AMA (Ask Me Anything): My Beliefs have Changed

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Over the last few years my beliefs have changed on many things. For example:

1) Evolution: I have educated myself and now believe that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor. This is not really a "change" since I never explicitly denied evolution - I usually just ignored it and went along with the general evangelical skepticism of it. But now that I have studied the evidence, I am convinced of common descent.

2) I believe that all religions are false. This should not come as a big surprise since pretty much everyone agrees that all religions are false except perhaps the one they happen to adhere to. I simply realized that there is no single religion known as "Christianity" - all we have are a thousands of sects: Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Fundamental Baptist, Independent Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Dunking Donuts Baptist, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, etc., etc., etc.. and these sects are not just a "little" different - e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith explicitly declares that the Pope is ANTICHRIST, whereas the Pope explicitly and "infallibly" declares that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (source) so all Protestants are damned. Of course, the Pope contradicts the Pope on this (and does so infallibly!) since it is not acceptable in the modern world to say such things. Examples like this can be multiplied indefinitely. Obviously, religion is madness incarnate. Attempting to find a solution by appealing to the early Creeds solves nothing.

3) So what about the Bible Wheel as proof of the Bible? Good question. The Bible Wheel does indeed cause me to pause and wonder what it possibly could mean. Without it, I would have rejected the confusion and contradiction known as the "Christian Faith" long ago. But now I see that the Bible Wheel proves nothing with regards to the thousands of mutually contradictory religions that claim the Bible as their source. Therefore, the Bible Wheel has little if anything to do with those religions.

I have much more to say but I wanted to break the ice and get the conversation going.

Richard

[Beck]

I see no big deal with numbers 1,2,3 but would like it if you give some more details of Evolution. I take it that all creators evolve and therefore the principle elements of evolution exsist, but not that humans evolved from one organism.

On another topic is Jesus returning....

[Mad Mick]

I clearly felt a move of my spirit. It kind of like lept when John met Jesus while he was still a foetus.

Strange, very strange!

I don't know how to describe this moment any better than a transformation from an egg to a tadpole. You can see the development through the shell yet it's not free until it makes the transition through the shell.

I automatically felt a sense of an outing of some kind that you were holding off for no good reason. I feel this is good!

While you were writing this I was writing something very similar which I will have to post after I edit it, simply for the fact that it was too long!

I too cannot side with any one religion.

Where we differ is that I don't really side with the rigidities of science either.

I tend to think we are more like Lab Rats and that the truth is stranger than fiction.

Congratulations Richard, I felt immediately inspired, and that a great weight was lifted off your shoulders. I feel logic is more your saving grace. I tend to get along better with atheists than fundamentalists simply because of the logic and not a hand me down belief without a disciplined logic or proof of why we do it? The whole purpose of it needs to be constantly re evaluated or go through a kind of transformation for a more developed creature which we need to become.

You've rejuvinated me! Thanks Richard & Thank You God In Jesus' Name, Amen.
Mick

PS I believe this is strongly linked with the changing of the ages.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I see no big deal with numbers 1,2,3 but would like it if you give some more details of Evolution. I take it that all creators evolve and therefore the principle elements of evolution exsist, but not that humans evolved from one organism.

The evidence of common descent is extremely strong. It is based on the "tree of life" which shows how all species are related to each other. The tree was originally based upon organizing the species according to their obvious characteristics like reptile, bird, etc., with different kinds of birds, for example, being on the same branch of the tree. This was strongly confirmed by the fossil record in which simpler forms were found in older rocks corresponding to lower parts of the tree. And then the whole tree was confirmed in an extremely convincing way when the same pattern was found using DNA sequencing.

If you are interested in this topic, I would highly recommend a book by Sean B. Carroll called The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Forensic Record of Evolution. The same kind of evidence that is now universally accepted in all courts as proof of guilt or innocence also provides evidence “beyond all reasonable doubt” about the evolutionary history of all living beings. Here’s is how Carroll explains his book:

More accurate and rigorous than fiber or fingerprint analysis, and far more reliable than eyewitness testimony, DNA analysis can provide conclusive proof about who was or was not at the scene of a crime. The authority of DNA evidence … led to a revolution in the criminal justice system and a vast increase in the use of DNA testing to both convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent. …

The power of DNA testing extends far beyond criminal justice. The determination of paternity is now definitive, and testing for carriers of genetic diseases is now routing, thanks to DNA science. but there is one arena where that power is not yet widely appreciated: in what one might call the philosophical realm.

