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.
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
Related posts:
- Crazy Mad Angry Minister
- Crazy Muslim Assaults Life-Saving Doctor
- Man Crucifies Himself Every Good Friday
- Abraham II: My Three Sons
- Crazy Priest Jailed For Crucifying Nun
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. That is especially true if the child gets a lot of positive feedback from adults, as Akiane does.
February 24th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
You say that Akiane could be mistaken and not crazy. But to merely imagine hearing the voice of God and seeing visions of Heaven, and yet honestly believe them to be real experiences, Sid, can one say that’s not craziness?
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Hmmmmmmm. This seems a little late on the scene now,
but…
I am not a serious art critic either, but although Akiane’s artistic skill is far beyond her years, that is secondary to her claim to receive messages from God. Agreed? My purpose for stating this is to include and encouage participarion of others, but to keep the discussion focused for everyone’s benefit. If this meets with your approval, say “aye.â€
I also hold to the objective view of universal truth, Sid. I missed that before. It’s good you hear from you Buckles. I guess no one is in a rush here. May I say, I believe you used the word in a different context than I meant it. God exists, for example (used here just for the sake of discussion) apart from anyone’s personal experience. That is, God cannot exist only for the religious.
The terms omniscient, omnipotent are not in versions of the Bible we are familiar with, but their like may be in the Vulgate Bible. I agree that we can only blame ouselves for not reading the Bible, but (as you say you are, we should all be here to learn) think this over: God could make us do only good, but love can only be given freely.
As for formal arguments for the existence of God, I find no proof of things. This is no surprise, but my little book on them, put out by Birmingham University, weighs heavily on the probable existence of God. I guess we’ve established that also to be a secondary issue.
There must be something more to be said for beauty and creativity-of crystal, or what have you-than classifying them as engineering, even broadly.
February 22nd, 2007 at 10:37 am
Hey Buckles956, I’m glad you’re back.
“First of all I would like to remind you that I do not possess a high caliber education and that perhaps I am out gunned in some areas here.â€
Everyone is capable of philosophy, Buckles. All that is required is the ability to think rationally and communicate your ideas. You’ve already demonstrated that you can do both. Please give yourself the credit you deserve as a thinking being.
Allow me to introduce new terminology into the discussion. Things appear to be engineered because they are complex. This is purely a linguistic convenience, since it allows for easier comparisons of different gradations. It is much easier to type ‘more complex’ than ‘more highly engineered’ or ‘better-ordered’, ‘better designed’, ‘more artistic’, and ‘better created’ (that last one, particularly is a mind-bender. I actually think that ‘creation’ should be handled separately from the other three, as we’ll see later). I do this because things in nature do express different grades of engineered quality.
What you are assuming in your rebuttal is that complexity is top-down only. That is, you assume that complexity can only be created by something more complex, an intelligence. My counter example of a crystal demonstrates that complexity spontaneously arise from lower levels of complexity. It is a “bottom-up” explanation of complexity. Ice crystals, such as snow flakes, are more complex than water. The water molecules are well-ordered whereas water molecules are not ordered at all.
Water molecules, themselves, are the spontaneous ordering of oxygen and hydrogen molecules. Oxygen is a more complex element than hydrogen that was built up from hydrogen via fusion in stars. Stars themselves formed spontaneously from random hydrogen molecules via gravitation.
So, as I have demonstrated, this highly complex snow flake, which exhibit well-orderedness, design, and art came to being from simpler and simpler, less well-ordered objects. No intelligence was involved at any step along the way. It is for this reason that the Intelligent Design argument fails.
I hope that clears up my refutation of the first premise.
If you’d like to claim that the first objects in the universe were the result of an intelligence, you can. But a bunch of (apparently) random, simple atomic particles don’t exhibit what most people would describe as being well-ordered, designed, or artistic. Being ‘created’ is a different story. If you’d like to claim that these particles were created, that is a separate argument, the Cosmological Argument; known more primitively as the “unmoved mover†argument.
“To put it plainly it is ridicules for us to believe that these things happen accidentally.â€
I happen to agree with you here, but there are some very intelligent and knowledgeable people who disagree with us. In particular, physicists who adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, first suggested by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. Also, no randomness is incompatible with freewill. If nothing happens accidentally, then neither do our choices.
“Plain and simple, if it’s here, God put it here.â€
Really? I believe that I am the one who placed my mug on my desk this morning. That is, as we have discussed, unless we have no freewill. Then I had no real choice as to whether to place my mug where it is. Also being ‘plain and simple’ doesn’t mean something is also ‘correct’ or ‘true’. The ‘plain and simple’ explanation of the sun’s daily travel through the sky is that the sun moves around the earth. The theory of gravity is a more complex explanation (we live on a ball that is spinning, held in orbit far away from a massive star), yet it is the correct one.
“The term biological intelligence confuses me a bit.â€
I’m sorry. I purposely used ‘biological intelligence’ for technical reasons. I should have just used ‘human intelligence’. I only used ‘biological’ just in case we are not the only intelligent creatures in the universe. Please re-read the my last post substituting ‘human’ for ‘biological’ and it probably would make a lot more sense.
Finally, you still did not address why we must assume ‘God’ is the one responsible for the order, design, art, and creativeness in the universe. Why not ‘gods’ or some other intelligence entirely? Also, your argument still comes nowhere near to proving the Christian concept of God. Isn’t Allah just as likely as a choice for Grand Engineer? Or some other, completely as of yet unknown Grand Engineer?
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:27 am
By the way, for those involved in this discussion. I am not offended by comments made by anyone here nor have I intended to offend any person by my comments. I found this discussion interesting and felt I could learn something here and I know that if someone is turned toward Christ at the same time nothing is lost. It is difficult sometimes to express your thoughts in text in a way that that everyone will accept in the manner in which it is intended. Some by their very nature have a tendency to be more abrasive than others however it may be unintentional.
God Bless
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:04 am
It seems I have stirred some interest. First of all I would like to remind you that I do not possess a high caliber education and that perhaps I am out gunned in some areas here. I have an opinion and a belief. I believe in God, worship him and believe that often times people try to hard to read way more into the Bible than what is there. For instance I do not believe the words, omniscient, or omnipotent appear anywhere in the Bible. Please correct me if I am wrong. I will agree that most people who believe in God believe that God has both attributes.
sidfaiwe,
I am a bit confused as to your explanation of the faults of my argument.
You say:
1, “Everything that appears to be engineered has an intelligence that engineered itâ€. I will do so via counter example(s). There are many things that appear to be engineered which are not. The most common example given is crystals. Which crystal, ice crystal, diamond, etc, is not important. What is important is that crystals are well-ordered atoms that are widely considered to be beautiful (artistic) and has the appearance of design. They are created by non-intelligent, purely natural forces. In other words, crystals appear to be engineered, but are created by non-intelligent means.
The line, in which you say crystals are well ordered atoms, seems to disagree with this and it points out that all though many things seem to have no intelligence behind their design it is that intelligence of design that makes them possible in the first place. Were it not for the blue prints of God so to speak, nothing would exist. EVERY THING no matter how random it may appear to us maintains the Creation, Design, Art and Order principles. This is what makes anything we see, what it is. To put it plainly it is ridicules for us to believe that these things happen accidentally.
Something else to keep in mind. You use this phrase;
We know what about God? Well, we know God exists and engineered some objects in nature.
God did not just engineer some objects in nature, he created all things. There is a common saying among Christians, “There is nothing new under the sun.†This is because ALL THINGS on this planet and in this universe for that matter were placed here by God. We have moved them around, thrown them together, and reshaped them significantly however God put them here from the start.
It’s like the joke about the scientists that confronted God and told him that they have figured out everything and that they did not need him anymore. God, knowing better, said fine but before I go let’s have a little contest to make sure you are right. God said “We will make a man from scratch, just like I did when I created Adam.†God reached down to earth and gathered a hand full of dirt as did the scientists. At that point God said, “Oh no, you’ll have to get your own dirt.â€
Plain and simple, if it’s here, God put it here. The term biological intelligence confuses me a bit. These things that happen biologically do not take place on their own. They were created by the same God. The reason why this term confuses me is because it suggests that plants or other organisms somehow think of becoming what they are. Plants grow because God created them to do what they do. Kinda neat, the whole thing about plants releasing oxygen. (Certainly not an accident) The cells in my body or that of another living thing perform the functions they perform because this is what God created them to do. Take any of the components necessary to “Complete†anything on earth, put them in a bag, and “Big Bang†them all you want and you will end up with a bag full of nothing. There is no thing on earth that is here by accident. Find any item you wish, even the dirt you stand on and it has a use and even that thing is not a random mistake. There is no thing on this earth that is useless. Even our dying bodies, if allowed to return to the earth, will feed the soil and insects and animal life around it. How clever. I wonder if this is where the omniscient thing comes in.
Hello Kent:
I did not mean to wait this long to get to your post but I put this in here to end mine and I think it answers your question.
Bottom line is that the truth is not the truth until it is experienced. It is not likely that God will present himself in person to clear all this up. This is why he gave us the book. This is why we are supposed to read the book. This is why we are supposed to study the book. If we don’t, who do we have to blame but ourselves. Not God. True, he could make us do the right things and he could make us love him but then what good would that be?
Thanks for listening and may God bless all of you.
February 21st, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Devon certainly didn’t find one here ;)
February 21st, 2007 at 8:13 pm
I am interested. I may comment about it later, but Buckles brought it up. I don’t want to intrude on anyone’s space. It’s a lot to think about, anyway.
I wonder if the one called Devon found an honest art critic’s opinion on Akiane’s work.
February 21st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Hello Kent,
I’m disappointed. I was hoping you’d have an opinion on the Teleological Argument since you seemed interested in my response to it. Ah well. Hopefully Buckles will have a response if he/she is still following this.
To answer your question, I belief that there is an objective truth. How about you?
February 21st, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Buckles may yet provide some useful light on the discussion. I don’t want to step into anyone else’s shoes, so I’d prefer that you discuss teleology with him/her. But I’ll ask a question. Is truth objective, or is it whatever one makes of it?
February 21st, 2007 at 10:45 am
Hey Kent,
Ok, let’s discuss Buckles post (#104). You can see my original response to Buckles in comment #106.
His/Her argument was basically a form of Intelligent Design (ID), classically known as the Teleological Argument. Buckle’s version starts by stating that things in nature seem to be created, designed, artistic, and well ordered. For convenience, I combined these four traits into one term, engineered, since a well engineered object is designed, created, well-ordered, and often artistic. So here is a condensed version of Buckle’s ID argument:
1. Everything that appears to be engineered has an intelligence that engineered it.
2. There are objects in nature that biological intelligence did not engineer.
3. From 1 and 2, some intelligence other than biological engineered those objects.
4. The only other form of intelligence other than biological is God.
5. By 3 and 4 God created those objects.
6. Thus God exists.
Like in my previous response, I’ll start with what this argument tells us about the nature of God. So, again, suppose this argument works (it does not, I’ll cover why later). We know what about God? Well, we know God exists and engineered some objects in nature. This does not guarantee that God is omnipotent. We only know that God has enough power to engineer any object in nature. This does not tell us that God is omniscient. We only know that God has enough knowledge to engineer any object in nature. We do not know that God cares about humans. For all we know, God’s most marvelous engineering feat might be a cleaver trinary star system that has five planets in stable orbit in one of the 100 billion other Galaxies God created. Or maybe it is another biological intelligence on one of those five planets that is far superior to us. We don’t know that God desires worship, receives our prayers, answers them (sometimes), engineered everything in seven days, chose a favorite people (Jews), packed God’s son into one of those creations, flooded one of God’s billions of planets, authored or inspired a book (or two), or any one of the multitude of things that Christianity claims about God.
In short, even if Buckle’s argument were sound, it comes far short of demonstrating that Christianity is true.
Now as to why the argument is flawed in the first place. As with any deductive argument, all that it takes to render it invalid is the successful refutation of one of its premises. I will refute two of them. I start with premise 1, “Everything that appears to be engineered has an intelligence that engineered itâ€. I will do so via counter example(s). There are many things that appear to be engineered which are not. The most common example given is crystals. Which crystal, ice crystal, diamond, etc, is not important. What is important is that crystals are well-ordered atoms that are widely considered to be beautiful (artistic) and has the appearance of design. They are created by non-intelligent, purely natural forces. In other words, crystals appear to be engineered, but are created by non-intelligent means. Thus premise 1 is false, everything that appears to be engineered does not have an intelligence that engineered it. Crystals are only one example of spontaneous complexity found in nature.
