Welcome to the new-and-improved KingDavid8.com! I finally have all of the contents from my old site transferred here, so everything should be working properly. Please let me know if you find any "dead links". My pages also have boxes where readers can leave comments and criticisms, so don't be shy.
This website is mostly aimed at providing arguments and evidence for the non-Christian, the Christian who may be struggling with what he or she believes, or those Christians who are interested in reaching out to others.
My opinions may contradict what other Christians believe, but many of my arguments are also based on arguments given by a variety of Christian sources. I especially owe a debt of gratitude to the writings of Glenn Miller, J.P. Holding, Paul Maier, Grant R. Jeffrey, Lee Strobel, and Gerald Schroeder.
Please feel free to borrow ideas or arguments of mine (since many of them were not mine to begin with). I do ask that if you quote from my site directly, to please credit me.
What Is God?
Clint wrote:
What Is God?
So what was the Jewish god of Jerusalem, which we commonly refer to today using the formal titles G-d, God, or Allah? An early Ruling Class social and political strategy to avoid taking direct or sole responsibility. A modern version of this is found in the phrase, "The Devil made me do it." In other words, believing in a god concept, or using a god concept, is a type of avoidance behavior. Briefly list all the things you can avoid, if a god concept existed, first as a Worker Bee, and next as a political leader of a large population.
http://www.thegospelwriters.com/illegal_authority_hoax.html
I Responded:
Clint,
You have it backwards, actually. Belief in God gives us responsibilities that we wouldn't otherwise have. If there is no God, then we're only held accountable for those sins we get caught doing, and nothing matters in the long run. As an atheist, caring for your fellow man is optional (and I know many do). As a follower of God, it's a commandment. The Bible's never supported a "the devil made me do it" attitude, but the held the sinner accountable for the sin (while I've met many atheists who tell me that sin does not exist - talk about avoiding responsibility!). I've been both an atheist and a Christian, and I definitely have more responsibilies as a Christian.
BTW, I'd like to see your list of things you can avoid by believing in God.
David
Clint responded:
:-) Well said David, as always. I take it, I'm not going to be able to convert you to Secular Humanism? :-) Wish I could. Your flare for excellent and logical debate could really move the "Freedom From Religion" movement ahead over the next ten years. What if I could get you a chair on the Board of Directors for the National Secular Society?
As soon as I saw your email address in my "In" box, I knew I was going to get a positive 360 degree look at the issue. Thanks for you feedback. Your's is always welcome and appreciated.
Your secular friend,
Clint
p.s. I'm not sure I ever heard back from you about my research in profiling Jesus and then finding a profile match, Joshua-ben-Hananyah (which translated from Hebrew means Jesus-son of-gracious and merciful God), in the Talmud and other Jewish records, including a little known book that can only be found in the libraries of seminaries, called The Last Pharisee: Joshua ben Hananyah. Did you have thoughts you would like to share on this research?
I Responded:
:-) Well said David, as always. I take it, I'm not going to be able to convert you to Secular Humanism? :-) Wish I could. Your flare for excellent and logical debate could really move the "Freedom From Religion" movement ahead over the next ten years. What if I could get you a chair on the Board of Directors for the National Secular Society?
I would be more than willing to become a secular humanist if I could be logically convinced that God does not exist. But I think my approach to why I believe that God does exist is not the approach that your site counter-argues. I believe in God primarily because the order in the universe, and the existence of any kind of life, suggests an intelligent creator. I don't find it logical to believe that this could all be a fortunate accident. That's not to say that it's IMPOSSIBLE that this could all be a fortunate accident, any more than an orderly painting could not be the result of an explosion in a paint factory. But just like one does not assume "explosion in a paint factory" when they see an orderly painting, I would not assume "random processes" when I see the order in our world (nor would most people).
p.s. I'm not sure I ever heard back from you about my research in profiling Jesus and then finding a profile match, Joshua-ben-Hananyah (which translated from Hebrew means Jesus-son of-gracious and merciful God), in the Talmud and other Jewish records, including a little known book that can only be found in the libraries of seminaries, called The Last Pharisee: Joshua ben Hananyah. Did you have thoughts you would like to share on this research?
Just that I find those who try to seek Jesus of Nazareth in someone other than Jesus of Nazareth a bit silly. It's like those who try to seek evidence that Kennedy was shot by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald, or those who try to seek evidence that the U.S. government, and not Al Queda, was responsible for 9/11, or those who try to seek evidence that Elvis faked his death, or those who try to seek evidence that someone other than William Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to William Shakespeare. Why are they so unwilling to believe that Oswald shot Kennedy, or Al Queda crashed the planes, or Elvis is dead, or Shakespeare wrote the plays? I just wonder what makes people become so intent on finding alternate theories that they ignore what's obvious and right in front of them (and especially why they're surprised when no one believes them). I choose to believe the obvious, unless that "alternate theory" has as much strength. Don't just show me that the "alternate theory" is possible. Show me that it's undoubtedly correct. If you want to show me that Joshua ben Hananyah was the real "Jesus of Nazareth" instead of...ummm...Jesus of Nazareth, it's going to take an awful lot to convince me. I'm going to need something from you which is easily as strong as what I've already got. Don't just show me that it's POSSIBLE that the Jesus of Nazareth character was based on Joshua ben Hananyah, but show me that Joshua ben Hananyah is a more likely subject for the New Testament than Jesus of Nazareth. I have four Gospels that appear to be based on separate eyewitness accounts of Jesus' ministry and resurrection, totalling several hundred pages. I have many letters written by people like Paul, James and Peter which clearly date to the first century and talk directly about Jesus of Nazareth as if He were an actual 1st-century miracle worker. All in all, I have roughly a thousand pages about Jesus of Nazareth which date to well within 80 years and which I see no logical reason to suppose were works of fiction or were based on anyone other than Jesus of Nazareth. Do you have more evidence that Joshua ben Hananyah existed than I do that Jesus of Nazareth existed? Is the evidence that the NT was based on Joshua ben Hananyah stronger than the evidence that it was based on Jesus of Nazareth? I'm sorry, but the evidence for the existence of an actual Jesus of Nazareth is not so weak and flimsy that it will be easy to overturn, especially with the tactic you're trying.
One of the problems I have with your site (and I believe I've said this before) is that it seems to be mostly opinions, or assumptions based on beliefs that I don't share. I'm just not seeing a lot of hard evidence there.
David