I have no idea why you would want to follow the teachings of a mere man who died and decayed, when there is someone who neither died (or rather, was raised) nor decayed, who atoned for your sin.

I sure do disagree with the statement that more faith is required to be atheist.

that faith is required to not believe in something is another way for a believer to pull others into their God delusions

To have FAITH that the universe came into being from nothing by pure random accident is really no different from having FAITH that it came into being from something for a reason.

To believe in either scenario requires FAITH.

I have no sins to atone. So I have no need for anyone who is offering to atone sins. The gospels claim that Jesus himself said that he did not come for the righteous but for the sinners. So Jesus wasn’t here for me anyway by his own proclamation according to the gospels.

None the less, I do agree with most of what Jesus supposedly taught. Although, since all we have from the man is extremely biased hearsay of attempts to paint him as the sacrificial lamb of Yahweh, as you describe above, then it’s really hard to say how much of the gospels actually came from Jesus, and how much of it is made up gobbledygook. This is why I must reject the Bible as even being a reliable representation of Jesus.

The best I can do with regard to Jesus is to recognize that he probably was a really nice guy and he probably did stand up for moral values that I would personally support.

Buddha, on the other hand did not ask for any followers. He ever proclaimed that he has any desire to be the King of Kings or Lord of Lords or that every knee shall bow to him or that every tongue shall confess that he is LORD.

So Buddha isn’t even asking anyone to ‘follow’ him. Buddha is simply sharing his insights into the human condition and the secrets of life itself. And of course he’s doing this in a way that is compatible with the philosophical and spiritual belief system of the culture in which he was raised. Not unlike the way that the authors of the New Testament painted Jesus into the philosophical and spiritual belief system of their culture.

First and foremost Buddah taught spiritual sovereignty, if you ‘follow’ the teachings of Buddha one of the first things you’ll begin to realize is that he is telling you that you should not follow him, but rather you should follow your own inner spirit. He then goes about sharing with you his own spiritual journey in the hope that his experiences may help you in your own quest for spiritual sovereignty.

The truly interesting thing is that both Jesus and Buddha taught the very same path. Yet one man is said to have taught a path to spiritual sovereignty, whilst the other man is said to be lusting to become the King of Kings and Lord of Lords to rule over you.

However, in all truthfulness Jesus NEVER SAID that he wants to be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and have every knee bow to him and ever tongue confess that he is Lord. But somehow that absurd notion got into the Bible and therefore becomes the “Word of God” in Jesus’ name we pray.

This is why the Bible is so full of baloney, IMHO. It contains so much contorted trivial and blatantly egoistical crap, that truly never even came from the mouth of Jesus. Most things that are actually attributed to Jesus are far more in line with what Buddha taught, and not at all in line with all the rest of the crap that’s in the “Holy Bible”.

For this reason (among others) I personally believe that Jesus was indeed a Mahayana Buddhist who was actually attempting to bring the wisdom of Buddha to his own people, but was unfortunately crucified by a mob on charges of blaspheme after only a few short years of attempting to teach the wisdom and love of Buddha.

I don’t believe for one second that Jesus was the “sacrificial lamb of Yahweh”. I personally find that whole notion to be quite unattractive and ignorant on many levels. I do not believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. I do not believe that a voice came from the sky saying, “This is my beloved son in whom I’m well pleased”. I do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Jesus was a mortal man, not at all unlike Buddha. He probably had the very same message to share. It is extremely unfortunate for everyone that Jesus was crucified for his efforts and ended up being used as a patsy by an uncouth religious regime to create a doctrine claiming that Jesus was the “sacrifical lamb of Yahweh” just so they could use him to prop up the very same religious doctrine that Jesus himself obviously disagreed with.

That’s my conclusions about what happened to poor innocent Jesus.

And it truly saddens me to see people falling for that tale and support it to use Jesus to prop up the bigotry, ignorance, and prejudices, of the Old Testament. The very things that Jesus himself tried so wisely and cautiously to renounce.