The next premise I’d like to refute is 4, “The only other form of intelligence other than biological is God.†Why must we assume God? Why not some lesser engineer? It is even more likely that there was not a singular intelligence involved. Our most complex engineered objects are not engineered by one individual, but by groups of intellects. Objects in the universe which are even more complex suggest that multiple intelligences collaborated to create that object. In other words, the Teleological argument does not preclude polytheism.
In summary, Buckle’s argument for the existence of God, if it were successful, is in adequate at demonstrating the validity of Christian Theology. At best, it would have proven that God exists, but we would have to remain agnostic about most of the nature of God. Worse yet, the argument is not valid in and of itself because of the illegitimacy of two of its premises. Therefore, Buckle’s argument fails even at its most basic task, proving the existence of God.
February 20th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Discretion is never unnecessary. Discussing certain types of subject matter in a cavalier fashion, as you have done here twice is indiscretion, and belongs, if anywhere, in the salloon.
My question didn’t miss the point. You brought up the masculinity of God. No one else did.
Buckles’s says “First of all, if you will ever believe that there is a God….â€
Can this not apply to an atheist or an agnosic? You finish your comment with the apparent afterthought, “supposing It exists.â€
As for philosophy and theology, Buckles may provide something to enlighten us all, re-ensuing another real discussion.
February 20th, 2007 at 7:12 pm
“”I took the opinion of MAPK and yourself seriously and promised not to offend your delicate senses with anatomy references. “”
subtle…
I thought we discussed the point that she could be obviously mistaken way at the top of the page, but got carried away, some flaming followed, things quiet down and a real discussion ensues, often leading to the first mentioned explanation being semi-accepted.
As is quite often the case on this website.
February 20th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Hello again Kent,
Discretion is unnecessary, if correct terminology is being used. And why else would you not want it discussed if it is not considered dirty? True, fundamentalists are not the only ones who mistakenly think sex should be a taboo subject, but they were the source of this attitude. Anyway, I promised not to bring it up again, so it shouldn’t be a problem, right?
Since your question missed the point, I won’t say anymore about it. I’m not interested in weather God’s masculinity is literal or metaphorical. The point is that Christians claim they know much more about God other than the essential three MAPK and I were talking about.
“Akiane says God talks to her. I don’t think she’s lying or that she’s crazy.” I see you’ve read (or at least talked to someone who has read) The Case for Christ. I’ve read it. It’s an okay book with terrible logic. The choices you offer me, “God does talk to her”, “she’s crazy”, and “she’s lying”. This forms a false trilemma. It neglects a likely fourth explanation, she is honestly mistaken.
“As for religion, Buckles may have whatever it is you’re looking for.”
Read comment #106 for my response to Buckles. Also, I’m not looking for a religion, I am searching for answers. The search is what is important for me. It is what makes me a philosopher. I find religion distasteful for many reasons not the least of which is that it claims it already has all of the answers.
“It pays to talk less, pay attention to people’s opinions sometimes, and respond with civility.”
I agree. I assume that you typed this because you do not think I’ve been practicing it. Fair enough. I know I can get rather conceited at times and it’s worth being reminded of that now and then. But I took the opinion of MAPK and yourself seriously and promised not to offend your delicate senses with anatomy references. I also gave a thoughtful reply to Buckles that relates hes/her argument for God’s existence to the nature of God. Am I not considering opinions? How is this not civil?
February 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
You don’t have to be a fundamentalist to have discretion Sid.
And you didn’t answer the question. Do you also insist that ships have womens’ body parts just because we call them “she?†As far as I can make things out, no one but you has said anything God or man has is dirty.
Akiane says God talks to her. I don’t think she’s lying or that she’s crazy. As for religion, Buckles may have whatever it is you’re looking for. It pays to talk less, pay attention to people’s opinions sometimes, and respond with civility.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:04 am
Oh no! Children might be learning the correct terms for human anatomy! They’ll be scarred for life!!!
I should of known better than to even suggest a hint that human sexuality existed amongst Christian Americans. They still have Puritan hangovers and are obsessed with keeping sexuality a secret from Children and out of public discussion (has it worked yet?). Thus, mentioning a sexual organ caused many of them to focus on that instead of what actually was being said.
Maybe this declaration will put them at ease (Sid clears his throat): I will henceforth refrain from mentioning sexuality and sexual anatomy when talking with Fundamentalists unless absolutely unavoidable. It is my hope that this will enable discussions to continue without interruptions from those who falsely believe that any mention human sexuality is dirty.
Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion of the inconsistencies of Christian Theology, Kent? Or, if you feel that we have strayed too far off topic, do you have a comment about the article?
February 20th, 2007 at 9:32 am
If one can speak of ships in the feminine without imposing body parts on them, why not God in the masculine? Isn’t it just tradition or convenience?
Let’s remember that this is a public forum committed to a young girl who may be reading it.
February 20th, 2007 at 5:10 am
This is simply incredible……..I can’t believe the talent…..I’ve been taking piano off and on for a few years and this child blows me away after a few months..
But the art..my God…the art….
I would like to find an honest art critic and get their opinions…granted I am just a lay person but I can’t believe this??
February 19th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Thanks for your contributions, Buckles 956.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Hello Buckles956,
I must apologize for never responding to your first post. MAPK’s posts (up until the end) were so interesting that I did largely ignore other posters. I promise you that it was not out of malice or snobbish disregard, it was just that my attention was drawn else where. I’ll at least respond to your most recent post and start to make amends.
Thanks for your thoughts. You do, however, make one incorrect assumption. Since you notice that I do not believe in the Christian God, you assume that I am an atheist. If you actually read my post, all I am pointing out is that Christians are wrong about the nature of God. I never even touched on the existence of God.
While there are flaws in the argument for God’s existence you provide, let’s ignore those, for the time being. What does this tell us about the nature of God? Well, as you point out, it tells us that God is a creator, designer, artist, and orderer. I will simplify these four traits down to one word: engineer. So we notice that everything in the universe seems to be engineered. So we know that God is an Engineer. This is a far cry from proving that the Engineer is the God of the Bible. Couldn’t the Engineer just as easily be the God of the Qur’an or Vishwakarma, the Hindu god of architecture and engineering? Or, even more likely, this Great Engineer could be nearly completely unknown to us and described in none of our books.
In this discussion, I’ve been less interested about arguments for and against God’s existence and more interested in the nature of God, supposing It exists.
February 19th, 2007 at 9:20 am
while it may not be aimed at me, i’ll respond anyway.
what if all of those things (i’ll use the more well known “watch in the desert”) contain within themselves the instruction for and a method of self-replication and change then why does it have to be created?
When sand falls in an hourglass, the grains land in a certain slope, did someone order them? no, it was merely gravity.
as for design and art, i’ll only say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
February 19th, 2007 at 3:29 am
Hey: sidfaiwu
Proving that there is a God
First of all, if you will ever believe that there is a God, you will have to pay attention when people tell you things. Yes I know that I was not invited to this debate however I thought this was a public forum. I just thought I would try to help in what little way I could. It seems that you are in desperate need of this information and I would not feel right by not sending it to you.
I suppose as a Christian one of the questions that would be asked the most is “How can you prove there is a Godâ€
I read this recently and it is probably the best explanation I have found.
Proving to the lost that there is a God is not difficult, especially since Romans 1:19 tells us that “that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.â€
One of the basic proofs for God has four points:
1) Creation
2) Design
3) Art
4) Order
(I touched on this in my post but you missed or perhaps ignored it. I was much briefer then but I thought you would get it.)
As you walk along and see the things around you, cars, trucks, buildings, watches, cell phones, and so on you know that they had a creator. . For each one of these things, buildings, watches, and so on you also know that it had a designer. When you see a work of art you know that there is an artist. When you see order, like twenty Coke cups in a row, you know there is an orderer.
So when you look around the universe, what do you see? You see CREATION, DESIGN, ART, and ORDER. If every other thing has a creator, a designer, an artist, and an orderer behind it, why would you not think that there is a Creator, a Designer, an Artist, and an Orderer behind this universe?
By the way, What evidence have you found that proves that there is no God?
May God bless you sidfaiwu
February 18th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
God has bestown upon woman not one, but three prerogatives, for what reason, I have yet to discern.
1. To change her mind as often as she wishes, at the drop of a hat.
2. to turn anything a man says upside-down.
3. To always have the last word.
Someone talk about Akiane.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Thanks for sharing, but I’ve never been a fan of poetry nor am I any good at understanding its meaning. Thus, I’m sorry to report, Mr. Vanwarmer’s poem does not answer my question nor does it fix the inconsistencies in Christian theology.
February 18th, 2007 at 10:23 am
“Where will you go when all the things you know have gone?
When all your anchors rust away, will you hold on?
We need to find a place to stand,
A place with firmer ground,
Or we’ll be washed away if we’re not falling free.â€
–Randy Vanwarmer
February 17th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Hello MAPK LOTGRE,
Agony points to why I made the ‘testicles’ comment. Christians apply a description of God far and beyond the essential three; omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent. The Bible describes God as male (hence testicles), angry, vengeful, jealous, proud, forgiving, deceitful, prayer-answering (sometimes), miracle working, and a whole lot more. I find it interesting that you describe God, at one point, as “that which exists eternally, is the original cause of everything else in existence, in the past and present, and in which only goodness dwells” (emphasis mine), yet you describe something that God possesses as lewd.
Despite all these ‘extra’ attributes of God, I still maintain that the Christian God cannot be all of the essential three because of the existence of Hell.
“To my understanding, eternal condemnation in Hell, in itself, is not punishment, but merely the consequence of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.” It matters not why people end up in Hell or Hell’s purpose, it only matters that people do and that God does nothing to end (or even relieve) their eternal suffering. I’ll change my analogy then. God allowing people to suffer in Hell is like a parent leaving their child with an abuser who beats the child to unconsciousness everyday for stealing one piece of candy.
“I take the Bible as truth, just because, when I take time to work out the questions logically, the answers do make sense…” The whole point I am trying to make is that the Christian God does not make any logical sense.
God is…
Omniscient - thus God knows people are suffering eternally
Omnipotent - thus God has the power to end the suffering
All-loving - thus God would end the suffering out of love
In others words, there would be no Hell, or at least no permanent Hell. Which do Christians have wrong, the nature of God or the nature of Hell?
I’d rather stay on this topic rather then describe why your ’spiritual realm’ is no different from ‘the land of the gnomes’, if that’s alright with you.
February 17th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
What I mean to say is adjectives in the Bible describe God as He actually is, not merely as we think he is supposed to be. God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. I recognize, of course, that this pre-supposes the Bible to be divinely inspired, but it is my position. When we disuss concepts of God, on the other hand, that is, how we can comprehend what we call the divine power, the creator of the universe, etc., then, in order to understand more ably, we assess what attributes must constitute such a power; ie infiniteness, personality, and so on. It seems to me that people who cannot accept God as described in the Bible, or who question the existence of any God, are imposing their own limitations on how God must be. “How can a good God send people to Hell?†some ask. The Bible does not say God sends people to Hell. It’s a typical misconception, similar to blaming the teacher for ones own failing grades. Repentance is all.
I have read Alice In Wonderland two or three times and found, through reading between the lines, there is much sense to be learned in it about the human condition.
February 17th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
I don’t know about you, but from what I remember there quite a few things said about god in the Bible. so -supposing for a moment that we’re all christians- we can say that god is supposed to be (list of adjectives from the bible)
Substitute the words “pass the test” with “obey his command.” And yes I read your Bible(or the Arabic translation thereof) and must say it’s just as believable as the Quran(or Alice in Wonderland.)
February 16th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
To: Agony,
I don’t think it can be said that God, Himself, is supposed to be anything, based on human standards. But when we discuss the concept of God–a Supreme
Being–it is necessary to define our terms, even for those who say there is no God.
God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to provide them the choice of showing Him their love and honour through obedience. It was a command, not a test.
I would suggest you read it for yourself, and then maybe go discuss it with your priest.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
To: sidfaiwu
Sorry, I accidentally re-submitted an old comment. But my reply to your last comment follows beginning with:
The term “God,” with a capital “G”….
February 16th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I think you misunderstood what sidfaiwu said.