Just as the sequence of each individual’s DNA is unique, the sequence of each species’ DNA is unique. Every evolutionary change between species, from physical form to digestive metabolism, is due to – and recorded in - changes in DNA. So, too, is the “paternity” of species. DNA contains, therefore, the ultimate forensic record of evolution.

Is there any evidence that causes you to doubt common descent?

On another topic is Jesus returning....

Good question. My answer is "probably not, but if so, I can not think of any reason to believe so." If the Biblical predictions concerning the "coming of the son of man" in passages like the Olivet Discourse are true, then they must have been fulfilled in the first century. It is very interesting that most atheists use those predictions as proof that the Bible is false.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I clearly felt a move of my spirit. It kind of like lept when John met Jesus while he was still a foetus.

Strange, very strange!

I don't know how to describe this moment any better than a transformation from an egg to a tadpole. You can see the development through the shell yet it's not free until it makes the transition through the shell.

I automatically felt a sense of an outing of some kind that you were holding off for no good reason. I feel this is good!

While you were writing this I was writing something very similar which I will have to post after I edit it, simply for the fact that it was too long!

I too cannot side with any one religion.

Where we differ is that I don't really side with the rigidities of science either.

I tend to think we are more like Lab Rats and that the truth is stranger than fiction.

Congratulations Richard, I felt immediately inspired, and that a great weight was lifted off your shoulders. I feel logic is more your saving grace. I tend to get along better with atheists than fundamentalists simply because of the logic and not a hand me down belief without a disciplined logic or proof of why we do it? The whole purpose of it needs to be constantly re evaluated or go through a kind of transformation for a more developed creature which we need to become.

You've rejuvinated me! Thanks Richard & Thank You God In Jesus' Name, Amen.
Mick

PS I believe this is strongly linked with the changing of the ages.

Hey there Mick,

Great post! I'm really glad you feel "rejuvenated." That's how I feel too.

I wasn't really "holding off" so much as waiting for the right moment. I was going to write a big well-structured post that would say everything "perfectly" but never felt inspired - and I'm glad. It's better just to shoot off a few quick comments and break the ice and see where it goes.

I "side" more with science only because it can be tested so we can discern objectively what is true and false. But the science folks have blind spots too. They tend to fall into a totally materialistic view of reality which I do not believe is justified, and there certainly is no "evidence" for that philosophical position.

Talk more soon,

Richard

[Gil]

Howdy Richard,Beck and Mick,


Richard>

AMA (Ask Me Anything): My Beliefs have Changed
________________________________________
Over the last few years my beliefs have changed on many things. For example:

1) Evolution: I have educated myself and now believe that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor. This is not really a "change" since I never explicitly denied evolution - I usually just ignored it and went along with the general evangelical skepticism of it. But now that I have studied the evidence, I am convinced of common descent.

Gil > I see it for the most part the same way. The lowest common denominator of evolution as well as the concept of God
Is Life itself. When science and religion dig deep enough, it is Life that they will ultimately become confronted with.
I don't thing the human mind will ever get beyond this seemingly profound mystery.

2) I believe that all religions are false. This should not come as a big surprise since pretty much everyone agrees that all religions are false except perhaps the one they happen to adhere to. I simply realized that there is no single religion known as "Christianity" - all we have are a thousands of sects: Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Seventh Day Adventist, Fundamental Baptist, Independent Baptist, Reformed Baptist, Dunking Donuts Baptist, Calvinist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, etc., etc., etc.. and these sects are not just a "little" different - e.g. the Westminster Confession of Faith explicitly declares that the Pope is ANTICHRIST, whereas the Pope explicitly and "infallibly" declares that "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff" (source) so all Protestants are damned. Of course, the Pope contradicts the Pope on this (and does so infallibly!) since it is not acceptable in the modern world to say such things. Examples like this can be multiplied indefinitely. Obviously, religion is madness incarnate. Attempting to find a solution by appealing to the early Creeds solves nothing.