IMHO, Christianity is about as anti-Jesus as anything can possibly be.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us..." 1st John 1:8

You have no sins to atone? Am I corresponding with Jesus himself in this forum?

Well of course this is what the dogma claims. This is indeed the whole obscessive focal point of the religion.

It's a dogma that is utterly OBSCESSED with SIN.

That's one of the things that makes the religion so disgusting. It's so obscessed with sin that it's unhealthy.

Even the crucifixion of Jesus to pay for the salvation of man is a gory sick idea.



Oh no, I'm not Jesus. I wouldn't go around losing my temper overturning money tables in a public square. I don't even have that sin to confess. No, I'm even more free from sin than Jesus was.

I guess that's just another reason why the story makes no sense to me. How can a man who wasn't even as free from sin as myself offer to die for my sins? That makes no sense at all.

Let me just say again that I enjoy the discourse with you. You have obviously thought and studied much on spiritual topics; much more than the average person. The questions you raise are legitimate questions. And although we have mostly disagreed thus far, the tone of our discussions has been civil and respectful. Can't say that about a lot of forums like this where people get downright nasty and vehement, and that includes Christian ones.

Darn words sure can get in the way of communication can't they?

The idea of "God" or "theism" versus no "god" and "atheism" can be quite subjective.

I tend to agree with you Dragoness, if the word "God" can only be applied to concepts of egotistical Godheads (such as Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, etc).

I have a very hard time believing in that type of egotistical "godhead". In fact, that very notion seem utterly lame to me. The very idea that some surpreme egotistical being would create a bunch of lesser being to be his eternal servants and pets and that he would allow them to live in utter confusion whilst he plays hide-and-seek only to be judged later (and potentially even tortured for eternity should he happen to not want them as his own personal pets).

That picture of "God" is extremely difficult for me to believe in as well. In fact, I wouldn't even want to believe in that kind of a God on "Faith" alone because I truly would not even want the situation to be the truth of reality. I personally don't think it's a very good predicament for us, as humans to be in. Win or lose, we end up losing either way, in that picture.

However, when it comes to other pictures of 'god' or 'theism' such as Eastern Mysticism, it seems to me that these pictures actually make more sense than pure 'atheism'.

The reason being that pure 'atheism' basically demands that our very existence is nothing more than a freak accident that arose from what????

Even the best scientific theories have the universe arising from a quantum fluctation. Well a quantum fluctuation requires the existence of a quantum field. And a quantum field is some sort of "non-physical" information field. It's non-physical, in the sense that it cannot be directly detected or observed to be a physical phenomenon until it becomes 'excited' at which time it becomes manifest as physical "energy", or as E=mc² allows, as "matter".

So therefore even science is telling us that beneath this physical universe there exists organized information that is indeed non-physical in it's pure essence.

The Eastern Mystics call this the Akasha principle.

So in my mind it is that Akasha that is "god", and clearly we are it. Or at least a physical manifestation of it, "Tat T'vam Asi".

So in this sense, I personally feel that it makes far more sense to believe in spirit (i.e. the Akasha Principle) and that we are a manifestation of this eternal mind. In that sense, I think it makes more sense to believe in 'god' than to believe that there isn't a 'god'.

But do I believe in Zeus-like Gods? Or Gods like Yahweh who carve commandments into stone tablets and threaten to punish individuals who disobey them?

Well, if all that exists is the "Akasha" and the Akasha is "god", then God would be doing nothing other than threatening to punish parts of himself.

In other words, the whole idea of needing to be 'saved' or of being punished for wrong doing is absurd in this picture. There is nothing other than 'god'. We are not SEPERATE from "god" and therefore it would be silly to think that we could be cast into an eternal hell fire, or whatever.

Those kinds of mythologies were designed by men to try to keep other men in-line.