“God”(yes with capital G) is supposed to be:
1. All knowing
2. All loving
3. All powerful
Now, by watching how “God” chose to let humans live on earth, you get to the conclusion that “He” can’t be all three of these things. He might be two of them though.
And I hope you asked your priest about this “god didn’t know if Adam and Eve would pass the test or not” because it sure is the first time I heard this version of the story.
February 16th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
In using the term “God†and attributing divinity to
“God-ness,†I mean nothing less than that which exists eternally, is the original cause of everything else in existence, in the past and present, and in which only goodness dwells. Nothing less than this description, as far as I can see, adequately defines the term. If you mean anything less than that by it, then, clearly, my God, who reveals Himself in the Bible, is greater than your god. Perhaps we have been discussing two separate concepts diety.
What is faith but hope based on evidence of things not
seen? That is, things not yet witnessed first hand. I see no reason why it cannot be said that God demonstrated faith in Abraham’s obedience to His command to sacrifice his son, Isaac, or that Noah would build the ark, or indeed, that Christ Himself, would endure the cross. I think God has fore-seeable, not yet realized hopes for His kingdom, which He means to attain through our freely-given co-operation and for us, ultimately, to enjoy with Him. Attributing omniscience to God simply means he knows all that is knowable. What sense does it make to say that God must know not only all that is, but also all that is not? Until Adam and Eve committed sin, for example, God could not have known with certainty that they would do so, and surely must have been hopeful that they would not spoil His perfect creation. Otherwise, it would appear, we are all predestinated to a fallen world, and thus, deceived by God.
To say that God holds all truth certainly makes complete sense, but proof–conclusive evidence of a proposed idea–is not an attribute of anyone or anything. Nor is it specifically synonymous with knowledge, all of which, we seem to agree, God does hold; but not as an attribute. I say that there is no place for proof in spiritual contexts simply because God does not provide for it. On our behalf, He only povides for faith; the opposite of proof. If you disagree that proof of the spiritual realm is not available to us, then show me conclusive evidence of the existence of the invisible realm the Gospel-writers proclaimed Jesus ascended to. Then I will no longer need faith to please God. Or prove that Akiane is or is not led by God to paint what she does. To say that God has proof of something is to say that he has something yet to be proven. On the contrary. What He says is so; because He is God. What need in Heaven or Earth has He for proof of anything?
The term “God,†with a capital “G,†desribes that which is all-loving, all-knowing—all good. If what you call God does not meet that desdription, then it is something less than that which it does describe, and which, therefore is the true God. To me, no other explanation seems simpler than that to understand by anyone who is sincerely interested in knowing truth about who or what God may be. But some I talk to have admitted that they were really running away from truth, at first, denying the right answers to questions when they were readily available to them. If the Bible is true, then God, as described therein is Just, whether we as individuals have made sense of His justice exhaustively or not.
To my understanding, eternal condemnation in Hell, in itself, is not punishment, but merely the consequence of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. Just as there are various rewards awaiting us in Heaven, I expect there are just and varying degress of punishment in Hell–not necessarily eternal punishment; but cetainly eternal separation from Heaven. The purpose of punishment, after all, is to correct wrong behaviour. What good would be learned from punishment if there were no end to it? But in the end, truth is truth whether it comes from the Bible or anywhere else. But whatever is true, I believe can be understood when we ask the right questions and freely acknowledge the answers when they come to us. I take the Bible as truth, just because, when I take time to work out the questions logically, the answers do make sense; not exhausive, but reasonable sense. Remember that it claims to talk about a realm which, for now, is only known to us by faith. Patience and perseverance is all. If you really take the writers of the Bible for a conglomeration of ignorant or scheming feather-brains, then I would say just…read it again. And to put your mind at rest regarding God’s awareness of souls in Hell, read Palm 139.
By “faith,†I mean a belief, requiring trust, in anything not knowable until it comes to pass.
Your definition and Sam Harris’s definition of faith can be of no possible use to anyone except as a mockery of any definition with some meaning. If the spiritual realm doesn’t exist, then nothing much really matters in the long run, anyway. But if it does exist, do you not want to know whatever is knowable about it—just in case the Bible turns out to be inspired by God? If not, why not?
I cannot fathom a guess as to why someone would bring down the level of discussion by making lewd referenes to human anatomy or comparing conclusive evidence of gnomes in the forest to questions on the meaning of existence. What consequence could that possibly be to anyone? Such absurdity certainly bears no relevence to eternal truth, whereas matters of spirituality certainly do, and have been rendered fanciful only very recently in modern philosophy, since Friedrich Nietzsche boldly prounounced God dead.
There is nothing knowable which God cannot know, but because He bestows free will to us, He willingly forfeits fore-knowledge of some of our actions and decisions. We choose freely to follow Him or not, for example. He does not decide for us before hand whether we will trust Him. This is a matter which some Christians have difficulty with, I believe, for the most part, because of revered theologians, whose tendency it was to give priority to God’s mystery rather than on the Bible making real sense.
To study, research, or examnine means to acquire knowledge. To prove something, means you already have the available knowledge to present as proof. Check your dictionary.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Hello MAPK LOTGRE,
“clearly, my God … is greater than your god.” Ah, the phrase that caused many a war throughout history. You misunderstand. I merely say that the Christian God cannot be all-good or all-loving. The reason is simple. Supposing ‘He’ is omnipotent and omniscient, he knows that some of his creations are subjected to extreme and eternal torture in Hell and has the power to stop the suffering. Since ‘He’ knows of the suffering and does nothing about it, ‘He’, clearly, does not love those poor soles. Nor is ‘He’ all good, since such punishment is an affront to our shared morality. It would be like beating a child to unconsciousness daily for stealing one piece of candy. We are definitely talking about two separate concepts of deity.
“What is faith but hope based on evidence of things not seen?” By “things not seen”, I think you mean “things not seen, sensed, or detected in any way”. Such “things” would not be evidence. Personally, I like Sam Harris’s definition: “Faith is nothing more than the permission religious people give one another to keep believing things strongly when reasons fail.” I tend to think of faith as “belief in anything that one has no reason nor evidence for.”
Anyway, I still maintain that an omniscient God could not have faith. Are you suggesting that your omniscient God did not know if Abraham would be obedient? Not knowing anything would violate ‘His’ omniscience. By the way, if you do claim that God is incapable of predicting human behavior, then perhaps ‘He’ does not know that ‘His’ creations are suffering in Hell. Thus God could still be all-loving and all-good but ‘He’ would not be omniscient.
“If you disagree that proof of the spiritual realm is not available to us, then show me conclusive evidence.” I do not suppose that proof of ‘the spiritual realm’ is available to us. Not because faith is required to reveal to us that the spiritual realm exists, but because the spiritual realm does not exist.
This would be like me claiming that gnomes live in the forest. But we never see any evidence of them because they are perfectly adapted to hiding their existence from humans. Thus proof of their existence is not available to us. If you disagree that proof of the gnomish realm is not available to us, then show me conclusive evidence.
You also claim that God does not possess ‘proof’ as part of ‘His’ being (though a you seem to think ‘He’ has testicles). You are right about one thing, proof is a means to acquire knowledge, not knowledge itself. But ‘proof’ was the word I used because it was the word you used when we started this conversation. I would rather use ‘reason’, that which proof relies on. Thus I would now revise my claim: Reason is superior to faith, by your own reasoning, since God posses reason and does not posses faith. That is, unless you now claim that God is not rational.
February 15th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Just as a note of interest, according to a survey broadcast on British television two years ago or so, Nigeria was reported to have the highest rate of Church attendance. And I call attention to the sixty per-cent majority of Christian church-goers only to turn a positive light on an implied bleak portrayal of Christians. But frankly, I tend to steer away from statistical reports, since they can be, and more often than not, I perceive, are conveniently manipulated to support a given position. I think you are right in saying it depends on who is counted, and also on who is counting, and for what purpose. I am really more interested in knowing bare truth about existence and the meaning of life. Than what the world at large thinks.
In using the term “God†and attributing divinity to
“God-ness,†I mean nothing less than that which exists eternally, is the original cause of everything else in existence, in the past and present, and in which only goodness dwells. Nothing less than this description, as far as I can see, adequately defines Godhood. If you mean anything less than that by it, then, clearly, my God, who reveals Himself in the Bible, is greater than your god. Perhaps we have been discussing two separate concepts of diety.
What is faith but hope based on evidence of things not
seen? That is, things not yet witnessed first hand. I see no reason why it cannot be said that God demonstrated faith in Abraham’s obedience to His command to sacrifice his son, Isaac, or that Noah would build the ark, or indeed, that Christ Himself, would endure the cross. I think God has fore-seeable, not yet realized hopes for His kingdom, which He means to attain through our freely-given co-operation and for us, ultimately, to enjoy with Him. Attributing omniscience to God simply means he knows all that is knowable. What sense does it make to say that God must know not only all that is, but also all that is not? Until Adam and Eve committed sin, for example, God could not have known with certainty that they would do so, and surely must have been hopeful that they would not spoil His perfect creation. Otherwise, it would appear, we are all predestinated to a fallen world, and thus, deceived by God.
To say that God holds all truth certainly makes complete sense, but proof–conclusive evidence of a proposed idea–is not an attribute of anyone or anything. Nor is it specifically synonymous with knowledge, all of which, we seem to agree, God does hold; but not as an attribute. I say that there is no place for proof in spiritual contexts simply because God does not provide for it. On our behalf, He only povides for faith; the opposite of proof. If you disagree that proof of the spiritual realm is not available to us, then show me conclusive evidence of the invisible realm the Gospel-writers proclaimed Jesus ascended to. Then I will no longer need faith to please God. Or prove that Akiane is or is not led by God to paint what she does. To say that God has proof of something is to say that he has something yet to be proven. On the contrary. What He says is so; BECAUSE He is God. What need in Heaven or Earth has He for proof of anything?
February 15th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Damn Sid. I think that in the logician’s world is what we call, by purely technical terms, Oh Snap.
February 15th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Hello, again, MAPK LOTGRE,
I have time to respond to the rest of your post. Ok, let’s suppose that God is infinitely good and so forth (though I see no reason one should believe this). You are basically saying that any attribute of the divine is superior to that which is not of the divine. Am I correct in understanding what you were getting at with your example of ‘good’ being superior to ‘evil’? You then go on to claim that ‘faith’ is similarly superior to ‘proof’. But this argument fails since ‘faith’ is not an attribute of the Christian God. God is all-knowing and thus ‘He’ would require no faith. Furthermore, God does possess proof. Indeed, he posses all the universe’s proofs, being omniscient. Thus by your own reasoning, ‘proof’ is superior to ‘faith’ since ‘proof’ is an attribute of God and ‘faith’ is not.
February 15th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Hello MAPK LOTGRE,
I am aware that most (60%) Christians are church-going. I just don’t think that many of those read the Bible nearly as much as you and/or the ones you know do. Growing up in a Baptist church, we too were encouraged to read the Bible regularly. Less than half the congregation actually did. Also, the Catholic (who make up one-third of American Christians) are not typically encouraged to read the Bible, at least not in my experience.
By the way, I agree with you. Many, if not all, of that 40% represent ‘nominal’ Christians. I was including them in my claim. I’m sure that most non-nominal Christians know more about the content and, perhaps, less of the context than I. Thus, as usual, population stats all depend on who we count.
I, too, am curious about the world wide stats. This is a website that I frequently reference for stats on religion. I’ll see if I can find actual numbers when I have a little more time, but my guess is that fewer non-American Christians read the Bible. I think this for a couple of reasons. First, I think that Catholicism makes up a larger percentage of Christians outside of America. I also think that they are less likely to be Bible-thumpers. Also, literacy rates are lower, especially in more religious countries. Finally, poverty in many developing countries prohibit ownership and even access to Bibles.
Anyway, my comment about knowing more about Christianity than most of it’s self-proclaimed adherents was only made in response to someone who was attacking me as opposed to what I was writing. Usually, I am able to ignore such barbs and stick to content. This time I failed and ended up making a very egotistical statement. However, I enjoyed the stats discussion because it is of interest to me, as much of religion is.
I’m hoping to have time a bit later today to address the rest of your post.
February 15th, 2007 at 3:18 am
This looked like a lot of fun so I thought I would join in. First off I will tell you that I do not possess a high dollar education as it might appear that some who have contributed do but I suppose there are those who do and are not much better equipped.
I’ve go to say I felt compelled to comment after reading sifaiwu’s comment.
