How many ex-Christians are there here on CF and reason for leaving Christianity?

[FireDragon76]

If consciousness is the ground of beingness, then the only "objective truth" is "subjective truth".

Objective truth is overrated. Besides, I'd rather trust science than Christianity in that area, it has a better track record.

 

[dlamberth]

Not sure what you mean by other options in the scenario I proposed unless both are wrong?

I go with the option that there is a whole different paradigm regarding God than the one you offered.

 

[FireDragon76]

I go with the option that there is a whole different paradigm regarding God than the one you offered.

Yes... perhaps God exists, and Christianity is wrong about God?

 

[dlamberth]

Christian's can't have that perspective. Christianity requires absolutes. Jesus discussed truth at His own trial:

You may be right in that Christians requires absolutes. What Christ required though is Love, which has a lot of subjectivity about it.

 

[FireDragon76]

You may be right in that Christians requires absolutes. What Christ required though is Love, which has a lot of subjectivity about it.

The philosophical underpinnings of his notion of "truth" are not a given. He's conflating what early Christians said and meant, with what modern American evangelical fundamentalists mean by "truth", and discounting the vast differences in epistemological assumptions between the two.

 

[Chris V++]

The philosophical underpinnings of his notion of "truth" are not a given. He's conflating what early Christians said and meant, with what modern American evangelical fundamentalists mean by "truth", and discounting the vast differences in epistemological assumptions between the two.

Yeah I'm sure the ancient Hebrews and early Christians had a much more enlightened laissez faire attitude about the commandment
'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' than the rigid Billy Grahams of American evangelical fundamentalism with their 'we shouldn't have other gods before Him' interpretation of that highly nuanced scripture.

What Christ required though is Love, which has a lot of subjectivity about it.

That's a great point. Christianity is about love. Jesus had a lot to say on that subject.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yeah I'm sure the ancient Hebrews and early Christians had a much more enlightened laissez faire attitude about the commandment
'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' than the rigid Billy Grahams of American evangelical fundamentalism with their 'we shouldn't have other gods before Him' interpretation of that highly nuanced scripture.

That's not what I mean. I mean the idea that truth is divorced from embodied experience is alien to the ancient near eastern setting of much of the Bible, and modern Judaism as well. It took abstract "philosophy" of ancient and medieval rationalistic scholastics (sophists really) to decide that truth could be considered in the abstract.

 

[dlamberth]

That's a great point. Christianity is about love. Jesus had a lot to say on that subject.

That's just it, Christianity is about salvation. It's Jesus who is about Love.

 

[Bobber]

You may be right in that Christians requires absolutes. What Christ required though is Love, which has a lot of subjectivity about it.

In what way?

 

[roman2819]

As one who has, in the past, believed in such things as
burning bushes that don't deteriorate in the process,
talking snakes and talking donkeys, being swallowed by a
whale and living to tell about it 3 days later, manna
falling from the sky, immaculate conception, the turning
of water into wine, walking on water, the parting of a sea
so people can cross it on dry land, I found following was
also not beyond the realm of possibility (though I didn't
accept the concept of reincarnation overnight… far from it).

Here are a few items I found compelling, though YMMV:

❂ The Science of Reincarnation—VIRGINIA Magazine
❂ The Case of Shanti Devi — Carol Bowman, Past Life Therapy
❂ Chilling Reincarnation Stories: Children Who Lived Before | Reader's Digest



-

The cases you quoted to support your belief of rebirth is at most isolated, and such ocurences are very rare. If you can bring yourself to believe in rebirth based on such isolated instances , then I don't see why the Bible is less convincing. The Scriptures had been even more closely scrutinized over many years and have been found to be consistent.

Miracles such as parting of red sea and talking donkey are only part of the Bible, there are other evidences in the Scriptures spanning about 3000 years which are consistent with historical and archelological evidence.

 

[roman2819]

In an infinite universe with infinite potential, it is reasonable to suggest that such constructs will inevitably arise in one part of the universe or another.

It's just that we, as constructs wherein consciousness has arisen, reflect on the arising of all of these things and impose our concepts and our ideas of meaning on it all, when in reality they are simply just things which arose from the aggregations of more simple components.

Needless to say, it seems impossible to truly know the answer to "why or how did it happen?. As the Buddha pointed out, this is ultimately an exercise in futility and madness, since we cannot know - only speculate. As a Buddhist, the real question is rather "how do I address it?" with the tools at my disposal.

When I asked whether you really believe there is no God who created the ecology and millions of living creatures on our planet, you did not say no.

Your answer is the same as those of many buddhist friends in Singapore that I spoke to over the years. About one third of Singaporeans are buddhlsts and I discussed about religion now and then with frends. Buddhlism teaches there is no one creator but there are many enlightened deities that escaped rebirth. However, when I ask them the final question: Do they really believe there is no God or omnipotent Creator, somehow they cannot bring themselves to say no convincingly. Their reply is they wouldn't rule out the possibility that God existed.