Gil > I find myself in agreement once again.
The closest form of Christianity that I have been able to see is found within the Christology of Paul the apostle.
All other denominations of the reformed Roman church ( some call it Catholicism) have missed the truth to be found with our Bible.
This of course includes what some call the Mother church.
All other religions are based upon mans concept of the Gods and God.

3) So what about the Bible Wheel as proof of the Bible? Good question. The Bible Wheel does indeed cause me to pause and wonder what it possibly could mean. Without it, I would have rejected the confusion and contradiction known as the "Christian Faith" long ago. But now I see that the Bible Wheel proves nothing with regards to the thousands of mutually contradictory religions that claim the Bible as their source. Therefore, the Bible Wheel has little if anything to do with those religions.

Gil> I have never really looked into your Bible wheel . Not because it may or may not shed more light on the scriptures
But does it give man a deeper look within himself as a walking, living human being that was born of the flesh?
Can it show how to have a meaningful relationship with a creator God?
Does it show anything of the purpose of man and the function that he was purposed for in the plan , purpose and function
Of the creation itself of which man appears to be but a part, here on this earth?
Does it show a path that man should follow, to not only walk in the footsteps of Jesus while he was in the flesh, but a means
To following the resurrected Jesus Christ to still another realm in which life continues in an ever new developing state.

Most see evolution as a physical phenomenon that has it's purpose here on earth.
I do not. It to me is an evolution of life itself in the many and ever changing states that are within the evolutionary process.
Man is no different in this regard. What most people see and look for in Christianity is not so far distant from the early
Concepts of a transfiguration of our physical flesh bodies that will no longer see death and find this earth
To be their future home and place of residence.

I won't spend much time on this thought, But Paul took the concept forward into a spiritual transformation of the soul.
He dropped the physical and moved inward to that which was in reality man himself. A spiritual entity that has life and it is the spiritual side of man, like life itself that continues on after the death of the physical body of flesh.

----------------
Beck>

I see no big deal with numbers 1,2,3 but would like it if you give some more details of Evolution. I take it that all creators evolve and therefore the principle elements of evolution exsist, but not that humans evolved from one organism.

On another topic is Jesus returning....

Gil > I read a book once in my early years ,called "A generation of vipers" by Phillip Willy.
He used the birth of a human baby from it's conception to it's fully formed state as it departed the womb
To show the similarity of Darwin's concept of the evolutionary process in picture's of each stage of a babies
Formation. It caught my attention as it moved from a tadpole , amphibian with a tail, then legs etc.
To me all science and Christianity are compatible with each other.
The Bible for the most part is looking into a darkened mirror . The truth is there , one needs to find it.
I consider myself lucky in a way. I have been home schooled by myself in the Bible and most concepts
That religion and Christianity hold to I have learned of after I had formed my own opinions.

Jesus returning. No. I don't think that it was ever within the plan and purpose that God had for man.
To me, Jesus is the path, the truth, the light and the way, that man in the flesh may continue his
Own journey with the life that has been given him.
He, in my own reality has never left.
The Father and the Son have always been within man. Man merely lost his way.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hey there Gil,

I'm glad you jumped in to the conversation.

Gil > I see it for the most part the same way. The lowest common denominator of evolution as well as the concept of God
Is Life itself. When science and religion dig deep enough, it is Life that they will ultimately become confronted with.
I don't thing the human mind will ever get beyond this seemingly profound mystery.

Yes, there is a "mystery" to Life and Consciousness. But I am not sure how to understand it since I see my cats have consciousness and some intelligence (they know how get me to open the door to let them out, for example). The only difference is that I have self-awareness whereas the cats seem only to have awareness of their environment. I tend to think that's because I got the bigger brain. I used to think that it was because I was a "spiritual entity" inhabiting a "body." But that doesn't explain why both the cat and I have "awareness" in general. If awareness is a property that arises from brains in general, then I would expect "self-awareness" to arise from more complex brains.

Currently there are two "singularities" that science has yet to penetrate:

1. Origin of the Universe: We can trace history back to 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, but we can not explain the event itself.
2. Origin of Life: No one seems to have a clue how life arose from non-living matter.

