 am
“Can you prove that God does not exist”
If you make the claim that there is a god you must also show the evidence to suggest that. The burden of proof is on you.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:58 am
Can you prove that God does not exist or that we did not see an Angel?
People use their imaginations constantly to make up explanations of the world around them.
We see very largely with the mind, and only partly with the eyes. The phenomena of vision depends upon the mind’s interpretation of the impression upon the retina. What we see is not that impression but our own interpretation of it.
The way we are “educated†as children, narrows down our inner telescope. We are manipulated into narrower and narrower fields of vision. This is done by various forms of interdiction like “Stop day-dreaming,†“Stop imagining things,” and “You are making things up.â€
What happens is that we learn to mistrust the information given to us by the life force.
The tragedy is, by the time we become adults our intuitive memory bank is almost bankrupt. We have learned to close our inner eyes to the vast landscape of information interpreted by the imagination.
Nothing I can say will change your mind on this subject and I wouldn’t want to change your mind - you have developed it in a way that best suits your needs for your life here.
Love and Light to you!
April 18th, 2007 at 1:50 am
imagination is awesome, i myself have probably the most active one for someone my age. however, i dont use this to make up explanations about the world around me. And those in the scientific community who have imagination to discover something new about the universe used EVIDENCE to back it up. by the way if your friend was there and thought you were dying AND was religious than they could have imagined something along with you.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
There was someone else with me at the time if you read it again. And they were not having a near death experience.
I understand that if you haven’t had an experience yourself that it is harder to believe in things we cannot see.
Everyone has their own ideas of the world around us.
If we all believed that things we cannot see do not therefore exist - we would not have found things like the atom.(Maybe not a blessing to have found that)
But hopefully in the future, people with open minds will be able to tune into different vibrations and prove that there are other planes of existence around us.
A world without imagination? Imagine that!!!
April 17th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
so you believe that there is a god that created everything in the universe because you saw something you THINK was an “angel” when you THOUGHT you might die? people will see strange things in many different situations, and if you hear about people seeing angels during a near-death experience your very likely to tell yourself thats what you saw. that may convince you that theres a god, but for many of us thats just not enough.
April 17th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
‘to the best of our knowledge’ - who is ‘our’?
Is it the scientists who cannot prove an existence of God - yet so many of them also believe in the existence of God?
I don’t know why everyone else believes in God;
I believe because i have seen what people describe as an ‘Angel’ at a moment when I thought I might die - and a witness was with me so I was unable to convince myself I was mad.
Before that I wasn’t sure why I should believe either, only - I noticed that whenever I asked for help it came, whenever I did something good, good things happened to me and whenever I felt alone and depressed I felt a presence comforting me. I soon realised that this was what people meant by God.
I am not sitting in a religious box with a label on it -I found God in my own heart - but I totally respect everyone elses viewpoints as we each make our own journey and choices.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with asking questions - if something is true it will hold up to questioning - if people act too defensively they may be found to be lying. I beieve in God without question, but not all men tell the truth unfortunately.
Hope you have a happy day Brian x
April 16th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
“I know that we should believe in God without asking questions and I do”
Why should we believe in something that is to the best of our knowledge a figment, like fairies?
April 16th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Taking out the religious element for a second, what I first saw was a remarkable talent at a very early age.
I am a fantasy artist from the U.K so this item caught my attention.
I have heard that some child geniuses advance far quicker than normal children but then reach a peak where other children then catch up and maybe even overtake them.
If this is true she will remain as good as the other talented adult artists that she is at the same level as right now.
Hopefully this is not true and she will grow up and far outshine any adult artist and then we will be truly amazed!
As a mother of 2 children, I know that if I homeschooled them and spent a lot of time on teaching them to paint they could become artistically advanced for their age.
In only a few hours I taught my 5 year old how to draw in perspective and at the age of 6 he knows how to draw using light and shadow, rubbing with his fingers to shade and make the image 3 dimensional.He became so good that I was asked to stop doing his art homework for him, until the teacher saw him complete a drawing in front of her in school - then she apologised to me.
He is not an indigo child - he just has the ability as most children have - to learn!!!
What is my point? Well I have yet to see a video of this girl completing a whole painting from scratch, showing the whole process - she says the images came from her head - yet on one video she tells us that the Jesus figure was a carpenter that visited the house and that she sketched and photographed him for 40 hours.
Photographed? I thought these images came from her head?
I am not jealous - I admit that already she is a better artist than me and that does not worry me in the least -I just hope that someone is not ‘pulling her strings’.
When I saw her paint she added a few brush strokes on the hair that were not at all delicate - then started attacking the background with a brush that was too small for the job - and she did nothing to damage or add to the painting - strange and odd I thought - she needs to show people her process or it looks dodgy!
I would also like to know her agenda for helping people with her art. I cannot paint an Angel without giving the money to charity and would feel wrong to paint Jesus and get money for it - So if she has a formula please let me know as I am currently looking for a way to help others with my art.
I know that we should believe in God without asking questions and I do - but there are false prophets out there and if she speaks to God then she will have no problem proving she is for real. She doesn’t have to jump off a cliff - she just has to paint in public!!!
In Britain we had a child prodegy that reached his peak, had problems coping and had a sex change when he became an adult.
I am viewing her as a child, and I pray that she doesn’t reach her peak, or if she does that she is happy as an adult. Maybe she should enjoy being a kid and use her gift when she has grown up !
April 15th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Oh and I apologize for calling you a liar. I didn’t realize you were ignorant to the difference in meaning between know and believe. Mea culpa.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Knowing is about facts, believing is about unknown “truths”. You do not know a thing about God’s existence, if you did you’d have evidence.
I don’t believe in Aliens or Ghosts, but if I were ever to have irrefutable evidence about either I would know they exist. There is a difference. Knowing is not believing.
And no body has said animals evolved from rocks. Though I’m not surprised you came out with that, as you probably believe (not know) that god created man from clay.
April 15th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
“the spirit of man did not evolve out of a rock as would have to happen with evolution. that my friend is an impossibility.”
You, my friend, are an idiot. Please, if your going to argue against evolution at least know something about it. Try searching for it on the web, or maybe reading a book.
April 15th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
To the one that called me a lier because I said I Know their has to be a higher intelligence
Knowing is believing…..and do not call me a lier when you are yourself prejudiced against anyone with any beliefs that differ from your athiestist point of view….the spirit of man did not evolve out of a rock as would have to happen with evolution. that my friend is an impossibility.
Just because you do not believe …dont knock others that know God and believe.
April 14th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Ania,
I spent a lot of time looking at these paintings and drawings. I also spent a lot of time learning about and doing artwork until I was in my early twenties, including college. I understand what you are saying about a “signature”, but I think you’re stretching it to say that every drawing and painting has to have that. If you look at any artist’s work, from the first drawing on, you can say, many don’t look like they are done by the same artist. Artists grow and learn, and try new ways to do their work over time. At some point many stop at a place that they are comfortable with, but I still wouldn’t put them in box.