“It has always and will always be impossible to prove any part of the Bible wrongâ€
“Oh what fun? Let’s see:
Genesis:
- God separated the light from the dark before creating light producing objects such as the sun and stars.
Well, first of all Genesis says
3 And God said, Let there be light:and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
You say he separated the light from the dark before creating light producing objects such as the sun and stars.
Now, remember, we are talking about God. I suppose he could do it any way he wished. It appears that each time a non Christian wants to prove God does not exist the first thing they try do is try to make him human and place limits on him and say he could not have done this or that because it is not logical or possible. Not true, God is God and he can do as he wishes. So when he separated the light from the darkness it does not matter that there were no sun or stars. If God said there was light, then there was light. Who cares where it came from.
Then you say: - Plants were created before the sun, thus before photosynthesis could take place
What’s your point here? How is this an error? So what if the plants had to wait a few days for some sun. Remember, the whole process only took 6 days. But then again there was light in the beginning. So what difference does it make?
Then you say: - God had Adam name all the animals; all 10-100 million of them!
Is that how many there were when the earth was created? I was not there so I sure don’t know but I do know that even in my short lifetime breeders of domestic animals have developed new breads and thereby increasing the numbers of different animals on the earth. Are you referring to each animal or each species? Does it really matter because again we don’t know how many there were then.
You say: - Giants walked the earth. Why no fossil record of these huge humans?
How big was a giant in those days. I suppose to a man who is normally 5’5†tall, a man who is 6’6†may appear as a giant. Several groups of people perished in different ways. Some were consumed by volcanoes. Not much of a fossil record there.
You say; - No plants could have survived the great flood. Thus there would have been no food for the herbivores. Also, the carnivores would have made at least on species of prey animals extinct with every two feedings. All land life would be dead in just one generation.
True, no plants would have survived, this was the plan for the flood, to destroy everything, however again you place your human limitations on God. You somehow assume that this would occur and God would be helpless to take care of what he has created. How silly. God, being the creator of all things, could, if he so choose, reestablish all plant life in the wink of an eye and thereby all the herbivores would have more than enough to eat. Is that what happened? I don’t know, I was not there and it appears that it is not really that important because it is not in the book. This being said, I won’t worry about the part about the carnivores killing off all land life. God provides.
You say: - All beast fear humans according to Genesis 9:2, but this is not true.
Actually in Genesis 9:2 says: And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.
First of all he was talking to Noah. He was not talking to all humans. However, animals do fear humans. Even the fiercest of animals, lions and tigers and bears, Oh my! will avoid humans out of instinctive fear but this does not mean they will never attack. I have seen animals and people attack out of fear or because they felt cornered.
You say: - God was worried that he could be reached via the Tower of Babel. Why, then, didn’t he smite the Apollo program?
Really? I don’t think God was ever worried. I believe perhaps he was disgusted with man’s arrogance and this was why he caused the tower to fall. The Apollo program was a discovery mission. I don’t think that man was trying to attain godliness by going to space.
You say: - People lived 300+ years!
Actually some lived much longer. But just because you do not believe it does not mean it is wrong.
I suppose I could continue but why. It is too bad you have your mind made up. I would like for you to read the rest of your Bible. You have taken only a few books and based your decision on this. The other books are there for a purpose. There are reasons that God made Moses wander in the desert for 40 years, who cares if you could walk it in 10 days but don’t be so sure. The sand the sun, no water, no food. Maybe you would lose your way also.
Do you suppose you would watch a movie for the first ten minutes, fast forward to the middle, watch for ten minutes and then to the end for ten and believe you knew what the movie was about? You might know a couple of the characters names but it is very unlikely that you would know much more.
Consider this. Take a look around you at all the things that you can see. All sorts of man made things. Each and every one of them had a creator. Not a single one of these machines fell together by accident. Many of these man made things are very intricate and function in a precise way but, bottom line, they were created. Now look at man, animals, and plants. Some of their functions may be simple to understand however try to create one yourself. I’m not talking about duplicating. I am talking about creating one from scratch. You can’t. To think that these things got here by accident is ridicules. They, just like the man made things around you, each had a creator. The best.
May God bless you.
February 14th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Greetings, sidfaiwu:
That means that, statistically, more than half of professing Christians attend church regularly. I wonder, incidentally, if that figure applies world-wide. I would suggest, in any case, that a great majority of the non-church-going forty per-cent are really just nominal Christians who believe they warrant a place in Heaven based on good behaviour alone. After all, any intelligent adult, professing Christianity, but who doesn’t know one—-or indeed all–of the names of the “four evangelists,†surely gives us cause to wonder whether his faith is equal in size to a mustard seed.
Most Christians I know encourage reading the Bible on a daily basis; custumarily, at least a chapter a day, presumably, from a particular book, from beginning to end, or focusing on a topic. But if you do know more about the Bible and its history, etc., even than most of the statistical sixty per-cent referred to above, I would have to say, simply, that they know more than you about what is essential in the message.
I can acknowledge that, within a post-modern framework, religious truth may be subject to statistics, or pantheistically perhaps, that all opposites are equal in degree. But you must recognize through your studies, to give a pertinent example of the contrary, that Christianity denies views of dualism. That is, good, being infinite in God’s character, is therefore unmearurable, whereas evil has its origin within creation, and will eventually come to an end. And so, neither must faith and proof weigh equally.
And nor can proof, being limited to nature, ie,. science and mathematics, logically be superior to faith in what is above nature. The Bible gives us, not exhaustive kowledge, but sound promises from the very creator of the universe, of an invisible bridge to Him, just for acknowledging unworthiness of His presence. Faith takes us beyond science to knowledge of which things nature is a mere, passing reflection.
Of course, this is not provable, and is not intended to be so. It is simply a message held to be sent from outside nature, out of pure love of the one personal God, to trust or not. It’s up to the individual to take or leave it freely, based on an honest, dilligent, non-agenda-ed examinaion of the evidene.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_pSaMPzjOc
February 14th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Hello MAPK LOTGRE,
With 40% of US, self-identified Christians not even attending church regularly, what percentage do you suppose have actually read 3+ books of the Bible? My guess is that it is a minority of Christians. Thus having read three makes me more read than most Christians. Also, unlike most Christians, I’ve read a lot about the history of Christians, the origin of the Bible, and about early, now extinct sects of Christianity. I’ve also taken several comparative religion and philosophy of religion classes that puts Christianity’s theology into a much wider context. Finally, my Biblical reading is not limited to those three, but they are of the ones I read start to finish at one time.
If you want more numbers, here is a link with stats that show just how uneducated Christians are about their own religion. Only 50% could name any one of the four authors of the Gospels. I can name all four.
Lastly, saying that “faith and proof are opposites” suggests that they are on equal footing. It’s like saying a one hundred dollar bill is the opposite of a penny. I say that proof is superior to faith.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:53 am
To impose a burden of proof on faith seems, a near oxymoron, and certainly redundant.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:43 am
A disillisioned sceptic who’s read three entire books in the Bible and actually knows more about it than most Christians seems a powerful claim in itself, which must at the very least, raise a few eyebrows. Again, faith and proof…exact opposites, are they not? Well, ok, a burden of proof, to my mind, is essentially the same as faith: the substantial evidence of things not seen.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:59 am
Oh, and one correction, Augustine wrote in the 5th century CE, not BCE.
Also, thanks gasmonso for you help :)
February 13th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Hello Prodigy,
You post is quite involved, so allow me to take it in parts.
“So you [sidfaiwu] haven’t really even read the bible yourself.” You are correct in that I have not read the entire Bible (I am curious as to how you knew this). I have read three what I call “The Fundamentalist Four”. I have read Genesis, so that I knew that reason and the scientific method applies every day except Sunday. I have read Revelations, so that I knew that the Apocalypse was going to happen in my life time, thus there’s no need to worry about environmentalism. And finally, I read John, so that I knew that Jesus was a superman who loves me more than non-Christians. So much so that he died for me and made me permanently morally superior to the unsaved. I never got to the fourth, Leviticus, having lost my faith before then, so I never got around to hating gays.
“Why do you choose not to believe her?” My answer to that lies around two concepts. The first is burden of proof. If I were to claim that Aliens speak to me via an advanced technology then the burden of proof would lay with me for making the positive claim. Similarly, the burden of proof is with this little girl and her believers. The second is Sagan’s balance. This is the concept that the more extraordinary the claim, the more conclusive the evidence must be to prove the claim. Talking to God is an extraordinary claim.
“Otherwise you should not pretend to have an educated conversation about a subject you are not educated on” Actually, I am quite educated on Christianity and likely know more about it than most believers. I learned about the religion from both the inside, as a fundamentalist, and academically. But is is nice to know that you assume ignorance of anyone who disagrees with you.
I see that you answered my question, “Are you only believing her because it happens to affirm your faith?” in the affirmative. Her claiming to talk to God is no different than claiming to talk to Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Gia, Zues, etc. Since she happens to be talking to the same God you believe in, you believe her.
“After all it is your soul your gambling with.” Ah, good old Pascal’s Wager, the completely self-serving reason to believe in God. Are you not risking your soul just as much by not being a Muslim? I mean, if you are wrong about Islam, you’ll suffer eternal Hell fire.
“Or maybe you are finally the one who can prove it wrong after thousands of years now.” Errors have been found in the Bible ever since it became dogma. Most of Medieval philosophy is nothing but an attempt to explain away errors or reinterpret scripture so as to get around the errors. Even one of the most famous Christian thinkers, Augustine of Hippo, wrote in 5th century BCE that one should take a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis because if its problems.
“Proficies are being fullfilled and keep your eye on the middle east this summer.” Every generation of Christians thought that they were living in the end times. Even Jesus himself (Luke 9:27). Oh, he got that one wrong, didn’t he? Prophecy my foot.
February 12th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
1. Comparative definitions of faith, that is, in theistic terms as distinguished from atheistic terms is simply to clarify what it is and what it is not. Christian faith involves both the mind and the heart, does it not? How much more hopefully one could lead another to Christian faith if, from the start, speaker and listener shared the same meaning of the term, rather than, unknowingly, assumed exactly opposite meanings!
2. Christians believe Akiane’s extra-ordinay gifts to be inspired of God, because their faith confirms it, not the other way around. More and more, I see ardent religious sceptics turning truth upside down. I am with Prodigy here: look into the Bible, and try to see what it really says. The first chapters in Genesis, for example, are a thematic narrative of the beginning of creation, not a thesis on astro-physics or Darwinian species classification. If it really were so easily discreditable as some make it out to be, scholars and theologians would render it a long forgotten relic of the ancient past. Just remember this: in order to believe anything, first, you have to want to believe it. Ask yourself why you would want to believe one thing and not another.
February 12th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
The subtlety of Akiane’s shading is most apparent when she paints “black” skin. As for their supposed similarity to velvet Elvis paintings; what Lasik surgeon messed you up? The question here is whether she is “just” a child prodigy or something more. Either way, it makes me feel good that she is. How about you?
February 12th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
So you haven’t really even read the bible yourself. Why do you choose not to believe her? You have obviously not been called by God so you have no ability to even understand what that means. You can be easily if you’ll simply turn to him. Otherwise you should not pretend to have an educated conversation about a subject you are not educated on. What do you believe? To answer the rest of your questions.. there is no Allah, how is she confirming my faith without mentioning Jesus Christ, and even though she appears to be referring to him on several instances, my faith is fully confirmed and I am not the one who is lost and trying to figure out what I believe. There is no Santa. God is Light and your assuming you know more about what existed before the physical world than anyone does. Billions of people and creatures have walked the earth and only under perfect conditions do we get skeletal remains. People lived to be almost 1000 years. When you try to quote the bible use chapter and verse instead of taking someone elses word for it. It should be worth it to you to get it right. After all it is your soul your gambling with. Or maybe you are finally the one who can prove it wrong after thousands of years now. You are also subjecting God to the Scientific laws and pricipals that he created and set into existence for us in this physical realm. Why would you assume our creator is limited in this way, and again I ask you what you believe. Do you think life randomly happened from a random bang caused by nothing billions of years ago and happened to set itself up and lead to us. Come on. He want to know if you’ll believe before you get the proof. We are all going to see soon enough. Every knee will bow and every tongue will worship God. Proficies are being fullfilled and keep your eye on the middle east this summer. You do not have to believe in Hell but that will not stop you from going there and that is a big gamble to take. Look around, we are spiritual beings with the power of words and God is our father.