And many in some ways they are useful for that. I can't tell you how many Christians I've met who have said things like, "If there is no God then there's no need to be honest! I'd just run around and pillage and rape anything and anyone I want with no one to answer to".

So hey, if Christianity keeps those nasty Christians in-line, then maybe we should by PUBLISHING BIBLES instead of revealing their false nature.

I agree that letting go of man-made religion frees the soul. Christianity is not a man-made religion.

All the religions of the world, to one degree or another, all teach that man must somehow work his way into right relationship with God; to somehow earn God's favor through their spiritual performance. The center of Christianity is not (or is not supposed to be) centered around man and his performance, but is centered around the person and work of Jesus Christ. It's not about what we can do for God, but embracing by faith what He has already done for us through the finished work of Christ. It is by God's grace, through faith in the person and work of Christ, that we are "made righteous" in God's sight and enter into relationship with Him. It's a relationship, not a religion. And he is the best father you can ever know!

When we as people fly in an airplane, we don't have to logically understand all the intricacies of the law of aerodynamics in order to get on the plane and fly. We do a lot of things and accept a lot of things without having to understand it all. Just because we can't necessarily figure everything out about something with our minds isn't necessarily an absolute indicator that it is illegitimate. I believe God has given us reasonable evidence to his existence, and to the reality of His son. I would just ask you to consider opening your heart to the possibility that there really is a God whose intent is for you to enjoy Him and enjoy life, A God who certainly does not want to control you or punish you; but a God who loves you.

I disagree with you that to be a Christian, you have to believe in superiority, hypocrisy, and prejudice. Those things are appalling, but I will admit openly that there have been plenty of things done in the name of Christianity that have been appalling. Those things done by man that fit in this category certainly misrepresented the Christian faith, and misrepresented God. But those things don't change the reality of who Jesus really is, and who God really is.

I have heard many accusations over the years against things done in the name of Christianity. But rarely do you hear an accusation against Jesus. As a follower of Christ, I apologize to you on behalf of those who have done abominable things that perhaps put a bad taste in your mouth in regards to the Christian faith.

As a Christian, I do share the good news of Jesus with those in my sphere, whether Athiest, Muslim, Budhist, etc... But I respect their ultimate choice regarding whether to embrace God's grace in Christ, or not. Some are my friends; they know where I stand spiritually, and I know where they stand, and we just continue going about being friends. It is possible to agree to disagree and still be friends. Whether they receive Christ is their choice, but me choosing to share that Christ claims to be the only path to God does not make me prejudiced. Neither am I superior, for every good and perfect gift comes from Him, even the grace of life. But I very well may be a hypocrite in many people's eyes, for many think those who profess Christ should be perfect, and when the smallest mistake is witnessed, they are jumped upon with the "hypocrite" label. Yet I can understand why you mentioned the term "hypocrite" when referring to Christians for there are many who go to church on Sunday, yet give no thought to God's purpose for their lives Monday thru Saturday. But I believe to lump all who profess Christ into that category is unfair.

I appreciate your comments and thank you for sharing. You speak for a lot of people who have been turned off by religiousity in general.

Of course Christianity is a man made religion.

Who else could have created such an abomination to man and god?

Proof that God exists 101:

Have you ever seen a building? If so, how do you know there was a builder? The building is absolute proof that the builder exists.

I was recently in Myrtle Beach at an art gallery, looking at various paintings. If you were looking at the paintings, how would you know that there was a painter? The painting is absolute proof that the painter exists.

But that doesn't mean you know The Builder's Son, what his plans were for the building. Or even if he OWNS the building. Or has any say whatsoever in how it's administered.

For all we know, The Builder could have died bankrupt years ago and was cremated.

When evangelical Christians use this analogy, you can be pretty sure they think they know all these answers as it applies to their God having built the Universe.

That's an important distinction and that's where your theory breaks down.