If I was still painting and drawing, I would want the freedom to express myself in different ways. I don’t think you can draw a conclusion that the drawings are by different people.
If you look at creation is expressed in a myriad of ways. That’s assuming you believe in a creator.
And to the defensive poster who said something about Jesus being envisioned as white. I’m not sure that’s the case. Also, if you look at her painting of Eve, you can see there’s no bias there.
April 14th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
In my opinion, it seems, that folks are reacting to this girl in the same way that we react to Jesus himself.
Some believe, some are skeptical, questions are raised, people are changed, or not. Hmmm.
But I doubt any of these opinions would change what she believes about herself,her visions, her art, and about God. And she is feeding hungry children. Aren’t we supposed to “know them by their fruits” anyway?
April 14th, 2007 at 9:42 am
On the subject of Akiane. Visit her website and seriously review her paintings. All artists, no matter who they are , have a specific identifiable signature or imprint. This is peculiar to every visual artist and cannot be altered. Think of Rembrandt, Monet, and Renoir. One can distinguish between the paintings imediately and identify each correctly without reading the name signed. Ihave discovered at least three different artists in the paintings represented on this website. See what you think. Please be objective. Begin with age 4 sketches.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
“I know there has to be a higher intelligence and power”
And how do you know this? Have you seen or touched this higher power. I’m guessing not. So the next time you say that phrase don’t lie. You believe the has to be a higher intelligence and power.
April 13th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
After reading all of these explanations for God no god….I would have to say that the one thing that did impress me more about Akianes and her paintings were here comments about faith being the pre-requiset to believing in God. I also paint and have paintings listed under the search bar as “spradling” at yessy.com…. By viewing Akianes work I have actually been inspired to do more paintings and with a spiritual theme. I was originally brought up in a religion which taught prophesies that did not come true because they were given as mis-interpretations by men not God. However I still believe in God and know there has to be a higher intelligence and power out there that we as mere humans cannot understand or phanthom. I know atheist have to see to believe….maybe that is why the Bible says every eye will see at the time when he chooses …whether at death or the day of his coming. As far as the color of her painting Jesus…..what is the big deal here? Jesus is a spirit, she is only representing what she sees Jesus as….which is forgiving and Love.
Larr
April 13th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I have nothing detracting to say about Akiane’s paintings of Jesus. They are clearly more than outstanding for one of her age. But have a look at Rembrandt’s “Raising of the Cross,” in which he places himself at the feet of the crucified Christ. Great artists are able to express themselves, even in commissioned work. That’s part of what makes them great. I don’t believe a painting of Christ or any subject must be painted by a Christian in order for it to be valid. Validity is in the artist being true to his own world view. Art is SELF-expression.
April 13th, 2007 at 9:13 am
And many others who were paid artists who do what artists do. The sistene chapel isn’t great because the artist was a believer. Great art isn’t limited to those who believe. The opposite would be true.
April 13th, 2007 at 5:36 am
To: Mike Hurst, It’s good to hear a word about Akiane’s genuineness by someone who has actually met, or seen her in person It’s very evident to me, just from seeing the CNN news clip.
Secondly, I’ve been thinking this question over for several days: What gives a work of art validity? Does not the validityof it lie in the motive of its creator? There must be many others who have portrayed Jesus with genuinely noble minds and hearts.
April 12th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Hi Irene, sorry that we don’t appear to agree with you. Some people would die for their beliefs, more important to them than family or their own life. Others see that as lunacy. If you step inside either point of view you can see how anything that goes against it will create strong opinions and judgements.
April 12th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Why does everyone here sound completely judgemental? Well here’s my judgement intellectuals “you all sound retarded.”
April 7th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
I’ve seen her artwork and my wife and I have seen her personally. She’s real. She’s just a REAL kid with the touch and favor of God all over her. Her insight is beyond intelligence. Even if a kid could have read thousands of books by the age of five, what she has is beyond “smarts”.
What she says about her gifts is real. Read her poetry. It’s not like a kid just took a bunch of long words and strung them together. It’s DEEP. It’s meaningful. It’s a testimony that she’s been Divinely inspired. She’s been to the Throneroom of Heaven.
I’ve seen many paintings of Jesus. The depiction she did of Him is the only one that I consider valid.
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:54 am
For those who are dimensionally challenged,
do something for me and google indigo children, you will find out about many young people who are what you people call ‘religious freaks’ because we see angels, fairies,spirits, God……you only see what you can imagine
~the child
March 30th, 2007 at 11:46 am
When I read any book dealing with the spiritual state and destiny of mankind, I do not especially expect to find dinosaurs and fossils mentioned. And I would not at all expect Moses or even Jesus, necessarily, to mention DNA.
Disbelief, by Christians, Moslems and Jews, in a plurality of gods is based on what is held to be sufficient evidence of the one true, living God, the eternal first cause of things, revealing Himself in nature.
Atheism pre-supposes both the non-existence, and the un-necessity of an eternal first cause of things. assuming one equates the term “God” with that concept.
March 30th, 2007 at 3:37 am
Hic sunt dracones? Ubi sicam meam est? Deus me adjuva! Heu Deus non est!
Wow, I was speaking in tongues. God damn demonic possession!
March 30th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Skids, watch out. Just Nobody is cloning out a Hovind argument. I know the next thing we will hear about why dinosaurs are not in the bible is that infact they were called dragons in the bible.
This is a bit of a stretch to make. Yes Dinosaur wasn’t an established word until relatively recent history, but in respect to the writings of the old testament, so is dragon.
dragon
c.1220, from O.Fr. dragon, from L. draconem (nom. draco) “serpent, dragon,” from Gk. drakon (gen. drakontos) “serpent, seafish,” from drak-, strong aorist stem of derkesthai “to see clearly.” But perhaps the lit. sense is “the one with the (deadly) glance.” The young are dragonets (14c.). Obsolete drake “dragon” is an older borrowing of the same word. Used in the Bible to translate Heb. tannin “a great sea-monster,” and tan, a desert mammal now believed to be the jackal.
Yes, dragons aren’t in the bible either, just some sea-monsters (which fit quite well with the Unicorns, demons, and living-dead god men).
March 30th, 2007 at 12:27 am
I use the word improbably because in all probability there is no god. As the god is unmeasurable, it cannot be proved or disproved. Therefore, there is no reason to believe in god any more than leprachauns, elfs, fauns etc. I cannot prove they don’t exist, but they are highly improbably to say the least. Just like the judeo-christian-islamic sky fairy.
And even though the word dinosaur didn’t exist. Surely jesus would have know it would come into use, at least he would’ve said, “And lo, there will come to be found rocks that contain remains of large animals that resemble lizards and others that do not walk the earth anymore”….
Not hard for the son of god who is god…..
March 30th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Skids Says:
“Just had a quick look at the link.”
The word “dinosaur” came into existence when? From what I have learned not until the 1800’s is when the word “dinosaur” came into existence. Could be why you won’t find the word “dinosaur” in the Bible. Seeings how you “had a quick look” at the site then maybe you should spend a little more time looking up the answers they have on the site. Maybe you will then understand a little more. Why should I copy a lot of what is on the site to answer your questions, when there is so much information on the site I pointed you to that could explain things a lot better then I can by copy and paste!