February 12th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Hodge is right, I wouldn’t say Roadside Velvet Elvis… I’d more say Hole-in-the-wall Mall store unicorn.
February 12th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
A child can see that the difference in technique, style and imagination and any run of the mill velvetine Elvis is beyond comparison.
February 12th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Hello Prodigy,
Even as a Christian, why would you assume that God is actually talking to this girl? If she were a Muslim claiming to speak with Allah would you believe her? Are you only believing her because it happens to affirm your faith? What if it were Santa who spoke to her and who was the subject of her art? Would you believe then?
“it has always and will always be impossible to prove any part of the Bible is wrong”
Oh what fun! Let’s see:
Genesis:
- God separated the light from the dark before creating light producing objects such as the sun and stars.
- Plants were created before the sun, thus before photosynthesis could take place
- God made the lesser light, the moon to rule the night. First, the moon is not a light source, but a light reflector. Second, half the time, the moon appears during the day and not during the night at all.
- God had Adam name all the animals; all 10-100 million of them!
- Giants walked the earth. Why no fossil record of these huge humans?
- No plants could have survived the great flood. Thus there would have been no food for the herbivores. Also, the carnivores would have made at least on species of prey animals extinct with every two feedings. All land life would be dead in just one generation.
- All beast fear humans according to Genesis 9:2, but this is not true.
- God was worried that he could be reached via the Tower of Babel. Why, then, didn’t he smite the Apollo program?
- People lived 300+ years!
Exodus:
- It took the Israelites 40 years to make what should be a 10 day trip form Egypt to Canaan.
- The population of Israel when from about 70 to several million in only a few hundred years.
Leviticus:
- Bats are incorrectly identified as being birds.
- God gives a laughable cure for leprosy, which was not curable.
etc., etc., etc.
These, and whole lot more can be found at one of my favorite websites.
Enjoy!
February 12th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
To those of you on the side of believing the girl - trying to open the eyes of the Lost on this subject without “the Word” is impossible, these people are lost and can not be convinced that God has communicated with this little girl without the help of Jesus Christ, though many of them will eventually hit bottom and willingly “by faith” turn to him and regret their current views, it has to be that way “by faith”. It is impossible to prove faith (God’s requirement) by definition. It just seems like people would eventually wonder why it has always and will always be impossible to prove any part of the Bible is wrong, no matter how many millions of people have tried over the years. The ones who try the hardest often become belivers, and once you are a believer God proves it in your heart which results in an undescribeable peace like you have never felt or could imagine as a lost soul. Most of your answers are there in black and white if you’ll say a prayer and pick up the Word you’ll find them. Or, you can keep on trying it your way and hope your right (a very risky gamble that you will not win)- or maybe things will get bad enough later in your life, and your heart won’t be so hardened that you will turn to God then. Why do you hate God when all he does is Love and wait on you? When you turn to him and are obedient to him you will have your proof, unless you choose to wait and then everyone will get their proof - When it’s too late! Don’t be amazed at this girls communiction with God, it is just like God to use someone (a home schooled atheist) who seems least likely, so that her testimony will be more effective and save more lost souls, but some of you are obviously too smart to fall for it. Good Luck with that. Get into the Word and try to prove it wrong or right for yourself. It’s worth your time.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Several people have already noted that the paintings themselves are not extra-ordinary. It is the girl herself who is astonishing to us, for her remarkably premature technical skills in painting, musical prodigy and spiritual insight. Well, if not a painting, I would be pleased to have one of her poems hanging on my wall. That is what she says she really works hardest at.
Parrish, by the way, is one of my personal favourite artists.
February 11th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Come on, people. Surely you’ve seen this quality of painting on vacation — black velvet Elvis paintings propped against a truck by the side of the road. If painting this way has done anything, it’s ruined a child’s ability to see things truthfully — to portray real thoughts and feelings. Her paintings are trite and cringe-provoking. Would you really hang one of these in your home??
February 11th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
[...] that he’d be there to guide her along the way. Please take time to look at what she has painted! Religious Freaks » Akiane Kramarik–Inspired By God Or Just Plain Crazy? __________________ And in the end it’s not the years in your life that count. It’s the life in [...]
February 10th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
To Ron Chalmers:
Three books I have found useful in my quest for the meaning of life.
1. The Stranger, by Albert Camus
2. Mister God, This Is Anna, by Fynn
3. Escape From Reason, by Francis A. Schaeffer
February 10th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Akiane says her own desire is to lead people closer to God, through a discovery of faith, and to help as many needy people around the world as she is able to do. That, precisely, is the commission set down by Jesus, himself, for every follower of his teaching. I suspect that many others, including sceptics, atheists, and maybe even some stumbling Christians, will “prostitute†her exceptional gifts, but may I suggest that the media hype is and has always been beyond her personal control. Now, it may be even beyond her parents’ control. But be that as it may, I can see no shame or lack in their moral integrity as they enjoy the limelight for a time, while it lasts. All good things in moderation….
February 10th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Perhaps I should not have said “faith should not be used for any reason”, rather I should have said.
Faith should not be prostituted for any reason. Just as art is a form of self expression, faith is also different for each individual and therefore should not be forced down anyone’s throat.
I am not denying that she feels an overwhelming joy when she paints, and relates this to God’s love, but to feel one worthy enough to be spoken to by God, in my opinion, is prostituting faith in the highest degree.
February 10th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Accept what you see. Believe what you want to believe, keeping in mind that your own prejudices may limit your ability to comprehend the truth. Keep an open mind and sooner or later your quest will be fulfilled.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
I trust that the comment above is to suggest that others, not I, am not happy for Akiane. As a symbolist artist, myself, with thirty-six years experience in oil painting, I also believe my own inspirations to be—-perhaps not so definitively or marvellously as hers-—of divine origin. When I saw her work for the first time (only a few days ago) my…humbling thought was: what more can we do, who are, shall we say, less blessed, but to brighten the corner we are in.
I am not happy for those compelled to ridicule her profession of faith, while far from comprehending what faith really is. It is as children, not sheep, not lemmings, that we must come to it. The depth of her faith, and the profound wisdom revealed in her poetry, seem to exemplify that divine message.
Whenever and wherever real religious faith is applied, it will always reveal good works. Faith not used for anything…must it not be presumed dead?
It is a long tradition in art to Portray Jesus as a white man, not, I think, especially at anyone’s expense, nor as a deception, nor an intentional misconception about the true historical figure. But it may well be conveinent for some white people (children especially) to perceive Him as one of their own colour. Many great artists throughout history have also portrayed Jesus wih a dark complexion. I would say, it is the right of the individual artist to express himself-—or herself in this instance—-without technical shackles. What, after all, is art but SELF-expression; the personal sharing of ideas.
And finally, fear only the children who are undisciplined by their parents.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I just saw Akiane on “The View”. My intent is not to be cruel, but, as a medical person, relgious and artistic debate aside, this girl isn’t “normal” in a clinical sense. Her movements, apparent thought pattern and speech are quite odd (I am not knocking the spiritual/relgious themes). Does she have an underlying medical diagnosis (e.g. PDD, etc.)?
February 9th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
I just saw Akiane on “The View” this morning and they had several of her paintings on as well. The paintings they showcased were not the “God” ones (and yes I find it nonrealistic when ANYONE portrays him as white).
The other paintings she had done were quite good.
Paintings of small children, self portraits and a landscape.
However, she frightened me when she talked about the way she felt when she was painting…”as if “God” was speaking to her or as if she could feel his power coming through her” or some such. She kind of reminded me of the drug addict painter on “HEROES”; except she was all giddy like a 12 year old girl would be.
I myself believe in God, but I believe that faith is a personal quest/issue and should never be used for any reason.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Why can’t people just be happy for her and if you are truly belivers of God then you will allow him to work in his mysterious ways to get across to all of us. Maybe her work will bring other people closer to God. is that such a bad thing??
February 8th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
If artistic, philosophical or religious self-expresion, which seems to me, the primary purpose of living for all of us—-not just the young—-bears some direct relationship to the evils done by others, as suggested above (14-15)) then it would follow that John Lennon was unwittingly and most tragically respionsible for his own brutal murder.
One atheist “designates [faith as] blind acceptance of a certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof.â€
A theistic view presents faith as “the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen.†Hebrews 11:1. By this, to me, more logical definition, faith is not a mindlessly hopeful leap into sheer nothingness, but confidently crossing an invisible bridge.
Even if we assume that all talent is of God, we may never know for sure whether this highly talented girl’s visions are truly prophetic. It is not testable, that we can know with certainty. Whether she or her parents believe it or not, our option is to trust or doubt it. We may assume that only she, herself, (and God) can be sure of it. Either way, no doubt, God, and presumably Akiane herself, will put it to their respective best use.
February 6th, 2007 at 8:45 am
You ask, “If Christians truely believe that the next life is better, then why would they ever try to save a person’s life?”
Brian, if you were the one who needed to be saved, I would save you. Though you may not believe it now, your life has eternal worth and if you have the opportunity to live a bit longer because I save you from death, you may come to the knowledge of the Truth of Jesus Christ and be saved to eternal life. The love of God in me would constrain me to even lose my life that you might be saved. As Christians we wouldn’t want to just go to heaven because it’s better. We are going there anyway. We want to live in this life to please and serve God which includes trying to save you. If I were that selfish, it’s doubtful I were a true Christian. Jesus came and died that you might be saved and be with Him forever. Your choice. Don’t you wish you had the faith, purity of heart and sweetness of spirit that this precious gifted artist has? Again I say, go back and listen to her and see if she doesn’t have something very much better going on in her than you have. You don’t have to be jealous. You can have what she has - maybe not the talent - but the Spirit - and some other talent.
February 5th, 2007 at 3:26 am
I am Brian Jones! I am the word!
February 4th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
AMEN!
February 4th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
The scripture is good and right. Why? Because the scripture said so! Well I say that the sky is green, trout live in trees and we should shoot people in the face for daring to question what I say! I am right and good! Why? Because I said so! My words are divinely inspired and god has moved my hands to type this. If you disagree, then surely you have been decieved, for the Scripture of Brian says, “And on that day they will refuse his words. They will claim that it is a bad argument and that there is a way to prove him to be false, but they have fallen and are tempted by the easy way out.”
I have to ask… because this hope for the hereafter is pulled out so much. If Christians truely believe that the next life is better, then why would they ever try to save a person’s life? Or their own? Why seek medical attention for anything? Certainly a few more hours of suffering shouldn’t matter when you have an eternity in paradise coming. You tell me I try to remove hope… but by your own logic, why should you even care to live in this world any longer?
February 4th, 2007 at 10:02 am
The Scriptures are spiritual words, spiritually discerned. Scripture says, “No one knows the mind of man, but the spirit of man. And no one knows the mind of God but the Spirit of God. But we have the mind of Christ (believers in whom is the Spirit of God).”
Man tries to excuse himself from accountability to an unsearchable (meaning, beyond complete comprehensable) God by claiming His thoughts are contradictory, but the truth is supressed in unrighteousness. The truth is known, but not acknowledged. It is supressed by the sin in a man’s heart.
If one confesses and repents of their sin to God and believes on His Son Jesus Christ, then they can be forgiven and He will give that one His Spirit Who will lead that one into all truth.
One does not acknowledge the truth because one loves the darkness more than the light. In God there is no darkness at all, but if the light in man’s heart is darkness, how great is that darkness. But if one’s heart is full of light, one can know God and the things He reveals of Himself, like His beauty in both this young girl’s art and the beauty in the young girl’s soul and spirit.
I am glad if you have “real morals”, at least for those who know you, and it may benefit you some in this life, as well. However, “real morals” will leave anyone without hope in the life after if they do not believe in the God who is the Truth and the moral lawmaker in the first place.
And I really don’t want you to think that I am accusing you of being a bad person or less moral than I and really don’t want to put you on the defensive, but some of your expressions sounds like there is some mean-spiritedness in your heart. I know mean-spiritedness. I have been where you’re at in your thinking about Jesus, the Scriptures and Christianity. I also know the kindness and gentleness of Jesus. Not that He isn’t also severe. The difference is He is severe with perfect justice and against the sinfulness of man, not just someone having a different belief about something. Go back and listen to a video clip of this young girl’s interview and listen to the sweetness in her spirit and hear her testimony of why she is like she is. In her there is Light and that Light is the light of men. In am praying for the eyes of your heart to be enlightened, that you may know the Truth and the Truth will set you free.
Peace out.