For all I know, someone could have gotten a monkey to throw paint at a canvas that someone else signed with a French-sounding name. And then that same somebody started a myth that it was inspired by some fake tribulation and that the viewer has to be A Special Chosen Person to 'see' the 'Order' in that chaos.

Not to mention the temptation of rooking people for a buck and a half just to behold the work of the renowned ChimpPaint. :)

-Kerry O.

I know. My question here is always but who created the builder or the creator? Then who created that creator? Then who created that creator into infinity?

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us..." 1st John 1:8

So everyone has sin - EVERYONE HAS SIN - there is none without sin - NO ONE IS WITHOUT SIN.

Ok, I get the picture - do you?

If you believe that bible verse, then you believe EVERYONE HAS SIN - NO ONE IS WITHOUT SIN....

It follows then, that sin is an intrinsic part of our nature. Natural as in, we all have it, natural being, we were meant to have it.

If we were created with sin as part of our make-up and if the creation is perfect - What need is there to be saved from that sin? Why would we bother asking our parents forgiveness if we were born with a genetic defect - something that could only have been there to start with becasue of who are parents are.

So why do we need a savior again? I mean if god is the god you think he is - why not just fix the genetic defect? Why all the drama?

Well, there was a time when I believed in Christianity and was even sincerely thinking about the possibility of becoming a preacher. After all who wouldn't want to teach the "Word of God" if that's truly what the Bible is?

However, I must add here that in truth, I didn’t truly believe in “Christianity”, what I believed in was my parents and the adults around me. They were the ones who told me that this is the true word of God and they were the ones I “believed in”. I simply didn’t know enough about what was actually in the Bible to even say whether I actually believe it or not.

However, once I began to consider preaching “God’s Word”, I began to ask the hard questions. Not because I was challenging the truth of the Bible, but because, if I was going to be teaching the story I should have a full grasp and understand of precisely what the story is so I can answer and clarify these tough questions for others.

Well, it was when I began to actually read the Bible and search for answers to hard questions that I began to realize the answers simply aren’t clear. Not only did I begin to realize that answers aren’t clear, but I also starting becoming quite ‘turned off’ by some of the things I that are actually in the Bible. The more I read, the more “Hard Questions” kept popping up. I found contradictions, and situations that I personally felt that were not handled well by “god” at all.

By this time I’m having very little difficulty in questioning the ‘wisdom’ of God in these stories. And I’m also becoming ‘suspicious’ about whether these stories truly are the ‘word of God’.

I might stop and tell you at this point that while my family was quite religious and even some of my uncles were preachers, they weren’t ‘fire-and-brimstone’ preachers. No one in our family was a religious ‘fanatic’ or ‘fundamentalist’. Religion was never a ‘problem’ for me in terms of my family. It wasn’t ‘shoved’ onto me in a mean way, or anything like that. It was always presented to me in a very loving way, and questions about it were embraced, not discouraged. Even if they couldn’t be answered. Often times the answer was quite simply, “We just have to have faith”. However, for me, that answer is a non-answer.

It soon became vividly apparent to me is that the answers to the hard questions are not going to be found in the Bible. And that reading the Bible is only raising far more questions than answers.

Now whilst some of my uncles were preachers, others were actually atheists. This did not tear the family apart. On the contrary the preachers and atheists would often sit down and have very civil philosophical discussions about these things. It wouldn’t even be correct to refer to them as ‘debates’ because no one was attempting to convince anyone of anything. They were merely sharing their different views and why they each feel the way they do.

Like you, I’m not an atheist. I’m totally convinced that there is something going on that is far grander than just a mere freak random accident that occurred haphazardly out of some cosmic junk. And I might add here that I’ve been a physicist all my life, I’ve taught physic and mathematics both, and I’m fully aware of all the scientific theories. I fully understand those theories (at least as well as any physicist) and I have no problem with them in general. However, all that science does is describe how this universe behaves. It looks at the universe ‘behaving’ and it describes that behavior. But that is not an “explanation” of why it behaves the way it does. All that science amounts to is a description that explains things “after the fact”.