Christians do not believe in those things because there is no other God but our God.
At the end you say “atheists believe in one less improbably god” To my thinking by you using the word “improbable”, which means unlikely to be real, you are saying that you aren’t really sure if there is a God or not!
As a Christian I do pray that one day you will seek our Lord and Savior before you leave this life.
Peace to you and yours.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Just had a quick look at the link. It says we interpret fact differently. But there are no facts in the bible about fossils, dinosaurs, DNA etc. So that bible has nothing to say. If it’s god’s word he would’ve put in bit s about that don’t you think. And as for saying we can’t leave god out, he’s right it robs christians of their only veil. The truth is there is no need for god. Christians don’t believe in the greek pantheon, or roman equivalent or valhalla. Why is that? They have books and are as equally likely. The only difference between a christian and an atheist is atheists believe in one less improbably god.
March 29th, 2007 at 1:35 am
What’s the best ‘proof’ of creation?
When the person you talk to on creation insists that you ‘leave the Bible out of it’, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Get the full answer!
http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
Thought some of you might be interested in this site.
Many answers to your many questions concerning God and creation can be found there.
I know many will still not want to except that there is a God, a God that most all christians know, but if just one person learns and excepts Christ because of this post then it has been worth my time to of typed this out. For I may of just saved one more soul for our God!
GOD IS SPIRIT
In the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ tells us that ‘God is spirit’ (John 4:24). This indicates that God is not material and does not have a body, so He is not visible to, or discernible by, our bodily senses. Nevertheless, He is personal, and has transcendent life and being. This means that God is independent of the limitations of the material universe.
All this is beyond the grasp of human reason and so defies human depiction, because man has no words to describe such a transcendent deity, other than in terms of our own human characteristics. Hence, the Bible uses anthropomorphisms to help make God real to us and to express His various powers, interests and activities. Such use is justifiable, because God speaks about Himself in this way in the Bible, i.e. He authorizes and uses it. And also because God has made man in His own image and likeness (Genesis 1:26–27), so that between God and man there is some similarity —as well as, of course, a huge dissimilarity.
In view of the above, when Christians talk about Genesis, rather than using the term ‘literal’ (without some clarification), it is probably better to use the terms ‘plain’ or ‘grammatical-historical’.
May you find peace, and salvation, if you already don’t have it. May God bless you all.
As for Akiane, she sure does have a peaceful spirit about her and her work is very inspiring to me.
March 21st, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Information about Akiane Kramarik in portuguese may be found in
http://akianepintora.blogspot.com
March 20th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
I stated my personal view, above, not as a logical argument, but to encourage a constantly questioned faith.
How old the Bible says the Earth is, as far as I can see, is wide open to conjecture; when one takes into account what I have referred to before: the poetical nature of the books and references such as a day, to God, being as a thousand years. Because truth is objective, I say that when proven scientific facts are held up as contradictions to the Bible, it means the Bible is being misinterpreted, often merely for the sake of “proving†it to be wrong. Because I accept the Bible as truth, I say it cannot contradict any true scientific fact. I wouldn’t say, necessarily, that it even contradicts certain scientific theories, such as evolution. It all depends on one’s approach to understanding either one.
I’m just now preparing to read Bertrand Russell’s “hy I am Not A Christian,†but I’ll keep a lookout for The Joureny Of Man.â€
March 20th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
@Mapk Lotgre, re “I submit that whoever gazes out into the cosmos and owns a Bible possesses a sufficient summary of the true, grand pictue.”, that’s simply nonsense, and your logic is circular. The only picture that your “whoever” would possess is a (not very grand) illusion. Modern genetics provides a clear history of humanity going back 150,000 years, with multiple traceable departures from Africa, none of which are consistent with your bible (which also says the earth is how old? and with a universe centred on what planet? How limited, and wrong too.). See for example _The Journey of Man_ by Spencer Wells. Now there is a grand and scientifically supportable picture of human history for you. In comparison, the tales of your bible fall apart.
I highly recommend _The Journey of Man_ as great read of some extraordinary scientific detective work (or watch the video by the same name).
March 20th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
At the time of Cain’s banishment, no one was in the Garden Of Eden. The account says that Cain and Abel were born outside it. It seems reasonable to assume that Cain’s wife was already with him when he set out on his journey to the land of Nod. In fact, Rembrandt’s depiction of the story assumes he led a caravan.
I submit that whoever gazes out into the cosmos and owns a Bible possesses a sufficient summary of the true, grand pictue.
March 18th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I always thought it was simple: there were people outside the garden.
Too easy?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I am new to this site, and enjoying all the banter. No doubt God is greatly amused as well. I question my faith constantly, and that’s a good thing. I am sure none of us has the true picture……….it’s bigger than we could possibly imagine. I was always curious about Cain, when he left home and went to the land of Nod, and found his wife….where did she come from if Adam and Eve and their many children were the only ones on earth? Sara
March 11th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I mean, I lost one or two posts halfway through the typing, so now I write in MS Word to copy and paste it in the blog.
It may be that the God who the atheist believes does not exist is reservedly laughing along out loud (to us) invisibly, inaudibly.
March 9th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Cut and paste.
March 8th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Bollocks.. took me half an hour to write another post and when i clicked post, it dissapeared (divine intervention? lol) oh well. Cant be bothered to write it all again.
:)
March 6th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
It looks to me as if Akiane portrays Jesus with a dark complexion in her painting of him in youth. When Jesus is portrayed with a fair complexion, it is to represent, not the historical figure, but symbolically, God as man. See comment above (66).
The Bible tells us we are free to believe what we choose.
March 6th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
While i agree her painting talent is exceptional, does it strike anyone as odd that her painting of jesus is of white male with blond hair? Considering where jesus came from? Surely he should be olive/dark skinned with black hair?
p.s. left fake email address as I never leave my mail on a site I don’t know. Found this site quite by accident while lookin for something else. Like the site.. keep it up. An atheist myself, I believe ppl are free to believe what they like.
March 5th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Look people a miracle just has happened: a muck product resulted in an emotional discussion about the universe and Gods.
Yes the story is fantastic and why not to place a doubt somwhere here? Just a doubt not complete denial. What if the whole story is another of many frauds to solicit money? What if the paintings are not her but her mother’s or father’s and under the stirct rules of their faith they unslaved the young and delicate child to keep it secret for God’s sake?
Although they (pictures) have a flare of aestethical beaty they have nothing to do with art and creation it is just a muck. They represent just an excellent trade skills and nothig more. If God had anything to do with the paintings I am sure they (actually Him) would actually be the greates ever pieces of art.
The nasty part of the whole story is the these ‘deeply religious’ people mix God in their dealings to get reach. This could just be unpleseant behaviour regardless of their overtly displayed intentions. So what percentage they actually offer for their charity?
Some of you ought to remember if not anything else…:
Pride is excessive belief in one’s own abilities, that interferes with the individual’s recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.