February 3rd, 2007 at 4:29 am
Wow, once again I have to say, if that trash heap of contradictions and imorality was inspired by god, so much better to be an atheist and have real morals.
Oh, I wonder… Did your little verse just say that I have no excuse for not seeing the work of god? Though Romans does have some pretty good stuff, like a few verses down where we are reminded that women have a natural use, to be the pleasure objects of men.
I guess we don’t have an excuse for not seeing the true glory of god in what is more and more obviously a grab for publicity and a faith-adled customer base.
February 2nd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Not “a painting by god”. A painting INSPIRED by God. Kind of like the Bible. Not written by God, but written by men inspired by God, or as it is written, “moved by the Holy Spirit”. “God-breathed”, as if were.
Even you can be God-breathed. That is born of His Spirit. Born from above. Born again. Then you can pass from judgment unto life everlasting. Then you can be inspired and see and know things you don’t now know or understand…..like the Way, the Truth and the Life…..JESUS, who is the image of the invisible God….His exact representation.
As John the Baptist, the forerunner of Jesus, said, “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near. Make straight the way for the Lord. Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. For He is greater than I. I baptise you with water for the remission of your sins, but He will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fork is in His hand and He will separate the wheat from the chaff, and the wheat He will gather into His barn and the chaff He will burn up with unquenchable fire.”
I appeal to you, by the tender mercies of God, PLEASE consider this: “For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing which may be known of God is clearly revealed within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being realized by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. [Rom 1:18-20]
February 2nd, 2007 at 7:55 am
paragraph, i meant paragraph….
minor lingual mixup, sorry about that
it’s very possible, but, if there is only one correct answer, then one of them must be wrong. This is however not very on topic.
So, it’s what the whole discussion is about. the major issue taken here with the whole point that she’s using god as a promotional campaign. The rediculous idea that “god told her what to paint” which she is using to make a quick buck.
So, it’s ABOUT the fact that the sole reason the art is selling is that people are dumb enough to believe that it’s a painting by god.
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 am
Dear fotomatt,
Wow. You can twist just about anything! I feel the same way about your opinions as you do about mine. (I’m guessing there’s no way your thoughts on the subject could change. The real problem is that I get so much of it wrong.)
You say, “A claim that something is rational — even to say that it is the ‘only’ rational choice — is not to say that it is correct, or that it could not possibly be wrong. In this case, it merely says that, given the evidence before us, all other choices/options have some logical flaw to them.” This statement makes no claim of perfection? For the record, the way I’m using the word perfection is to mean “the state of being without a flaw or defect.” (How did you think I meant it?) To me, stating that something is the ‘only logical choice’ is also stating that all other choices are illogical. I would think one would have to at least allow for the possibility that there’s something he/she missed or got wrong. Saying this also infers to me that the one logical choice is the one correct choice. Why would anyone choose the flawed options? Are alternatives wrong or are people who choose them somehow flawed, too? Or, is it acceptable, or even possible, for intelligent people to evaluate the evidence before us and rationally come to a different conclusion?
You say, “Your criticism of Arktis is based upon your own ignorance. And your ‘impression’ of Arktis further lets us know that you are judgmental and that you are willing to make such judgments without doing even a modicum of simple research (Arktis has made MANY posts to this website).”
You are right that I did not “research” Arktis. I did not claim to know Arktis to be a certain way. I merely expressed the impression I got of him/her from the statements made on this blog in this discussion. Maybe I should have made that more clear. I thought that blogging was about sharing thoughts and impressions. I don’t think that’s the same thing as being judgmental, although it could be a fine line, I admit.
When I said “I will never be able to judge her, nor do I want to,†I was not saying that I was unable or unwilling to form opinions. I was only stating the fact that I do not expect any empirical evidence to surface that would give me the ability to evaluate Akiane’s claims, nor do I care if there is such evidence. I can see how you could take that the way you did, though.
So, when you say that I am judgmental, does that make you judgmental? After all, you haven’t done any research on me. And lacking research, is it ok for you to decide I am judgmental after reading only a few paragraphs? I shared that I got the impression that someone (Arktis) was closed minded. I have no problem adding that I could easily be wrong. I didn’t say that my opinion was the only logical conclusion. You are the one calling people names all over this board. But I guess, having never been to Sandpoint Idaho myself, I’ll have to defer to your judgment of the place being a bunch of “fundie-backwards, nut-job, religious nuts.” I’m sorry I misunderstood you and thought you were saying all Christians were that way. So, you only meant the Christians in Sandpoint Idaho.
I agree with you that Akiane’s story is improbable, but I don’t think it’s stupid. I wrote in my last post, “As for me, I don’t know what to make of this talented young girl.†and you replied, “Is it really so difficult for you?” No, I wouldn’t say it’s difficult. I just have no way of knowing whether or not the girl has communicated with God. How can I say that she didn’t? How can you? I think Outsider had a good point when he said, “It’s how you’re looking at what she’s creating that makes it preaching to you. You can’t see a creative work that involves the spirit to be anything other than propaganda.” You seem to have a negative, knee-jerk reaction to spiritual things/people. Maybe I’m wrong. It’s only an impression I’ve gotten from what is written in this particular blog and I don’t mean to judge you overall.
I said, “Her choices and actions over time will be an indication of who she is.†and you responded, “Wow, Debbie, that’s deep. Let X=X.” I get the sarcasm but not your point. What I was saying is, just like any other person, you get a better understanding of what that person is really about over time. Maybe you disagree with that? That’s fine if you do. Yes, “…maybe in time, I’ll see them differently…†and yes, that would be a judgment of sorts, but not necessarily judgmental.
And yes, I think she’s talented. You say she may not have even created the paintings you dislike so much. Well, it wouldn’t be the first time the news reported something that is untrue. But, if she did or not, I think the paintings are beautiful. I love the dramatic lighting in many of them that reminds me of the Baroque period of art. You said, “She’s getting some attention because she is young, NOT because her work is original (it’s not). Her parents seem to be trying to ’sell’ their daughter.” Even if all this is true, so?
And when I wrote I was a little jealous, I was half joking. I am not a failed artist. I am a successful graphic designer. I recently took up painting and although I am happy with my progress, I have a very difficult time painting people. I admire Akiane’s ability. Would it make you happy if I were a failed artist?
And the reason I find the statement “Admitting an agnostic stance is the only rational choice” presumptuous is because I believe that the most logical stance is that there is a Creator … God. Yes, I have faith, but I also see so much evidence that it just doesn’t make sense to me any other way. I am not preaching or telling anyone else what to believe. But I am in no way irrational.
Thanks for taking the time to communicate with a non-fundie-backwards, nut-job, religious nut Christian girl. I enjoy the dialogue!
February 1st, 2007 at 6:50 pm
boris Says:
February 1st, 2007 at 1:59 am
… … … ’nuff said
lol again..I am not sure if you are mocking me…or laughing with me…but it’s funny either way..
;)
February 1st, 2007 at 6:47 pm
lol.
”
(wow, didn’t even need to write a whole article AND I used allineas)”
” allineas??” Define please …??
“true, and the exact same thing goes for the touchy feely, pseudo-educated religious ‘hooplah’..”
ironically the only ones focusing on that are_____? hmmmm…
the very same ones who decided that this child is forcing her viewpoints on them…
don’t look …
don’t listen…
be unaware..
and closeminded..
do not feel…
do not breath…
to not touch…
what a sad world you live in…
lol
and trust me ..I am FAR from religious…
on another note someone touched on this already…and
Unfortunately as all child prodigies go, it will be interesting and perhaps sad to see what becomes of the child.
February 1st, 2007 at 9:51 am
“”so all your scientific, analytical, anti-christianity hooplah is for naught…it really has nothing to do with what this child sees, feels and paints…’nuff said.”"
true, and the exact same thing goes for the touchy feely, pseudo-educated religious ‘hooplah’.
(wow, didn’t even need to write a whole article AND I used allineas)
February 1st, 2007 at 1:59 am
… … … ’nuff said
February 1st, 2007 at 1:49 am
well unfortunately as usual, if you are anything but atheist or agnostic, then you have to be a religious zealot..and what is the point..she is a child, she paints..and very well considering most were done between the ages of 9 and 12…if she choses to paint a Christian God, so be it…what’s it to any of us…? Painting and poetry is about emotions…it comes from teh soul..you can try and analyze it to death with so-called logic, but it doesn’t cut it in the art world..I do not paint something because it is logical..I paint because it is emotinal..something or someone as in the usual case, moves me..touches me..whether it is a positive or negative sense..right now this CHILD is moved by what she views as her GOD and the beauty that surrounds it…your negative thoughts, ideas or views will not alter that..only her own perception of her own life will do that. Someone said they are flat and boring..well not really…some are…if you are looking at them through adult eyes, however look at them through the eyes of a child…I work in a framing store..I see all kinds of art…I have learned to look at it through the eyes of the person creating it…and generally as a rule, there is very little art out there that isn’t beautiful..everyone is caught up in the religious symbolism..there has always been religious symobolism in art..particularily in Christianity…perhaps because it is one of oldest KNOWN religions to man…not the oldest, so do not take it out of context…I did a painting of “the virgin in prayer”..a reproduction of one of Sassofferato’s paintings..why? because it is a beautiful, emotional piece, and one from which I wanted to teach myself glazing techniques in oil… an atheist is interested in buying it..why? because it is an beautiful, emotional piece of art according to the would be buyer..
art is very personal..I cannot stress that enough..when I have people come in and ask me the value of a particular piece, that is the one thing I always stress..it is worth as much as the next person is willing to spend..so all your scientific, analytical, anti-christianity hooplah is for naught…it really has nothing to do with what this child sees, feels and paints…’nuff said.
January 29th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Dear Debbie D,
You get so much of it wrong that I hardly know where to start, so I guess I’ll just take it in order.
A claim that something is rational — even to say that it is the “only” rational choice — is not to say that it is correct, or that it could not possibly be wrong. In this case, it merely says that, given the evidence before us, all other choices/options have some logical flaw to them.
And it certainly makes no claim of perfection. In fact, it has absolutely nothing to do with perfection — at least not in the way that you use the word.
Your criticism of Arktis is based upon your own ignorance. And your “impression” of Arktis further lets us know that you are judgmental and that you are willing to make such judgments without doing even a modicum of simple research (Arktis has made MANY posts to this website).
“As for me, I don’t know what to make of this talented young girl.”
Is it really so difficult for you?
“Her choices and actions over time will be an indication of who she is.”
Wow, Debbie, that’s deep. Let X=X.
“But I will never be able to judge her, nor do I want to.”
Then why are you writing here? You are, in effect, defending her, which is a type of judgment about her. And why, simultaneously, are you so willing to judge others, such as Arktis?
“you can choose not to believe them, but I take them at their word. I don’t have any reason to doubt them”
You mean other than the part where their story is utterly improbable and stupid? And that they potentially stand to make a bundle of money (and prestige) over it all?
“…maybe in time, I’ll see them differently…”
Wouldn’t that be a judgment of sorts? I thought you’d never be able to do that?
“And it seems kind of closed minded and simple to me to take 33% of the world’s population and label them “fundie-backwards, nut-job, religious nuts.—
I didn’t label one-third of the world’s population — I specified Sandpoint, Idaho. Perhaps you’ve never been there. I have.
And please, if you’re going to quote someone, do it accurately.
And as for your final paragraph:
* Talented: We don’t know that she’s talented; we’ve yet to see her paint. There are plausible suggestions at this point that the whole thing may be a fraud.
* Successful: She’s getting some attention because she is young, NOT because her work is original (it’s not). Her parents seem to be trying to “sell” their daughter.
* Threatened: Who would feel threatened by some young girl who makes crappy paintings of Jesus and horses? Really, who?
* Jealousy: You’re the ONLY one mentioning and admitting jealousy. Why? Are you a failed artist? Do you long for public recognition?
January 29th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
Hi all -
I just surfed in here for the first time. I don’t usually have time for blogging, but I had to respond to this statement:
Arktis Says: “Andrew has pretty much got it. Admitting an agnostic stance is the only rational choice.”
I find this an irrational as well as arrogant statement. Do you really believe there is no possible way you could be mistaken? I’ve never met a perfect person before!
My impression of Arktis is that he/she is a very closed minded person.
As for me, I don’t know what to make of this talented young girl. Her choices and actions over time will be an indication of who she is. But I will never be able to judge her, nor do I want to.