I like the way that Stephen Hawking put it: “What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?”

He fully understand that science is nothing more than a description of what we see happening all around us. Science can say nothing of how it truly came to be in the first place. Sure they can go back to the Big Bang and describe how it ‘unfolded’ but that’s still just a description of what’s happening. It doesn’t explain why it came to be that way.

In any case, I didn’t mean to go off on a tangent into science. But my point is that science does not, and cannot, replace theism. I’ve always believed in spirituality. However, I’ve always intuitively felt that I have always existed and always will exist. So that is also an innate intuitive feeling I have. That feeling is so profound I can intuitively say that I know that it’s true. But obviously there is nothing ‘logical’ that I can offer to support it.

Now getting back to the Bible. I’ve always agreed with the moral teaching of Jesus. In fact, I agree with them so much that this in itself is a bit problematic. In other words, I have nothing to ‘learn’ from Jesus. As I read his moral position on things I simply nod my head in agreement and acknowledge that I agree.

But isn’t that strange? Why should I already have the same moral values as Jesus? Could it be that he was simply offering wisdom that any sane wise person should already know?

This raises the question of why there are genuinely sick people in the world. Are their truly ‘evil’ people? Or are their just ‘sick’ people?

My mother was a saint. I mean, seriously. My mother didn’t smoke, drink (not even socially), or do anything like that. I never hard my mother swear or cuss. The closest she would ever come to cussing would be to say something like “Oh darn”, and even then she’d put her hand over her lips like as if she has said something wrong. My mother went to church every Sunday and to Bible Studies every Wednesday night for as long as I can remember. Even at times when we were financially hurting she would scrap together her little pile of change and take it to church to put in the tithe plate. My father died when I was nine. My mother never remarried or even so much as dated another man. She never had a harsh word toward anyone.

In fact, when we’d be watching the News and some horrible rapist or serial killer was caught and other people in the room would say things like “Good, I hope he gets the maximum punishment!”, my mother would say, “Awe, I feel so sorry for him. He must be sick”. In a way, I think she was a bit like me (or I guess I should say that I’m a bit like her), instead of thinking in terms of sin, we tend to think in terms of being either healthy or sick. How can a genuinely healthy person do such horrible things? They must be sick.

Sorry, I keep getting off on tangents. Getting back to Jesus. I agree with the teachings of Jesus. But isn’t it a bit ironic that I simply agree with him? I haven’t truly learned anything NEW from his teachings. All I do is nod my head in agreement, and it’s quite refreshing too after having read the Old Testament picture of “God”.

So this brings up an interesting question. Why do I find the Old Testament God so unwise, and disagree with his ways, and yet I find the New Testament God to be in perfect harmony with my thinking?

Well, here’s a thought. Maybe they have nothing to do with each other? Maybe Jesus isn’t the Son of Yahweh and was instead something else?

Well this weighed on my mind for many years. This was a long drawn out process for me. It didn’t happen over night. However in the meantime I had given up on becoming a preacher (mainly due to two reasons). 1. Because I couldn’t justify many of the things in the Old Testament. And 2. Because I couldn’t explain nor justify* why it was necessary for Jesus to be crucified to pay for our sins.

* Well, actually I could ‘justify’ Jesus as a ‘sacrificial lamb of God’, IF I actually believed in and agreed with the behavior of the God of the Old Testament. Because that God apparently was appeased by blood sacrifices. However, I could never even find a decent explanation to even justify that. Moreover, it ‘smelled’ too much like Greek Mythology and many other mythologies. Gods being appeased by blood sacrifices was a common theme in mythologies. Why would the “REAL” creator of the universe just coincidently also be appeased by blood sacrifices? Also why would God need to ‘sacrifice himself to himself” that makes even less sense. Plus having men angrily nail him to a pole does not constitute a genuine ‘sacrifice’ anyway. So the whole “sacrificial lamb” thing just can’t be justified, IMHO. At least not in a way that I can sincerely and genuinely support.