Envy is the desire for others’ traits, status, abilities, or situation.
Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or Covetousness.
AND after this post now we should expect:
Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.
Let see.
March 3rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Fantastic! I’m committed to reading The Omnivorous Dilemma for another book discussion group. How soon I’ll get through it is largely dependent on how much I’ll enjoy it. If the first dozen pages are any indication, It’ll take me a while. My guess is about a month. Let me know which of the two you’d like to read first via email (sidfaiwu@gmail.com).
March 3rd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
My inclination is to say that even if there were embellishments to biblical accounts over time before the writing of them, I think the aspects of it that seem to defy the laws of physics (they may only defy how we understand them from the descriptions) are more attributable to the poetic nature of the writing. Poetry frees an author from absolutely literal description, which, would be necessary when writing of things outside the realm of the physical senses. If we take it as poetry, we can allow that what Moses (or whoever we want to say wrote the Pentateuch) describes as a burning bush or a staff becoming a serpent need not be a literal phenomenon, but only symbols pointing to some truth about God, for our benefit. To say the Bible is a product of men, who were truly inspired by God is not necessarily to say that it is inspiration dictated word-for-word by the Holy Spirit. In other words, I tend to take it as something not authored by God, as such, but divinely over-seen and author-ized.
To say that the self-necessary being upon which the universe is contingent is not above nature suggests that what we refer to as God is a physical being living in another universe or maybe is the universe itself,
plus something else we are unaware of.
I have meant to read Russsell’s “Why I Am Not A Christianâ€for some time, and accept your offer. I’ll have to review “Orthodoxy, too. It’s been several years since I’ve read that.
March 3rd, 2007 at 10:26 am
Hello MAPK,
In a sense, I agree with you. Out of all the possibilities I suggested, some are definitely less likely than others. I only listed a bunch of possibilities, no matter how unlikely. I also agree with those Christians that you know that the most likely explanation is gradual embellishment from fact to mythology.
Where I disagree with you is that I find ‘God did it’ to be the least likely explanation, not the most likely.
“I want to say, also, that, by those who say God created and sustains the universe, comets, thunder and the rising and setting of the sun are still attibuted to supernatural forces.”
Again, we find ourselves in semi-agreement. I do think that the existence of all things in the universe are contingent upon a self-necessary being (I’m beginning to doubt that ‘God’ is an appropriate term for it). I see no reason to assume that this being is supernatural.
Finally, I have only recently gotten interested in Victorian era philosophy and theology. G.K. Chesterton sounds interesting. I’ll tell you what, I’ll read Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton if you’ll agree to read Why I Am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russel. I have not yet read Russel’s book, but intend to, and I’d be interested in discussing it with a Christian who is reading it at about the same time.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
I find it very difficult to believe that any serious Bible critic would suggest that Moses is purely a fictional (made up) character or that the Judaeo-Christian theism is founded on intentional deceit, or that Moses could not distinguish between dreams and reality.
I do know some Christians, however, who at least acknowledge the possibility that in the story of Moses, the actions of a real person have become mythologized in the process of being told and re-told before it was written down. I personally am inclined not to accept any of these options, nor do I accept that he literally mistook natural phenomena for supernatural. I can accept that what he saw in the “burning bush†may have been some inexplicable (to him) natural occurance which he correctly perceived as inspiration from God to somehow restore his strength as leader of the nation of Israel. But I can also accept that Moses encountered a bush that was actually aflame, and yet not being consumed, symbolizing God as a purifying fire from which the consuming is escapable only by faith.
When we do attribute such things to divine power, we assume it is meant to help us understand our relationship with God so that we can be better-prepared for meeting our creator.
I want to say, also, that, by those who say God created and sustains the universe, comets, thunder and the rising and setting of the sun are still attibuted to supernatural forces. For your possible interest, read Orthodoxy, by G.K. Chesterton.
March 2nd, 2007 at 11:37 am
Hello MAPK,
I’m glad you’re contributing again. I know your comment was not aimed at me, but I would like to respond.
“we can accept claims of Moses, for example, witnessing and performing miracles. Unless we take him for a lunatic or a druggie”
This sort of reasoning seems common amongst Christian apologists, but it really doesn’t hold any water. You are basically saying that either the story of Moses and the burning bush is true, he was crazy, or he was hallucinating (because of drugs, for instance). This forms a false trilemma. As I’ve said in an earlier post, there are other possibilities that are not being considered. In this case, here are some other possibilities,
- The story is fiction.
- The story was gradually fictionalized via progressive exageration over time.
- Moses was lying
- Moses was dreaming
- Moses mistook some natural phenomena for supernatural
- Other possibilities may exist that I cannot think of.
Consider, as an example, someone who claimed to have been abducted by aliens while alone in his bead one night. Would you buy my claim that this man was either actually abducted by aliens, lying, or crazy (to use the usual false trilemma used by apologists), especially if I demonstrate the this person is otherwise normal and honest? No, you’d say he was dreaming, despite his testimony to the contrary, or some other possibility that would make him honestly mistaken.
The problem would be compounded if the person was only a character in a book about an ancient time. Is that portion of the book a work of fiction? Did the man exist at all? If he did, is this just an example of historical fiction (ie, the man existed, but the scenario is fiction)? Was it based on a true event that has been exaggerated by the author and/or editors to make it more interesting?
“But for those who deny the existence or intervention of any supernatural power, a belief in miracles would be impossible, even if one were witnessed.”
Here I agree with you completely. This is likely the quintessential difference between a believer and a non-believer. It is one we must overcome if we are to understand one another. If I were to witness something inexplicable, my reaction, like most, would be to wonder how such a thing were possible. But if no natural explanation were available, I would not assume supernatural causes and for good reason.
There have been many phenomenon that were inexplicable in the past that were incorrectly assumed to be supernatural. The rising and setting of the sun was attributed to Apollo’s chariot riding across the sky daily, comets were sent my God as an evil omen, lightning was sent by Thor, and all sorts of other natural phenomenon were similarly attributed to various supernatural deities.
That fact that these, and many other supposedly supernatural events turned out to be wholly natural should at least give us pause when assume supernatural causes to any strange event.
Another reason that I think we should seek a natural explanation before a supernatural one is related to progress. If we see an unexplained phenomena, we either say ‘I wonder how that works’ or say ‘God works in mysterious ways’. The first statement leads us to seek to explain the event naturally. If successful (which is often in science), we advance human knowledge and potential better peoples lives. If we say ‘God did it’, then it is the end of the inquiry. At best, the status quo is maintained.
Notice that I do not rule out the possibility of supernatural intervention. It’s just that assuming supernatural intervention has zero utility for us, whereas the assumption of natural causes has proven to have great utility for our species.
March 2nd, 2007 at 10:27 am
If human knowledge is gained by applying logic to experience, then we can accept claims of Moses, for example, witnessing and performing miracles. Unless we take him for a lunatic or a druggie, whatever he did see evidently was beyond nature. If we assume the power behind miracles to be outside the laws of nature, belief in miracles is logical. But for those who deny the existence or intervention of any supernatural power, a belief in miracles would be impossible, even if one were witnessed. This is not aimed specifically at you, Sid, or anyone, but I hope it will be of some benefit to the discussion over all.