And, while I’m writing anyway -
fotomatt Says:
“* She lives in fundie-backwards Sandpoint, Idaho, filled with religious nutjobs, but we’re to believe she never had any exposure to christianity?
* The Christianity Today article is a bit unclear about the whole atheist part. It suggests that her mother was raised in an “atheistic†household, NOT that her mother is an atheist.
My guess is that her parents were already religious nuts when she was born. When they realized that she was a prodigy, they came up with a good story (marketing campaign). They easily taught/convinced their young daughter that God spoke to her, and recounted to her about her early come-to-jesus moment.”
Just for the record - I saw an interview with Akiane on CNN. Her mother was on it as well. It said that her mom WAS an atheist and that her family was converted to Christianity by Akiane. Of course, you can choose not to believe them, but I take them at their word. I don’t have any reason to doubt them. Like I said, maybe in time, I’ll see them differently … that’s if I ever even hear about them again.
And it seems kind of closed minded and simple to me to take 33% of the world’s population and label them “fundie-backwards, nut-job, religious nuts.”
“Imagine what she could have been…”? We don’t have to. She’s a beautiful, young talented, successful artist. Not bad! Good for her! I think the only reason anyone would feel threatened by her is jealousy (which, I admit, I am a little!)
January 24th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
It has also occured to me that we are one of only 4 sites I turned up in google searches that have at all asked whether or not this is genuine. Everyone else is just jumping on the bandwagon as fast as possible. If I see a video of this girl painting (no matter how long it runs, I’ll watch it, damn it) and she turns out one of those New Age store poster images on camera, I’ll believe she’s doing it. Still won’t believe that its god telling her to, but I’ll believe she’s the painter.
January 24th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
The was an interesting discussion about this over at richarddawkins.net recently. Apparently, though I don’t have the links on me at the time, there have been some people that came to watch her paint, and instead saw her diddle on the canvase for a while (which the father would explain away hurridly), the girl would get tired, the reporters would leave for a while, and return to find the painting done or almost complete, and the father claiming the girl to have experienced a divine flash of inspiration. Not only that, but its apparently happened more than once.
I’d need to do some more looking, but that does seem a bit suspect.
January 24th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
“To those who believe, no explanation is needed; to those who don’t believe, no explanation will suffice.”
January 19th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Someone wrote that since people here didn’t read her book they should do so before asking questions. Well quite frankly, I don’t want to spend any money on a book about her story, if really a gifted child from God, shouldn’t it be FREE like the bible in all the hotel rooms.
Capitalizing on her talent is just that, making money. Whether she truly believes she met God makes no difference, as with anything in this world, someone will package, market and sell to the masses. Somehow cheapens the whole prestine image,,,,no?
December 26th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
A lie unlike any other, a lie so powerful they themselves believe it when all evidence points the contrary.
December 26th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
Well said.
December 26th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Having reached a certain point in The God Delusion, I was ammused to find a section in Chapter 3: Arguments for God that got into art. Dawkins notes that arguments are made for god by pointing out virtuosos like Motzart and Rembrandt as examples of god’s inspiration in humans. The counter argument made seems like it could really be applied here. That counter is that perhaps the desire to attribute such inspiration to god is rooted in jealousy.
“How dare this person have the power to create such wonderful art when I can’t. I know, its not them doing it, but God. That makes me feel better about my lack of artistic talent now.”
Scott, the only notes in the article that could be confirmable are that the mother’s family had been atheistic, and that the father was of catholic origins. The claims that there was never any time where the young girl in question could have been implanted with christianity are not very verifiable. To the child brain, so swept up in something like this, it is easy to self-delude one’s self into the belief that there is something extrodinary going on and that it was never spurred on by someone else, especially since the claim is that this started at age 3. I have alot of thing in my head that I learned around that age (counting, don’t touch glowing red things, bees hurt you when provoked, etc.) but I don’t have a recallable memory for when I learned this. From this it is not a stretch to conjecture that she could have been told her art was from god.
I am in no way saying that its not possible, but the burden of proof here is on the claimant and not the skeptic. I need more than just paintings of Jesus and “Heaven” and the stories of a family with alot to gain from this (even if not monitarily, they have still gained quite a reputation and a strut for religion to stand on, given that knocking it out requires criticizing a child which many people are going to be too civil to do).
December 26th, 2006 at 11:51 am
“so, when did ‘girl makes nice pictures’ turn into news? right, never.”
Granted, ‘girl makes nice pictures’ isn’t news. However, ‘girl makes outstanding art far beyond her years’ is news. It is simply amazing that she has this ability. It is not from a ‘god’ or anything, she just has the wiring in her brain set up in such a way that she is able to translate what her mind sees to the canvas. And it is news because it is so very very rare to see that kind of talent in someone so young.
December 26th, 2006 at 11:20 am
Maybe some of you should read about Akiane before asking so many questions and making so many assumptions. It is clear from reading these posts, that no one has read about here history. Get some facts first, then ask questions. Once you know more about her, then the whole story is even more interesting and difficult to understand.
December 23rd, 2006 at 5:55 pm
;) Freak…
December 18th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
That Jesus looks pretty white.
I have to say she does a better job painting than I do (on the other hand - when was the last time SHE painted a deck? :-D ) Still, there’s more to the story than meets the eye.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:59 am
ok, just a simple point-out.
did anyone notice how she looks a lot like the x-ray eyes girl?
http://www.discoverybroadband.co.uk/_includes/db_images/girlwiththexrayeyes1-big.jpg
so, when did ‘girl makes nice pictures’ turn into news? right, never.
next question, when did ‘child says she’s seen god’ turn into news? riight, never.
well, I guess the way to get media atention (and, incidently, makes truckloads of money) is pretty obvious now.
I’m not saying she’s being cunning and manipulative, children have their parents to do that.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:40 am
It’s amazing what sort of processes our brains go through during REM sleep, the chemicals released during this period have been compared to natural LSD.
So when I see someone tell me they saw something in a dream, it’s simply the process of a chemical dump on the cortex. It’s very common to have dreams about divine intervention because we (well most of us at one time) believed in a god/deity of some form. This alone would probably be utilized during our REM sleep cycles.
Anyway. Other information can be gathered up on Wikipedia.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:52 am
If we are talking divine inspiration, I had a very vivid dream (among many similar dreams of the sort I would have through the years) when I was 13 which was full of symbolism. One of the more notable images was of a snake slithering away from me, followed by the booming voice of God telling me to look up whereupon I saw the most incredible geometric patterns of stars in the sky like some kind of Pythagorean planetarium show.
I wrote it all down as soon as I woke up as I was sure it came directly from God and that he was telling me I was His, not the serpent’s, and that there was a plan for me.
Dreams…
I’m wondering how common dreams like that are, and how often the so-called ‘visions’ people have are the result of being only half-awake at odd times and not realizing it.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:32 am
God told me in a dream. He told me to become a wonderful violinist.
I play bass guitar..and I suck.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:30 am
Dawkin’s books on biology are a worthy read, but if your looking to refute religion, he has books “dedicated” to that alone. I like how he keeps religion away from his his work in biology, that’s pretty hard and it’s pretty easy to let your own ideals slip into the woodwork.
I’m a big fan of his documentary too, even if he didn’t want it to make it on TV.
December 18th, 2006 at 3:26 am
What makes this girl any different than any other idiot savant out there? There are a range of brain disorders that can make a person develop special skills within a field, and where both auditory and visual hallucinations are pretty common so couldn’t that be the explanation?
I know that being in the presence of such people can be a mind numbing experience (a friend at university had Ashbergers(sp?) syndrome), and some of the things he could do would almost suggest that there was a divine presence helping him, but him being a die hard atheist would make that pretty unlikely.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:40 am
Okay, I googled that phrase and found two results. Checking the first one ( http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/oops_they_did_i.html ) I see that’s from Dawkins. I haven’t read Dawkins. I’m a big boy, and I figured all this out on my own :P
I don’t fit anywhere in that list since I don’t have any basis to establish the likelihood or unlikelihood of the existence of god.
Maybe the list needs to be redone. Maybe the list is stupid because it doesn’t and can never include everyone.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:32 am
Huh? You lost me… I feel stupid now. Throw me a bone?
December 18th, 2006 at 1:28 am
6 leaning towards 7 Arktis?
December 18th, 2006 at 1:20 am
Andrew has pretty much got it. Admitting an agnostic stance is the only rational choice. This works with pretty much everything, as there is very little that one can be certain of. Yet despite this, the scientific method remains valid and practical in principle and application.
That’s why I’m and agnostic atheist, meaning I admit there’s no way to know whether or not there is a god while I lack belief (faith) in such a thing because it would be irrational.
Pretty simple stuff.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:19 am
Where to start… how about the begining.
Faith stands in the gap between what we see and what we believe.
Actually, I think what stands between what we see and what we believe are the cornea, the lense, the vitrious humor, rods and cones, the optic nerves, the visual cortex and its simulation systems, and our associative memory. If that’s faith, then sure, I have all the faith I need! Otherwise, I would love to see how your eyes are working.
We may see many things that point to God but we don’t see God - we therefore need faith to bridge this gap.
As a Deist quickly being convinced atheist by some new lines of study in my life, I have to disagree with the we part. I don’t see anything in the world that points to god, but I’d like to challenge you to find me a few.
An atheist seeing Akiane’s paintings needs faith to bridge the gap between what they are seeing and what they believe.
I will leave this to the atheists here… do you really need faith to tell you that this is just a genius girl with a great marketing story?
Its hard to believe such a young girl would be making such a thing up (except for the fact that we may not want what she’s saying to be true) so we need to rationalise what is happening.
I really don’t feel that we need to rationalize(American Heritage Dictionary def3, I think that’s what you meant with that) anything. An atheist need not use faith to assert anything about this. By your very statement of rationalizing the details, you inadvertantly acknowledge that what an observer does is to take the details and, through the proof-filter of personal experience, come to a conclusion. Right or wrong, the observations of an atheist about this subject are going to be formed by drawing a conclusion using a logical process.
But all these “excuses†are totally without substance. They really have to be taken in faith by those wanting to not believe.
Why is it on our hands to prove that it IS god telling a girl to paint. I have claimed that the girl is a great painter (proven) and that this god story is a great attention grab, reasons be damned (proven, its in the news). You’re side has claimed god intervined and gave this girl her artistic prowess, now the burden of proof is on you, much in the same way that the burden of proof would be on me if I claimed that aliens granted me my powers of programing.
At least we all have something in common - faith.
No - we don’t. No faith here, move along.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:13 am
An atheist does not need to take any such things on faith. So she’s young and she paints well? So what? She thinks she’s seen God? So what? I don’t have to rationalize anything. I can say, “I’m neither a biologist nor an anthropologist (nor a theologian)” so I don’t understand why a young girl paints so well and thinks she’s seen God.
Admitting that you don’t know something is a “faithless” act. Pretending that you know what’s going on when you don’t is where so-called “faith” enters in.
I say we hook her up to some electrodes and see what’s going on when she has visions or paints. Let’s do studies to determine is there is something different about young people who paint well or think that they have seen God. Let’s observer her 24-7 to see if God appears and talks to her.
Unrelated: “Its hard to believe such a young girl would be making such a thing up.” Have you ever met any kids? I find it ridiculously easy to believe that a young girl would make something like that up.
December 18th, 2006 at 1:11 am
Faith is irrational.
I am really quite tired of Christians saying that science and atheism share something in common with religious beliefs (which are irrational). It simply isn’t true.
I have no faith. I don’t require it. I’ve spent some time studying scientific principles and I’ve learned how to function quite fine without it.
December 18th, 2006 at 12:45 am
Faith stands in the gap between what we see and what we believe. We may see many things that point to God but we don’t see God - we therefore need faith to bridge this gap.
An atheist seeing Akiane’s paintings needs faith to bridge the gap between what they are seeing and what they believe. A young girl says she is inspired by God and then paints with an ability and maturity way beyond her age. Its hard to believe such a young girl would be making such a thing up (except for the fact that we may not want what she’s saying to be true) so we need to rationalise what is happening. This may take the form of saying she’s deluded, a genius that mistakes her creativity for God or any number of “rationalisations”. But all these “excuses” are totally without substance. They really have to be taken in faith by those wanting to not believe.
At least we all have something in common - faith.
December 16th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Regardless of her intentions, the FACTS remain. For example, a preacher is a preacher because he preaches, not because of his intentions. What he is doing remains the same regardless.