I also know friends who turned to Christianity many years later. They looked back and acknowledged they were indulging in delusional philosophy earlier (when they were buddhists).

 

[ananda]

When I asked whether you really believe there is no God who created the ecology and millions of living creatures on our planet, you did not say no.

Your answer is the same as those of many buddhist friends in Singapore that I spoke to over the years. About one third of Singaporeans are buddhlsts and I discussed about religion now and then with frends. Buddhlism teaches there is no one creator but there are many enlightened deities that escaped rebirth. However, when I ask them the final question: Do they really believe there is no God or omnipotent Creator, somehow they cannot bring themselves to say no convincingly. Their reply is they wouldn't rule out the possibility that God existed.

I also know friends who turned to Christianity many years later. They looked back and acknowledged they were were indulging in delusional philosophy earlier (when they were buddhists).

Yes, I really believe that there is no God* or omnipotent Creator. Or, if it did exist, it, it would necessarily be the one being that possesses the most suffering, and would thereby personify the opposite of what I seek as the highest good & end-goal of all of existence.

*"God" in the sense of embodying the "highest good"

 

[Rajni]

The cases you quoted to support your belief of rebirth is at most isolated, and such ocurences are very rare. If you can bring yourself to believe in rebirth based on such isolated instances , then I don't see why the Bible is less convincing. The Scriptures had been even more closely scrutinized over many years and have been found to be consistent.

Miracles such as parting of red sea and talking donkey are only part of the Bible, there are other evidences in the Scriptures spanning about 3000 years which are consistent with historical and archelological evidence.

To each his own.

 

[Davidz777]

I am one of that left in my late teens and returned in my 40s.

I was brought up in a church going loving Catholic middle class family that lived in a list of suburban places mostly in California. Outside of having a filthy mouth I shared with other boys, I was a reasonably nice Christian kid without evil behaviors beyond a lusty interest in girls. After I went through confirmation my mother gave me the choice of continuing to attend Sunday masses with our family or not. We had an ornate King James Bible from which I began to read the OT from Genesis that resulted in doubting though in hindsight I was not mature or educated enough to make proper sense of what I read. That Bible plus gospels and sermons at masses had been my only source of religious information. I also had a strong interest in relations with women and culture of that era greatly conflicted with my desires. Church was always a boring experience and note that was the era of Latin masses when men all wore suits, women nicely dressed with hats, and kids wore dress slacks. Thus stopped going to church or having any religious life though did not reject Christ and God but rather had strong doubts that were more about religion and The Bible.

The next 3 decades were a period where I at times studied the Bible, in fact, read it cover to cover in my late 20s. Most of that period I also dealt with a severely limiting medical issue that often had me on the edge of the eternal abyss of death and is the primary reason I never married though wanted to. I'm a modestly well science educated person with strong skills of logic and deduction. It wasn't until the rise of the Internet in the early 90s when I had access to increasingly vast information that I began serious studies of religion and the Bible as there is much scholarly work available if one knows where to look. What that showed is scholars of all denominations have greatly more doubts and argue much scripture versus what ever dribbles down to ordinary Christians.

In the late 90's I committed back to a Christian life, an extremely difficult decision because it meant embracing celibacy. I also reconciled most problems with the Bible by rejecting inerrancy and infallibility and that has allowed me to look at the Bible's text with an open mind. I now also reject omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, precognition, time travel into the past or future, simultaneous planes of existence, multi-universes within the same physical space, or miracles that are logically impossible, and rather put such in the realm of impossible fantasy science fiction. So my view of what God probably is and what he can do is unique. I still have considerable doubts on a list of religious issues and tend to see such in relative perspectives versus black and white beliefs.

The most important reason I am a Christian is I greatly want God to exist as death, and end of existence, is the saddest thing to a loving intelligent organic creature. And though it may surprise many, it is science that provides the strongest reasons for this person to believe there is an ultimate intelligent entity in existence. I find fine tuning arguments powerful and the complexity of multicellular DNA life especially at the cellular level too incredible to have evolved on its own. And that includes the unlikely sequence of geological and atmospheric events over geologic time on our unique water planet Earth.

 

[roman2819]

I am one of that left in my late teens and returned in my 40s.

I was brought up in a church going loving Catholic middle class family that lived in a list of suburban places mostly in California. Outside of having a filthy mouth I shared with other boys, I was a reasonably nice Christian kid without evil behaviors beyond a lusty interest in girls. After I went through confirmation my mother gave me the choice of continuing to attend Sunday masses with our family or not. We had an ornate King James Bible from which I began to read the OT from Genesis that resulted in doubting though in hindsight I was not mature or educated enough to make proper sense of what I read. That Bible plus gospels and sermons at masses had been my only source of religious information. I also had a strong interest in relations with women and culture of that era greatly conflicted with my desires. Church was always a boring experience and note that was the era of Latin masses when men all wore suits, women nicely dressed with hats, and kids wore dress slacks. Thus stopped going to church or having any religious life though did not reject Christ and God but rather had strong doubts that were more about religion and The Bible.