March 1st, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Have to say it is amusing adjective, that ‘weak’ but regardless of it.
Why a prediction is only valid if given very long ago instead of few days or weeks at a time? She believes that horoscopes tell what is going to happen. How is that different from believing in predictions in bible?
Why do religious people believe in only some predictions and not in all? If one would go through the verisimilitude of different prophesies of different faiths it comes clear that most of them come true. Some require more mental tap dancing to get to fit something that happens but many of those prophecies are even older than biblical prophecies.
I find Micahs prediction to be merely following the customs of his era as his prediction did not give anything that others had not already claimed, the difference is that Micah managed to be included in a list of minor prophets where upon others were not. Had he claimed something outside the main views of majority of people in the era, it could be said he made a true prophecy.
A simple comparison to Micah prediction in modern day is to say he predicted that the president will be voted into the office. That is common practice, no one selects the first born of Lincolns family line to be a president. The king being born out of a particular family line is part of monarchist view which was the norm in Micahs days.
The most important thing of Micahs prophecies is the fact that after you read the book you see the writings talk of Assyrians and of other Gentiles.
Book of Micah 5:6-8
6.And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.
7.And the remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many people as a dew from the LORD, as the showers upon the grass, that tarrieth not for man, nor waiteth for the sons of men.
8.And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the Gentiles in the midst of many people as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep: who, if he go through, both treadeth down, and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.
The historical situation during Micahs time was dire for the Jewish people as Assurians were threatening the southern kingdom. The northern was already ransacked at that time.
The belief of a saviour rising and driving the enemies of Jewish people was exemplified in King David who reigned around 1005 BCE until around 965 BCE by Hebrew bible. So a concept of a great saviour king was only 200-300 years old.
Micah most likely was hoping for a saviour right now and there instead of talking of Jesus as Assyrians were no threat during the time of Roman occupation.
Feeble Ta with sapless daa.
March 1st, 2007 at 10:18 am
Hello Buckles,
Sorry about the ‘a priori’. Here is the definition on Dictionary.com. I was using it as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary:
1. Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience.
2. Knowable without appeal to particular experience.
I’m also sorry that you felt that I ignored your points. I did not. I do think that you missed my point (I’ll assume it was an honest mistake and that you were not ignoring me). Perhaps my use of an unfamiliar word is at fault. We are discussing three different points about the Bible, its authorship, historical/factual accuracy, and it’s prophetic content. The reason we are discussing the Bible is to determine whether or not it can be used to learn about the nature of God.
Authorship
Whether directly written by God, inspired by God, or written by man and God claims authorship is irrelevant at this point in the discussion. We have not yet established whether or not ‘authorship’ of any form is part of the nature of God. If authorship is not, then no book, including the Bible is the word of God. The challenge for you, then, is to demonstrate that authorship is in the nature of God without reference to a book supposedly authored by God. Otherwise you’d be using circular logic, which is invalid.
Historical/Factual Accuracy
This is a huge topic in itself. I want to avoid taking an instance by instance approach because it would easily distract from to topic at hand; the nature of God. Suffice it to say that the Bible contains events that defy all of our experience as to how the world works. What is your standard of proof? Mine relies on evidence (obtained via experience), deduction, and/or induction. Some of the events from the Bible violate this last proof method.
Here, I have not choice but to appeal to example. I have walked by hundreds, if not thousands of bushes in my life. Not once have I, or any one I know or even heard of, have seen a bush spontaneously bust into flames and begin speaking. Based on inductive reasoning, I have ‘proof’ that bushes never spontaneously burst into flames and begin speaking. You can apply this to any miracle described in the Bible. You will claim that God intervened, but we have not yet established that God has the power, ability, or inclination to intervene. Remember, we have only established that God exists and caused (and/or causes) things to exist via the Cosmological argument.
I have no doubt that some of the Bible is historically accurate. I’m also sure that it contains some inaccuracies.
Prophecy
As I said in my last post, I cannot trust the fulfillment of the prophecies until we establish the historical/factual accuracy of the Bible. The book says that such-and-such prophecy was fulfilled, but how do I know that the description of the fulfillment (or even the prophecy) is accurate? Thus any argument from book-based prophecy ultimately relies on the accuracy of said book. So, if it’s alright with you, let’s focus on the historical/factual accuracy first and then address prophecy later.
March 1st, 2007 at 5:04 am
Hello sidfaiwu;
The word “priori†threw me so I looked it up. The definition I found was;
Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary says;
“the head of a prioryâ€
Then I looked up “prioryâ€
The American Heritage Dictionary says:
“A monastery governed by a prior or a convent governed by a prioressâ€
So what are you trying to say when you say. “Why should I accept the Bible a priori?â€
When I gave the explanation of how the Bible was written by God and not by men I also asked what is the difference in this and when a famous person of today has a book and they have a co-writer yet they claim authorship. You ignored that.
I talked about “Historical Accuracies†because the other things that “you say†are flawed with the Bible such as the plants being created before light and so on can’t be proven one way or the other with what we have today. I leveled the playing field so to speak. You ignored that
I also pointed to some of the prophesies that were fulfilled. These prophesies are documented writings and the times when they were written are a historical fact. The books containing the fulfillment of these prophesies were written hundreds of years later. The times that these books were written are also known historical facts. You ignored that
You ask:
how do I know that there were not many other prophecies that didn’t get fulfilled that were edited out after they failed to be realized?
I think it best to stick to what we have and not suppose what we don’t have.
You have not disputed the birth or death of Jesus Christ and both were prophesized accurately in the Bible.
You do not like the “Get out of logic Free†card yet you fail to understand that a large part of this conversation is about the omnipotence of God. It stands to reason that if God is what the Bible says he is then he will know things that you can’t even begin to understand. Things that defy logic.
A bumble bee is not supposed to be able to fly according to known aerodynamics but it does.
As far as God violating the laws of physics, I guess when you make the rules, you can break the rules.
Several hundred years ago if you told people that man would one day fly into space, walk on the moon, and talk on phones smaller than a pack of cigarettes they would have said, “What’s a phone and a pack of cigarettes?†Locked you away, and thrown away the key. I’m sure to them it would have defied all logic. So just because you, or I can’t explain how it happens does not mean it can’t.
I tried to stick to the things that we know and are proven fact about the Bible. Not just by my standards but by many. The historical facts. Most of which even profound atheist will admit are accurate historical facts.
You bring up the Qur’an and other holy books which you say make similar claims of accuracy and prophesies yet you provide no examples.
By the way the Bible is the best selling book in the whole world. Approximately 150 Million Bibles are printed each year. No other book even comes close.
Jagannath: Get real
You say:
“Well aunt of mine is crazy about horoscopes and according to her, the horoscopes nearly always happen as predicted, to her that is. Should I believe in my horoscope as its message could be read as prediction after situation has happened? I gained money as it read in horoscope, I found few coins.â€
Hardly detailed. And certainly not made 7 centuries prior to the event.