You are taking an irrational stance based on wishful thinking.
December 16th, 2006 at 10:42 am
“When you preach a religion, you are purposefully trying to alter beliefs.”
“I didn’t say she’s trying to trick people on purpose.”
Therefore, she’s not preaching. And (from the wiki) “Propaganda is a certain type of message presentation directly aimed at manipulating the opinions or behavior of people, rather than impartially providing information.”
She’s just saying what she feels is the truth. Yeah, she may be wrong. But she’s _not_ directly aiming at manipulating anyones opinions. And as she’s not preaching and it’s (by the wiki’s definition) not propaganda… She’s not taking any type of role whereby responsibility of what her message inspires should be given to her.
In all truth, it seems like a small point, but I’ve written things that can be used to put forward all sorts of nasty things. I wrote manuals for DND once upon a time… You know how many people thought that I was trying to corrupt youth? It’s a game, and people took it way too seriously and were ‘inspired to commit horrible acts’. Am I responsible for their actions? Hell no! But their parents blamed my work.
Same thing applies here.
December 16th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Has there been any studies of the ratio between faith and meeting/having communications with god and being non-believer and still getting messages from god? Which is more prevalent situation?
December 16th, 2006 at 5:10 am
Is it just me or does that look a lot like Chuck Norris? Maybe I’m just tired, but that was the first thing I thought when I saw the painting that’s in the “read this” article.
December 15th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
I didn’t say she’s trying to trick people on purpose.
Any way you slice it, whether she’s honest or not - it’s religious propaganda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
December 15th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
She’s not preaching, though. She’s just painting. Yeah, ok, her paintings have a ‘divine inspiration’ and she claims to speak to God, but in the end, she’s not trying to get you to believe her. She most likely doesn’t care if you believe her or not… She’s just doing what every kid that age tries to do, and that’s express herself.
Do you remeber being 12? When I was that age, the only thing I cared about was saying something. Being heard was never impoertantl all my poetry was kept secret, and it didn’t stop me from writing it. Unless she’s a bloody genius and advanced to a very adult stage, that’s most likely what is happening here, too. So, in other words, she’s just creating, not preaching.
It’s how you’re looking at what she’s creating that makes it preaching to you. You can’t see a creative work that involves the spirit to be anything other than propaganda. Understandably, as you have chosen to view the most obvious pieces of religious art (the Bible, the Koran, ect) as nothing more than propaganda… But art can be used to express religious feelings without being designed to do anything other than express religious feelings.
She’s 12, for crying out loud! Do you really think that she’s that cunning and cynical? It’s possible, but it’s much more likely that she’s just a kid, drawing and writing what she feels inside. It differs from what you feel, though, so you dismiss it as propaganda.
Sounds like you’re missing the point of art to most kids; to express yourself.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Heheheh. :D I’m not missing the point, you are.
When you preach a religion, you are purposefully trying to alter beliefs. You are supplanting beliefs with the intention to bring about specific results. You are telling someone to whatever degree how they ought to live, to be, to do, etc. That means you share responsibility for the ramifications of what you are preaching because you had a direct and intentional involvement in causing the adoption of a set of beliefs from which determinations and actions are drawn.
You can’t shirk responsibility when you assume a posture of leadership like that.
December 15th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
You are missing my point (perhaps purposefully?)… What others do with something you create is not within your control, and you should not be held responsible for it. If many people had read Mien Kampf and been inspired by it to do great good in our world, would that mean that Hitler was good? No, because what they do has no relevance to him.
In other words, if someone takes my writing here and uses it as justification for killing everyone that is not spiritual, well, it’s their fault for being a murderous screwup, not mine. If someone looks at this little girls paintings and says “I’m going to go out and kill 100 aethists today because of that painting!” it’s that persons fault, not hers. And, because it’s not her fault, the question of “anyone inspired by her story/work committed horrible sins as a result” is nothing more than a red herring and is totally irrelevant.
As for my ‘faith’ in my family and friends… What faith I have in God is based on the same things I base my relationships with other people on. Trust. If you don’t give trust without someone having earned it, you’ll only end up trusting people that are willing to trust you first… in other words, people like me. ;) Now, in most cases, I end up getting up something back, but in the end I have to trust the other party to not betray me at some point in the future. In other words, I have to have faith in their trustworthyness.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:45 pm
“As anyone that has been inspired by the Beatles committed horrible sins as a result? Well, yes, in fact there has (Chuckie Manson! and he chose the worst Beatles song, too… :) )”
Yeah but the Beatles aren’t preaching a religion. There’s a big difference.
fotomatt, mostly I agree. The only thing fantastic about her artwork is her skill compared to her age, which is astounding when set against the vast majority of kids. Like most abilities it is improving with age - at least that much is normal. Yes, her talent is exceptional. Everything else surrounding it is anecdotal.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
A double post? A triple post? Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
Let’s face it…
While it is amazing (exceptionally uncommon) that this young girl can create these paintings, there is another underlying truth here…
Her artwork is trite and boring and completely unoriginal.
On a professional level, her drawing and painting skills are good (yes, exceptional for her age), but her creativity is for shit. Maybe that will improve with age. Maybe not.
As for her particular religious beliefs, I wonder if they might be any different had she been born and raised in, say, Pakistan. Nahhh. I’m sure it’d be exactly the same ;-P
December 15th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
The little blonde girl’s God is white. How convenient.
December 15th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Outsider says:
“Really, even if I _know_ a person, I still take their relationship with me on faith. I have faith in my wife, I have faith that my friends won’t screw me, I have faith that God exists and takes an interest (however small) in my existance. In all of those relationships, I have to have faith.”
Actually, Outsider, you’ve got it completely wrong. You don’t have “faith” in your wife and friends, you have lots of evidence — years of direct first-hand experience with them. They are good, loving people who have treated you well, and likely will continue to do so in the future.
The God bit, on the other hand, is faith. You have absolutely no evidence, whatsoever. You simply /want/ it to be true.
“prophets always end up badly…”
I agree with you on this one. She’s being set up (is setting herself up) as some sort of prophet. A sad, ugly thing. I hope that not too many people get hurt along the way.
December 15th, 2006 at 5:52 pm
* She lives in fundie-backwards Sandpoint, Idaho, filled with religious nutjobs, but we’re to believe she never had any exposure to christianity?
* The Christianity Today article is a bit unclear about the whole atheist part. It suggests that her mother was raised in an “atheistic” household, NOT that her mother is an atheist.
My guess is that her parents were already religious nuts when she was born. When they realized that she was a prodigy, they came up with a good story (marketing campaign). They easily taught/convinced their young daughter that God spoke to her, and recounted to her about her early come-to-jesus moment.
In other words…
Another brilliant mind fucked by religion at an early age.
Imagine what she could have been…
December 15th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Heck, Arktis, I can answer most of your questions… I’m not Christian, but I am religious, and I can draw some conclusions from that…
When one meets God, does faith even enter the picture from that point on?
You answered this yourself in another question, (listed below:)
How can she be sure she met God… what if it was the devil deceiving her?
In the end, when dealing with anything on the spiritual scale, faith is the final test. You cannot know anything for sure, so you have to go on faith. It could be that she’s hallucinating, or that she’s possessed by the devil, or that she’s touched by God, or that she’s simply faking it to piss off her parents. Assuming it’s not the last, she has to take it on faith that she’s actually talking to God and not the other two…
Isn’t faith crucial to Christian life, isn’t it an integral part of being in the body of Christ?
It’s a part of any relationship. Really, even if I _know_ a person, I still take their relationship with me on faith. I have faith in my wife, I have faith that my friends won’t screw me, I have faith that God exists and takes an interest (however small) in my existance. In all of those relationships, I have to have faith.
Isn’t it unfair to others who haven’t met Him?
Yes. This is the main reason I’m skeptical of this person. Either she’s not the genuine article or she’s going to have a hard time of it; prophets always end up badly…
What about the self-portrait; how does that help… I thought that sort of thing would be straying from the mission? What is the message? Is there a message?
All related questions… Unless she’s a ‘greater prophet’ in the islamic lexicon, she’s just a normal human that’s had a few run-ins with the big guy. as such, she’s probably going to do normal, human things. (like have a vain moment or two where she paints herself for the fun of it.)
How can you be raised by atheist parents when you are on a mission from God, how does that work or not work since you have to honor them; how can you honor them when they are atheists?
I can honor my parents without following their beliefs; I just have to treat them with honour and respect. Not believe everything they do and only what they do…
Where does the money go? Should she have as little money as possible? Does she get special treatment (rhetorical I know… what KIND of special treatment does she get?)? Does she have people she uses her work to support? Who are these people, if there are some?
Well, I guess that’s up to her and her parents. As for people that she supports… Just because she is using religious iconography in her art does not mean that she is supporting one religious sect. It only means that one religous figure is talking to her, giving her inspiration. So I wouldn’t see her as ’supporting a religious leader’ other than possibly the religious leader Christ.
Has anyone inspired by her story/work committed horrible sins as a result?
As anyone that has been inspired by the Beatles committed horrible sins as a result? Well, yes, in fact there has (Chuckie Manson! and he chose the worst Beatles song, too… :) ) Does that mean that the Beatles are an evil group, or any less talented? No. In fact I see this question as a red herring… Whether or not her art is inspired by God, it’s good. And what other do with it is really beyond her control. All she can do is make it, and let it speak for itself.
Does that help?
December 15th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Anyways, I think she’s just really brilliant. Simple as that.
By the way, when I say “Does she have people she uses her work to support?”, I mean LEADERS and groups with specific agendas.
December 15th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
There is no doubt that this is a very talented young lady with a very bright future ahead of her. What I do find interesting is that her paintings of her “visions of God” look remarkably like the Renaissance paintings of Jesus that were made by people with fantastic talent, but no claims of visions, and are easily available to be seen by anyone with a museum or an internet connection. Either they’ve all been in communication with the same spirit, or they’re borrowing from each other like most artists.
Having said that, I would love to have a landscape or portrait from her. She’s a hell of a painter.
December 15th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Met God? As in “Hey, Akiane. It’s me, God. ‘Sup? Check this out: I have a plan for you. I want you to paint.”
I have questions about that.
Assuming she did meet God.
When one meets God, does faith even enter the picture from that point on? Isn’t faith crucial to Christian life, isn’t it an integral part of being in the body of Christ? Isn’t it unfair to others who haven’t met Him? How can she be sure she met God… what if it was the devil deceiving her? What about the self-portrait; how does that help… I thought that sort of thing would be straying from the mission? What is the message? Is there a message? How can you be raised by atheist parents when you are on a mission from God, how does that work or not work since you have to honor them; how can you honor them when they are atheists? Where does the money go? Should she have as little money as possible? Does she get special treatment (rhetorical I know… what KIND of special treatment does she get?)? Does she have people she uses her work to support? Who are these people, if there are some? Has anyone inspired by her story/work committed horrible sins as a result? And so on, and so forth, etc. I have many many more. They just don’t stop coming.
Unfortunately I think a lot of those questions would probably be frowned on by your average Christian, but I would love to get them answered.
December 15th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Someone call Oliver Sacks!
Could it be that her amazing talent is connected to her hallucinations? Many prodigies have been considered either “touched by God” or “possessed” (depending on whether the public likes the art) because of similar visions.
Is the reason Christianity Today sees this as a “gift” because she is painting Jesus? What if she were painting historical figures or fruit? What if she were painting pictures of Muhammad?
I guess my point is that this is amazing artistic talent in the realm of human genetic possibility. It is only the subject matter that makes people interpret it as a “gift from God.”
December 15th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Though the concept of god may never have been discussed in her home, I know for a fact many children get exposed to this by others. When I would stay with friends, their parents were very adamant that we would say prayers before meals and before bed. Most pre-school programs in my area were church run, so the stories read to us were all biblically based.
Even, if not especially, at such a young age, someone with authority telling you that you need to follow a new spiritual way can be very subconciously compelling. While still catholic, I was convinced to go to another church by a teacher and to not tell my parents since “the decieved may try to keep you from the light”. Thank my mother’s quick notice that I was up really early on Sunday and leaving to get on the church bus, that she stopped me.
I don’t at all disparage the girl’s talent. She’s a marvel, and that’s not even enough of a word for it. I just doubt the whole divine intervention part and see this more as a girl that was born with a genius for painting.
December 15th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
Wow. That’s pretty amazing stuff. Not proof of anything per se but very interesting.