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:
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.
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..
;)
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!
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.
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]
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.
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.
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?
AMEN!
I am Brian Jones! I am the word!
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.)?
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.
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.
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.
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….
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
[...] 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 [...]
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??
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.
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.
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!
A child can see that the difference in technique, style and imagination and any run of the mill velvetine Elvis is beyond comparison.
Hodge is right, I wouldn’t say Roadside Velvet Elvis… I’d more say Hole-in-the-wall Mall store unicorn.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Oh, and one correction, Augustine wrote in the 5th century CE, not BCE.
Also, thanks gasmonso for you help :)
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.
To impose a burden of proof on faith seems, a near oxymoron, and certainly redundant.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_pSaMPzjOc
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.
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.
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.
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.
Damn Sid. I think that in the logician’s world is what we call, by purely technical terms, Oh Snap.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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”….
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.
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.)
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.
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.