You say that Micah’s prophesies was “not much of a predictionâ€
Considering that he made the “prediction some 700 years or more before it took place and that it happened as he said it would, I would say that it was astonishing. Not only did he predict where, he further predicted his lineage. To believe that any family would maintain standing for 700 years thereby making a prediction like this a “safe bet†would be foolish at best.
You say:
“Crucifixion as a mean of execution is oldâ€
This does not negate the fact that the prophesy was made when it was and that it was true.
Therefore your “so thats it, tadaa†is weak.
God bless
February 28th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Thanks for your reply, Sid. I now see that I made some hasty and erroneous assumptions regarding your position. Mistakenly, also (I think), I entered this forum taking a “debate†approach (an art in which I am not greatly experienced) rather than seeing it as a place of forged and tempered discussion.
I don’t mean to change the flow of discussion, but let me just insert this. In the verse above (101), the anchor, I take as a symbolic reference to our physical bodies (under gravitation) and the expression, “falling free†as referring to an awareness-of-self apart from our physical environment (free of any gravitation). That is, a self-awareness relating to things outside the universe. Discovering eternal truth about the meaning of love, life, hope goodness and beauty–knowing God, in other words–lies ultimately, then, in a spiritual pursuit, augmented by an in-depth study of all nature.
As it appears paradoxical upon the first reading, I have spent a great deal of time and thought working out an interpretation of this lyric (which comes from the suite, Terraform).
February 28th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Well, bible being true as it says it is, is handled already but there bit annoyed me, so I decided to rant a little.
“25 percent of the Bible contains predictions of future events. Every single one of these prophecies has come true in the minutest detail”
Well aunt of mine is crazy about horoscopes and according to her, the horoscopes nearly always happen as predicted, to her that is. Should I believe in my horoscope as its message could be read as prediction after situation has happened? I gained money as it read in horoscope, I found few coins.
But what predictions of bible have come true? Predictions that have one and only one possible way to understand?
“The Book of Micah (5:2) tells us that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem”
Well lets start with the fact that Book of Micah is one of the books of Nevi’im, which means prophets, and is part of Tanakh, a hebrew bible. (Just so all know what is talked of.)
Micah prophesied around 730-700 BC (the years are also somewhat debated) and of his book the first three chapters are attributed to him, the rest, well that depends of who you ask but chapters 6 and parts of 7 can be contributed to him with some probability. Rest of the chapters are from various sources.
So why did he say Messiah would be born in Bethlehem? He said a new king from the line of David would be born there. Bethlehem was the city where David was born and where he was anointed.
The city already had history and if Micah would have claimed the new king would be born on his own home town, who would care? It was a small village of no importance.
Bethlehem already had one great king born out of, so why would not another? And of same lineage too, the line of David. Does not really sound much of a prediction. So was Mary a descendant of David?
“The Book of Psalms (chapter 22) says that this Messiah will be pierced in His hands and His feet. This prophecy is amazing because it was written 800 years before crucifixion was ever used as a means of punishment.”
Crucifixion as a mean of execution is old. Greeks crucified pirates around the 7th century BC, In Eqypt it was common although methodology was somewhat different. The earliest historical crucifixion of some 3000 people happened in 519 BC by the King of kings Darius I. Zechariah is said to lived during that time in Babylon, if any are interested.
As the method does not leave much bodies to examine, (the bodies are left to rot on the cross) it is hard to say when the first crucifixion happened but I would not be surprised if it would be much older than that. Some historicist claim it is older but without evidence it is hard to verify, but Darius was hardly the first to use it.
Also when you consider the fact that jewish law punished treason with hanging, the guilty one, on a tree, while alive. It is not that amazing. Even the Jerusalem Talmud states that, the nail from a crucifixion is efficacious against certain types of ailments. Shabbath 6;8c
So crucifixion was common way to execute people so it is not amazing, merely fitting to the culture in that era.
so thats it, tadaa
February 28th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Hello MAPK,
I appreciate the apology greatly. I really enjoyed our discussion. I am sorry that I distracted from the conversation by purposely using strong language.
The topics we are discussing are important and I am passionate about them. I know that you, Buckles, and the others feel just as passionately about them. It is understandable, indeed even expected that we will let our passions get the better of us from time to time. Please, don’t let that deter you from rejoining our debates.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I am not offended in the least. In fct, Buckles said as simply as can be said, what I meant to say in my whimsically complex way.
“I may not always get it right but I plan on trying real hard.â€
I’ve been awaiting the best opportunity to clear any offense done to others, especially to Sid. Please accpt this personal apology.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Hello Buckles956,
Now you have taken a leap much too large for me. Why should I accept the Bible a priori? Why not the Qur’an, the Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishad, the Tao Te Ching, Confucius’s Analects, the Torah, the Alkitab Alaqdas, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tibetan Book of the Dead, the Book of Mormon, or even Dianetics?
There is no shortage of ‘holy’ books in the world. My list isn’t even exhaustive. What possible reason do I have to choose any one of them as being ‘correct’ (which necessarily makes all the rest incorrect?
“The Bible is the work of God. It is not the work of men. This is explained in the scriptures themselves.”
This results in circular logic. Remember we are trying to discover the nature of God:
1. The Bible accurately describes the nature of God.
2. The Bible says that it is in the nature of God to inspire the writing of books.
3. The Bible is one such book.
4. Thus the Bible is the word of God.
1. Thus the Bible accurately describes the nature of God.
To be fair, you did admit that further proof is required. So on to the other defenses you present:
Historical Accuracy, “it has always and will always be impossible to prove any part of the Bible is wrong”
Well it would be impossible when one assumes, a priori again, that the Bible is the ultimate truth source. When presented with evidence or sound reason that contradicts the Bible, you conclude that the evidence and reasoning is faulty since the Bible cannot be wrong. Plus, you have a ‘get out of logic free’ card since any portion of the Bible that is impossible can magically be fixed by God stepping in and violating the laws of physics with a miracle. Again, we have circular logic:
1. The Bible contains no errors
2. The Bible describes God as omnipotent
3. Thus God is omnipotent
4. The Bible contains events that violate laws of physics, reason, and/or observable evidence
5. God’s omnipotence accounts for these apparent errors via miracles
1. Thus the Bible contains no errors
Thus any book that describes an omnipotent being can use the same circular logic to defend its accuracy, whether historical or otherwise. For example, if one assumes that the Qur’an is the ultimate truth source (and many people do), than it would be impossible to prove to them that any portion of Qur’an is inaccurate.
The last reason you give is based on prophecy.