I believe the history that flows from those two "singularities of origin" can be fully explained by natural law. It may be that the Universe itself ultimately needs an explanation because of Fine Tuning, but I find it very difficult to imagine that God let the whole universe run on natural law except when he interrupted to make the first cell. That seems like a typical "God of the gaps" argument.

2) I believe that all religions are false. ...

Gil > I find myself in agreement once again.
The closest form of Christianity that I have been able to see is found within the Christology of Paul the apostle.
All other denominations of the reformed Roman church ( some call it Catholicism) have missed the truth to be found with our Bible.
This of course includes what some call the Mother church.
All other religions are based upon mans concept of the Gods and God.

Yep. And it seems that the conclusion is inevitable: God does not care what people believe, or at the very least, it is absurd to think that God has prepared an eternal conscious torment for those who hold erroneous opinions about Jesus and other religious propositions. I mean think about it! Most folks have no opportunity to study all the religions of the world to make an informed choice between truth and falsehood. And if they did, they would almost certainly come to the conclusion that no religion is true. But many folks don't even learn to read and don't live long enough to study such things anyway! The idea that our eternal destiny depends upon submitting to a specific sectarian religious dogma is the most obvious con game in the history of the world. It is used by all religious dictators to control the "sheep" so they can steal their money and use them any way they want.

3) So what about the Bible Wheel as proof of the Bible? ...

Gil> I have never really looked into your Bible wheel . Not because it may or may not shed more light on the scriptures
But does it give man a deeper look within himself as a walking, living human being that was born of the flesh?
Can it show how to have a meaningful relationship with a creator God?
Does it show anything of the purpose of man and the function that he was purposed for in the plan , purpose and function
Of the creation itself of which man appears to be but a part, here on this earth?
Does it show a path that man should follow, to not only walk in the footsteps of Jesus while he was in the flesh, but a means
To following the resurrected Jesus Christ to still another realm in which life continues in an ever new developing state.

That's a lot of questions! If you believe the Bible itself answers those questions, the same can be said of the Bible Wheel.

Great chatting,

Richard

[Beck]

The evidence of common descent is extremely strong. It is based on the "tree of life" which shows how all species are related to each other. The tree was originally based upon organizing the species according to their obvious characteristics like reptile, bird, etc., with different kinds of birds, for example, being on the same branch of the tree. This was strongly confirmed by the fossil record in which simpler forms were found in older rocks corresponding to lower parts of the tree. And then the whole tree was confirmed in an extremely convincing way when the same pattern was found using DNA sequencing.

Currently there are two "singularities" that science has yet to penetrate:

Origin of the Universe: We can trace history back to 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang, but we can not explain the event itself.
Origin of Life: No one seems to have a clue how life arose from non-living matter.
I believe the history that flows from those two "singularities of origin" can be fully explained by natural law. It may be that the Universe itself ultimately needs an explanation because of Fine Tuning, but I find it very difficult to imagine that God let the whole universe run on natural law except when he interrupted to make the first cell. That seems like a typical "God of the gaps" argument.

There in lays the problem for me with the theory of Evolution. Now to evolve is founded but the theory isn't. We then come up with unfounded theories.

[/INDENT]Is there any evidence that causes you to doubt common descent?

No, I not have any problem with that, only creation from Evolution.

Good question. My answer is "probably not, but if so, I can not think of any reason to believe so." If the Biblical predictions concerning the "coming of the son of man" in passages like the Olivet Discourse are true, then they must have been fulfilled in the first century. It is very interesting that most atheists use those predictions as proof that the Bible is false.

I would agree on your points of the Olivet Discourse of the "coming in the cloud", "coming of the Son of Man". To that point, how would you understand Jesus resurrection? Literal, if so then what about his ascension? Noted that they stood looking up in the clouds as he ascended. Just trying to work through some of these points myself.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There in lays the problem for me with the theory of Evolution. Now to evolve is founded but the theory isn't. We then come up with unfounded theories.