Let’s also not forget that Jesus did not even teach the same moral values as Yahweh. That’s pretty clear to everyone. Even the Christians LOVE Jesus. I’m not so sure they are all that happy with Yahweh. It’s JESUS they love, not Yahweh.

So as I continued on my own spiritual journey I discovered things like Buddhism and Hinduism, and so forth. They were difficult to understand and often confusing. Especially things like Zen Buddhism which is quite popular today. Zen Buddhism is almost a form of glorified atheism. However it’s a far cry from the original Buddhism of Siddhartha which was far more spiritual.

I studied Buddhism for quite some time. Both, “practicing” the various techniques as well as studying the history of it. What I found is that Buddhism is as diverse as the Abraham religions. It has many different ‘sects’ and ‘denominations’ (if you want to call them that). Then I ran across something quite profound. And that is called Mahayana Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism teaches moral values extremely similar to what Jesus taught. It also emphasized the importance of a concept called “Bodhisattva”. A bodhisattva is a person who dedicated their life to helping others find their enlightenment. In fact, it was a tradition of Mahayana Buddhism to not even taken in students unless they vowed to become a bodhisattva after they had reached enlightenment. The most interesting thing about all of this is that this particular style of Buddhism was actually at it’s peak just around the time when Jesus would have lived and taught.

Armed with this new insight, and realizing the following two things. 1. India isn’t all that far from Israel actually, and 2. Jesus was actually missing from the New Testament story from the time he was 12 until he returned at about 30. More than enough time to travel to India, and become a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

I’m not saying this happened. In fact, Jesus could have actually learned Mahayana Buddhism at home. Even the Bible mentions “wise men from the East” quite often. So the Buddhism could have come to Jesus.

In any case, with this new insight and understanding. It makes far more sense to me that what Jesus was actually teaching was the moral values of Buddhism. It makes perfect sense actually because the teachings of Jesus were totally different from the teachings in the Old Testament, yet they are in perfect harmony with the teachings of Buddhism (especially with the teaching of Mahayana Buddhism).

So today, that is my conclusion. Jesus was not the son of Yahweh. He was a man who taught far better morals than had been taught in the Torah. And he probably did say things like “I and the Father are One”, and “Ye are also gods”, etc. Because Buddhists believe in Pantheism (.i.e. All are God).

And so he was cruficied for blaspheme. For claiming to be “god” and for teaching things that weren’t in harmony with the Old Teachings of Yahweh.

It makes perfect sense. Far more sense than the idea that Jesus was the sacrificial lamb of Yahweh.

At least that’s my conclusion.

I still believing in “god” and spirituality. I was never an atheist at any point in my entire life. I just no longer believe that the Bible is the “Word of God”. But Jesus is cool. Nothing wrong with the moral values he taught. It's a shame he met with such a horrible death. But I seriously do not believe that was any surpreme plan of God to 'pay' for the salavation of men.

Wow, what an incredible story.

Well, there are a few more items that we actually agree upon: 1) I also believe we will live eternally, 2) the Bible doesn't answer all our questions, and 3) your mother was indeed a saint.

Which raises the question: When Jesus died on the cross, where did his spirit go once his physical body died? If he was indeed the sacrificial lamb of God who was to bear the penalty of sin on our behalf, wouldn't that mean he would have to experience "hell" in our place? Personally, I believe this is exactly what occurred; when the Bible refers to Jesus "tasting death" I believe it is not only referring to physical death but spiritual death (separation from God). This brings to light statements such as

"My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?" (Jesus on the cross)

"Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last; I am the living one; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever...and I hold the keys of death and Hades" (Revelation 1:18-19)

How could the Christ possess the "keys of death and hades" without first descending there to take them?"

There are also several references in the New Testament where Jesus is referred to as the "first-born from the dead" or the "first begotten from the dead."