â€The Bible is the only book in the world that contains hundreds of detailed propheciesâ€
Funny, I recently heard the exact same claim made by a Muslim about the Qur’an. So the claim that the Bible is the only such book is clearly false. I’m sure there are other holy books that make prophecies besides the Bible and Qur’an as well. Also, how do I know that those prophecies that were fulfilled were not written after the fulfillment? More challenging still, how do I know that there were not many other prophecies that didn’t get fulfilled that were edited out after they failed to be realized? You could appeal to the Bible’s historical accuracy, but you have not established it convincingly. I have other good reasons for doubting the prophecies, but these reasons will suffice for our discussion.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:26 am
buckles956,
“Blessed us he that I find doing my work when I return”
I think you are referring to Matthew 24:36-50 where Jesus is teaching on the Mount of Olives and speaks of being watchful and continually ready for His return. In verses 45-47, He speaks of being faithful and wise servants (christians), whom their master (Jesus) was puttin them in charge of His household (earth). 46) states “It will be agood for the servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47) I tell you the truth, he will put hime in charge of all his possessions.”
This teaching is, while we wait for the “Second Coming”, we are to be busy at God’s work. Which is sharing His Holy Word and living our lives more christlike. We are all sinners and fall short of the Glory of God. But, through the sacrifice of God’s only Son, Jesus, we are cleansed of our sins as long as we chose to believe on Him, ask forgiveness for our sins and repent from our sinful ways. From that point on the Holy Spirit dwells within us and we then have the inner desire to do God’s work.
Oh, let me tell you, that does not mean you no longer have bad thoughts or sin. It means with Bible study, worship, prayer and the desire to have a closer personal relationship with God, you will begin to build your inner strength up against the worldly temptations. It doesn’t mean that all things will come up roses or your life will be a piece of cake from then on……….When you do your Bible reading just look at those that followed Jesus or even foretold of the coming Lord and their lives and deaths.
I can only speak of my own experiences. With all the trials and tribulations that my life has faced, without my faith in God and the promise of Jesus going to prepare a place for us and there we will be with Him. I do not know where I would be now. So, say what you will, my faith is firm in the foundation of Christ Jesus and the teachings of the God breathed Bible. Man put down the Words given to them by God and that is my guide for living. I do my very best to live by It and being human am known to fail at times. Thank You, Jesus for Your willingness to provide a way for our salvation.
As for Akiane being crazy for saying she hears God talk to her, there are millions of people (if they would just think about it with open minds), that hear God speak to them daily. The sad thing about it is the fact most of them are to busy to hear Him or to stubborn to listen. I do not mean the “God told me to kill my baby because he was possessed” people. I mean the people that feel the urging to help someone they see in need but, walk on by because they don’t want to get involved, it would take to much of their time or could be more involved than their just helping the person to a shelter or buying them a coat or a hot meal. God can speak in a still small voice or a loud clap of thunder, there are no limits. Trying to know God’s Holy Bible, which will help us know God’s nature and will can aid us in going where God work is being done and joining Him there. It also given real good instructions about going forth into all nations and sharing the Gospel. That’s kind of hard to do at a computer in areas that have no electricity, indoor plumbing or much of an indoors for that matter. Getting out into areas that have never seen people like yourself and babies run from you because of the color of your hair or sking or the slant of your eyes is very eye opening. The strangest thing about it is when you get there and you start talking to these native country people (so far back in the brush you think you will never get there and stepping out in faith that God will protect you and get you back home in one piece) one of the first things the chief or elder of the village will tell you is: “I knew the creator would send someone to tell us about him one day and explain all these things.” Instinctively they knew about Creator and were waiting patiently for Him to send us to tell them about Him. Their questions are so indepth for such a primitive culture it is overwhelming what God has put in their minds to ponder. Hours go by like minutes and a bond is made. You can say what you will, I praise Jesus for He is the way the truth and the life.
I know I’m off track as you guys put it but, I felt the need to say these things. I did not intend to offend anyone with my previous comment (MAPK)so if I did my apologizes. I’m just stating things from the hip which is how I gathered this forum went. I sign off and let the others continue. I accidentally found this site searching for information about Akiane. I had no intentions of getting into a religious decision. God Blessings to all and I pray all those that are searching find what they seek. Which in my eyes is the only Answer.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:34 am
By the way, That last quote,
“Blessed is he that I find doing my work when I returnâ€
Fits right in there with what Rob said and what Akiane is doing.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Hello sidfaiwu
To prove that God is God I would believe that the best source of information would be the Bible itself.
Before you can believe that God is real you have to believe that the primary source of information that exists about him is real.
The Bible is the work of God. It is not the work of men. This is explained in the scriptures themselves.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God… (2 Timothy 3:16)
“For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holly men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21)
Now the first thing you are going to think is that this does not make God the author. You will say that MAN inspired by God wrote this. How is this different than a book you buy on the shelf that is by someone famous but they have a co-writer. You know, the person who does all the “writing†of the other person’s ideas. I think you get the point. Of course just because the Bible claims to be written by God does not mean that it is. Other proof should follow.
Historical accuracy. This was brushed on (no pun intended Akiane) earlier however the statement was:
“it has always and will always be impossible to prove any part of the Bible is wrongâ€
The historical facts are much easier to prove. We can discuss all day that plants were created before light and that Adam named all 10 – 100 million animals or what ever but we have no way to prove or disprove these things. It just makes more sense to use the things that have accurate documentation. There have been tens or thousands of archaeological finds relating to people, places, and events in the Bible, and not one has contradicted anything in the Scriptures. That’s incredible proof of the Bible’s trustworthiness.
The Bible is the only book in the world that contains hundreds of detailed prophecies. 25 percent of the Bible contains predictions of future events. Every single one of these prophecies has come true in the minutest detail, except for the few remaining prophecies about the return of Jesus Christ to earth. .
Some of the prophecies that came true:
The Book of Micah (5:2) tells us that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem — not in Jerusalem, Atlanta, New York or any other city. And Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Luke2:4-7)
The Book of Zechariah (11:12,13) says that this Messiah will be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver. Jesus was betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Matthew 26:15)
The Book of Psalms (chapter 22) says that this Messiah will be pierced in His hands and His feet. This prophecy is amazing because it was written 800 years before crucifixion was ever used as a means of punishment, yet Jesus was pierced in his hands and feet (Matthew 27:35)
Statistically there is no way man can predict the future with 100 percent accuracy. The only one who can is God.
Understand, I found these facts from other sources. They did not come from my head. I checked their accuracy myself. I am not the expert. I keep reading little by little and listening a lot. I learn as I go. If something does not sound right I check it out. Even when it does sound right I check it out. So should you.
This one I will quote from memory. I don’t know the book or the verse or maybe even the exact words but it goes…
“Blessed is he that I find doing my work when I returnâ€
I may not always get it right but I plan on trying real hard.
May God bless you all.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Well, even those who know they are not perfect, while it may be assumed by others that they believe they are, are nevertheless, in truth, far from pertfect, yet sincerely making a best human effort to be. We all fail. My humble apologies to one and all.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
I’m not so sure that any of the people that are so critical about Akiane’s talent have any children. When my son was 3 & 4 years old he was talented for his age (he could stay in the lines of most of his coloring books and draw pictures that I could evidentally make out what was what). But the talent of this young lady is special, no if ands or buts about it. You can say where you feel the talent comes from but, that is just your opinion, we all have plenty of those. This child for whatever reason has her opinion and beliefs, I find it so interesting that grownups feel a need to attack a child and undermine her talent and belief system just because they either don’t understand it or simply do not have the same belief. As far as her parents using her and her talents to profit, I’d like to see what any of you would be doing if this child was yours or you were in the position to represent her in the market place. Would you truly discourage her from showing her paintings or putting them up for sale? (If you stood to draw a percentage from the sales.) Would you take the money out of your own pocket to protect this child from the possibility of being exploited?