Yes, the main gap in our understanding concerns the origin of life. There are other gaps about the details of how some complex structures evolved and whatnot, but I have not seen anything to make me think we needed a supernatural explanation for any evolution after it got going. It seems, therefore, very odd to think that God had to intervene to design the first cell and then he just stepped back to let the natural process of evolution take care of the rest. It seems more likely that there is a natural explanation for the origin of life. I don't think we can use the problem of the origin of life to infer anything about God because we simply do not know if it could have happened naturally or not.

I would agree on your points of the Olivet Discourse of the "coming in the cloud", "coming of the Son of Man". To that point, how would you understand Jesus resurrection? Literal, if so then what about his ascension? Noted that they stood looking up in the clouds as he ascended. Just trying to work through some of these points myself.

Good questions. If we assume the Biblical narrative true, I would say the resurrection of Christ was probably literal (physical) so the disciples could see it and believe. As for the ascension - it certainly sounds literal, but it gets mixed together with the metaphorical use of the "clouds of heaven" so I don't know. And that's the real point - we don't know much about the real meaning, let alone the truth, of any of these things. No matter how hard anyone tries, no one can put together a complete picture of what even happened in most of the Biblical narrative. This is the basis of Dan Barker's Resurrection Challenge:

I HAVE AN EASTER challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.

Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)

The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.

Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?

I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.

It's pretty difficult to argue with a simple challenge like this, isn't it? But who can answer? I think we all know the answer. No Christian can meet this simple challenge. The accounts of the resurrection in the four Gospels are irreconcilable. And if this is the case, then it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to believe them because we can not even state what it is that we are supposed to believe.

Richard

[alec cotton]

Evolution is a loose word which has very little meaning of itself .. Radio evolved . That is, men gradually added new concepts and so it grew more and more complex . The same way with computers. One man built on the ideas of others. . That is totally different to the concept which people have when they say, 'I believe in evolution ' What they really mean is , I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution by the (accidental ) selection of the species. That theory is so absurd that I find it hard to understand how any man with a grain of intelligence could give it any credence There is not one shred of evidence to support such an idea. It is based on speculation and nothing else. Let us start with the cambrian period . Fossils from that time are quite rare . In my mind the graptolites are the most conspicuous . For seventy million years nothing changed . Suddenly there was a dramatic change . Most of the species dissappeared and numerous new species appeared. That era was called the ordovician. Vertibrates and fungi appeared . Plants grew on land. Nothing evolved for the next 50 million years or so and then lo and behojd , all things passed away and all things became new There was a brand new lifestyle on earth. During this period called the silurian ,land vertebrates and insects flourished for the first time. This situation remained for about forty million years and nothing evolved After that the devonian at the end of which a whole new raft of species was introduced. The difference in the different periods is so distinct that wherever you may go in the world , the rocks can be recognised by their age and the periods they belong to by the distinctive fossils which they contain. The holy grail of darwinism is 'the missing link' It does not exist . It never did . Nothing evolved . Everything is created with a purpose. All this is based on observation. The Darwin theory is purely speculation and supposition. The fact is that every animal is endowed with just enough intelligence to fulfill yhe purpose for which it was created . that fact can be verified under laboratory controlled conditions. Since the pseudo scientists fell over their own feet and recognised a chemical which the called d.n.a for short. They have used it to 'prove ' that all life evolved from a common origin. What they are looking at is the tool which the creator uses to fulfil his purpose. It is a chemical which the body produces. It is a product of the creator. To paraphrase the words of Martin Luther King Jr. We maximise the minimum and minimise the maximum . God created all things perfect. Think for a moment about water. Life cannot exist without it and yet we take it for granted . As far as I can see it is the only substance that expands when it freezes. Many years ago I pondered why water always froze on top of the water. I reasoned that heat always rises and cold always falls. Therefore the coldest part of the pond should be the bottom. I went out in winter with a rod and line and a thermometer and lowered it to the bottom of the pond . IT was warmer at the bottom than the top. Some time later I read that water expands when it reaches 34 Fahrenheit. Therefore it is lighter than the surrounding water. Now I see the logic of it . If it was not so the ice would form at the bottom and gradually reach the surface and all the fish would be exposed. I am convinced that the creator had all this under control when he planned H2O.
Alec