My thought: Jesus suffered even in hell on our behalf, totally satisfying God's justice against man's sin. He was the first to ever be spiritually reborn.

As I said before, I am in agreement with you that the Bible doesn't have all the answers to life or whatever. But I don't believe this serves to prove the illegitimacy of the reality of God, and I think we are in agreement with this. Plus there will always be a degree of faith necessary when dealing with the subject of God; you simply cannot escape it.

One final note: As far as the Old Testament Yahweh thing; it's a fair argument that many have made for centuries. And the topic of "reconciling" the image of Old Testament Yahweh and New Testament Jesus will probably always be a subject of debate. In spite of these difficulties, Jesus Himself was raised in and worshipped within the Yahwehistic tradition. So, either Jesus was very confused, or there is something he understood that we don't. It would be difficult to admire the moral teachings of a man who would be that "mentally ill" to miss the supposedly great contradiction.

Yet if we come to believe a few propositions; namely, the holiness of God and the reality and heinousness of sin, it begins to make sense, and the finished work of Christ can be seen for what it is; the most incredible gift ever offered to mankind.

Jesus overcame our greatest enemy; death itself. And now he wants to share his victory with us. This is good news to all.

laughandlove4ever wrote:

Wow, what an incredible story.

Well, there are a few more items that we actually agree upon: 1) I also believe we will live eternally, 2) the Bible doesn't answer all our questions, and 3) your mother was indeed a saint.

Your Final Note:

One final note: As far as the Old Testament Yahweh thing; it's a fair argument that many have made for centuries. And the topic of "reconciling" the image of Old Testament Yahweh and New Testament Jesus will probably always be a subject of debate. In spite of these difficulties, Jesus Himself was raised in and worshipped within the Yahwehistic tradition. So, either Jesus was very confused, or there is something he understood that we don't. It would be difficult to admire the moral teachings of a man who would be that "mentally ill" to miss the supposedly great contradiction.

As I said before, I am in agreement with you that the Bible doesn't have all the answers to life or whatever. But I don't believe this serves to prove the illegitimacy of the reality of God, and I think we are in agreement with this. Plus there will always be a degree of faith necessary when dealing with the subject of God; you simply cannot escape it.

Which raises the question: When Jesus died on the cross, where did his spirit go once his physical body died? If he was indeed the sacrificial lamb of God who was to bear the penalty of sin on our behalf, wouldn't that mean he would have to experience "hell" in our place? Personally, I believe this is exactly what occurred; when the Bible refers to Jesus "tasting death" I believe it is not only referring to physical death but spiritual death (separation from God). This brings to light statements such as

"My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?" (Jesus on the cross)

"Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last; I am the living one; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever...and I hold the keys of death and Hades" (Revelation 1:18-19)

How could the Christ possess the "keys of death and hades" without first descending there to take them?"

There are also several references in the New Testament where Jesus is referred to as the "first-born from the dead" or the "first begotten from the dead."

My thought: Jesus suffered even in hell on our behalf, totally satisfying God's justice against man's sin. He was the first to ever be spiritually reborn.

When Jesus died on the cross, where did his spirit go once his physical body died? If he was indeed the sacrificial lamb of God who was to bear the penalty of sin on our behalf, wouldn't that mean he would have to experience "hell" in our place?

This brings to light statements such as

"My God, My God, why has thou forsaken me?" (Jesus on the cross)

"Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last; I am the living one; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever...and I hold the keys of death and Hades" (Revelation 1:18-19)

Yet if we come to believe a few propositions; namely, the holiness of God and the reality and heinousness of sin, it begins to make sense, and the finished work of Christ can be seen for what it is; the most incredible gift ever offered to mankind.

Jesus overcame our greatest enemy; death itself. And now he wants to share his victory with us. This is good news to all.

Well, there are a few more items that we actually agree upon: 1) I also believe we will live eternally,