Also their are some of you that have made this site a forum to completely slam one another all with the intent of showing which side has the most morals, good will, proper out look on life, heaven, hell, eternal life or death is death and if religion and faith is so good, why would you want to live another day on earth if heaven is soo great. My only comment to all of this is, those of us that choose to believe call the Creator, God, those that choose not to believe do not. At some point in time your life began in your mother’s womb and when you are born you live your life on earth until your physical death on this earth. Your free will to make your on decisions to believe in God or not is totally up to you. If you choose a relationship with God is between you and God. If you choose to believe there is no God that is totally your free will. What we all need to understand as believers and nonbelievers is that we don’t get to save anyones soul. That, thank you very much, is not what I am here to do as part the Great Commission. I am to go forth and spread the Word. Not twist arms, not get into arguments, not fight over their nonbelief vs my belief, but to spread the Word. It is not for me to man handle people into the faith. I spread the seeds and God will harvest the crop as He sees fit. We all need to allow God to do His thing and for those that have heard the message and know the Word and have turned from it to their own belief or lack thereof, that is between them and their eternal ruler.
My concern is the badgering of this young girl for her willingness to speak out for how she feels and the grown ups that can not give her the rights she is due. I’m sure if she were standing up for what ever they feel is the power that drives them, they would be squeaking or shouting out on her behalf and condemning those that were against her.
Some of you seem to have more than just a few writings on this site. Maybe it would be more productive to write a book or maybe a news article and try to be published and make some money or would that be exploiting your nonbelief?
February 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I can see your point about looking at God from the atheist’s view, but you’ve indicated that it is not your own position. That’s why I din’t take it into account in my comment. But it’s not just numbers that count. Mentally competent adult atheists don’t confuse the theistic term, God, with pookahs, except, perhaps, jocularly.
Respond if you wish, but since you seem to have engaged Buckles in discussion, I’ll just follow along for now, maybe commenting briefly.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Hello Kent and Buckles956,
I’ll first reply to Kent:
You claim that ‘honest mistake’ is a possibility when it comes to imaginary friends, but not when it comes to God. From an atheist’s point of view, the only difference between the two is the number of people who believe in it. You post similarly says that God is not comparable to an imaginary friend because of the number of people who believe in God.
There are a number of ways I can address this distinction, but I will choose just one. Large groups of people (even all people) can also be honestly mistaken. Consider the number of people who believed the world is flat, or the number of people who thought the sun went around the earth in the past. Nearly all of them did. Those people were not crazy nor where they lying. They were honestly mistaken, just like Akiane, her parents, and others who believe God is speaking to her. This is, of course, presuming that her parents are not lying to cash in on their daughter’s talent.
Now I’ll reply to Buckles:
Please, feel free to take your time between posts. I’m very patient. I’d rather you take the time to think about the discussion and post a thoughtful reply than to rush to retort. So far, your posts have been worth the wait.
In your post, you are actually straying away from Intelligent Design towards another classical argument for God’s existence, the Cosmological Argument. Instead of asking, “Why do things appear to be engineered?”, instead you now seem to be asking, “Why is there anything at all instead of nothing?” My snowflake example was to demonstrate that things that appear to be engineered came about by non-intelligent, natural processes. You are correct in that both the matter that makes up the snowflake and the natural processes that produced it beg explanation. Again, “Why is there anything at all (such as matter and natural processes) instead of nothing?â€
The Cosmological Argument is one way that question is answered. There are many versions of this argument, the simplest being the “Unmoved Mover†argument and the “First Cause†argument. The “First Cause†argument is one that you seem to intuitively grasp. Simply put, there must be a ultimate cause for all the matter and natural laws and it is appropriate to call that First Cause “Godâ€.
I am not the best person to address any problems with the Cosmological Argument, since I happened to be swayed by it. Perhaps one of the atheist contributors will post their critiques. I believe it to be a convincing argument in support of the existence of God. But (and this is where are theologies significantly diverge) this argument tells us even less about the nature of God than Intelligent Design. All we know is that there was a First Cause which, by logical necessity, is either self-caused or eternal. We have no way of knowing if the First Cause was/is intelligent, much less if the First Cause is accurately described in any of our ‘holy’ books. As a deist, I believe in the existence of God, but remain agnostic about the nature of God, and remain extremely skeptical about any organization that claims it knows.
PS, given your description of ‘accident’, I can see why my sentence made no sense. It is very interesting, but somewhat beside the point of our current discussion, so let’s leave it alone for now so that we can focus on the nature of God. How’s that sound?
February 26th, 2007 at 6:06 am
Hellow sidfaiwu:
Sorry it takes me so long to get back to you. I get busy and forget to come here. I will try harder to not do this.
You appear to have misinterpreted what I said about a few things.
When I said, “plain and simple, if it’s here, God put it here.â€
By placing your mug on the desk this morning you have taken the thing that God already put here and repositioned it. The mug itself was constructed from whatever substance into a mug by some person or machine however the parts and pieces of both the machine and the mug were created and put on this earth by God. Hence the phrase, “There is nothing new under the sun.â€
The scientific community has a tendency to not understand the simplest of things. They want to “Big Bang†or in your example “Copenhagen interpretation†or what ever to explain things but this never explains where the things that “Banged†or interacted in relation to what ever, came from. Perhaps there have been a series of things “created†so to speak by the collisions of various “things†in the universe however these things are a result of the items already placed by God interacting with one another. The end result is, similar to your mug, nothing new created, just something already here being repositioned or reshaped.
This also addresses your snowflake example.
The intelligent design took place before the snowflake fell into place. The snowflake is the end result of something much more complex than you imagine. I’m not a scientist/meteorologist but consider the complete cycle of things that must take place for a snowflake to happen. No accident and not really as simple as it may appear. Perhaps a great deal of intelligence involved after all.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you say;
“no randomness is incompatible with freewill. If nothing happens accidentally, then neither do our choicesâ€
I’m lost here. I don’t understand the point or the question.
When I said nothing happens accidentally I was not trying to be profound however, now that I think about it more, it is a little.
An “accident†occurs when a series of events are put into place by a person or thing but were it not for this person or thing the “accident†would not happen therefore it is not an accident. Crude, but I think you understand what I am trying to say.
I’m sorry, I do not have time to get to the rest of your question but I will soon. I promise.
God bless you
February 25th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
But adults don’t believe in imaginary friends or speculate on their existence. They do believe in God and speculate on the existence of God. The two don’t seem at all comparable. If Akiane claimed that an imaginary friend told her what to paint, I would imagine everyone would believe she was mistaken.
February 25th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
No more crazy than a child hearing and seeing an imaginary friend. So no, it’s not craziness. Tha