The next 3 decades were a period where I at times studied the Bible, in fact, read it cover to cover in my late 20s. Most of that period I also dealt with a severely limiting medical issue that often had me on the edge of the eternal abyss of death and is the primary reason I never married though wanted to. I'm a modestly well science educated person with strong skills of logic and deduction. It wasn't until the rise of the Internet in the early 90s when I had access to increasingly vast information that I began serious studies of religion and the Bible as there is much scholarly work available if one knows where to look. What that showed is scholars of all denominations have greatly more doubts and argue much scripture versus what ever dribbles down to ordinary Christians.

In the late 90's I committed back to a Christian life, an extremely difficult decision because it meant embracing celibacy. I also reconciled most problems with the Bible by rejecting inerrancy and infallibility and that has allowed me to look at the Bible's text with an open mind. I now also reject omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, precognition, time travel into the past or future, simultaneous planes of existence, multi-universes within the same physical space, or miracles that are logically impossible, and rather put such in the realm of impossible fantasy science fiction. So my view of what God probably is and what he can do is unique. I still have considerable doubts on a list of religious issues and tend to see such in relative perspectives versus black and white beliefs.

The most important reason I am a Christian is I greatly want God to exist as death, and end of existence, is the saddest thing to a loving intelligent organic creature. And though it may surprise many, it is science that provides the strongest reasons for this person to believe there is an ultimate intelligent entity in existence. I find fine tuning arguments powerful and the complexity of multicellular DNA life especially at the cellular level too incredible to have evolved on its own. And that includes the unlikely sequence of geological and atmospheric events over geologic time on our unique water planet Earth.

@Davidz777 Thank you for sharing.

Your observation is so true: that "... fine tuning arguments powerful and the complexity of multicellular DNA life especially at the cellular level too incredible to have evolved on its own". It is easy to say that apes evolved into humans, but it is another to explain how the minute cellular transformation happen. The same argument stands for those who claim that millions of living things - from plants to animals - evolve on their own. They will realize it is mighty impossible. I wrote about that in my book "Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's will". As well, I also comment on how some people (whom I was acquainted with) left church but came back many years later.

Chapter 10
I have seen people who walked away from God but returned many years later. At the same church in Tokyo, there was an elderly Christian, Paul, who left Him many years ago because of prayers not answered. But many years later, he and his wife returned, and he encouraged his children and their families to go to church. I know him to be a Christian in both words and deeds. He might have left God earlier, but residues of faith were still in him. I also heard of other believers (whom I was acquainted with before) who came back after a long time. While away from the Lord, they were trying to find happiness, success and security, but subsequently, they realized that what the world offered was neither appealing nor assuring. Christians who keep faith know that God gives us a permanent peace that surpasses understanding. Amidst trials and struggles, what Jesus gives is eternal hope, which people won’t find in this world.

Chapter 11

What about the theory of evolution? It was proposed by Charles Darwin, who believed that life started by itself as the simplest basic cells, and over eons of time, they gradually evolved into more complex living organisms, and eventually into various kinds of life forms including plants and animals. With a view of the general landscape of living things and species, Darwin drew a “tree of life” diagram, and proposed that basic life forms evolved into more complex ones. If true, it would mean that at a very gradual pace, amphibians evolved genetically into reptiles, then to mammals, and finally into humans. But as to how the process could have happened, the theory did not offer any explanation of the intricate transformation at cellular level that would be necessary in order for evolution to happen.


When Darwin’s theory came about in 1860 AD, little was understood about cells. Science was not advanced and the use of anesthetics in medicine had just begun. Now, more than two hundred years later, with phenomenal progress in science and knowledge in the past century, microbiologists have found that even basic cells are not simple. Each unit – made of proteins, DNA and chromosomes – is in fact very complex and yet well organized; Darwin and his peers would have been astounded indeed if they had known this. Basic life forms such as amoeba appear “simple” only when compared to eagles, lions or salmon fish, for instances.

Today, modern discoveries come from research, improved scientific methodologies, plus precise and powerful laboratory equipment, which were not available during the nineteenth century. Scientists build facilities to smash atoms and measure the energy emitted by using sophisticated instruments. Having learned more about DNA, surgeons perform gene therapy. With our knowledge of “simple” cells with their intricate properties, it would be far-fetched to believe that they would be able to design and construct their own chromosomes in such an exacting manner. Today, there are still general postulations about how life might have started by itself and gradually evolved into the present state, but such loose and general hypotheses never attempt to explain the necessary DNA transformation that need to happen first.

Why then is there a case for creation? On earth today, so far, about 2,000,000 species of living creatures have been identified (which is only a conservative estimate), each with their own forms, functionality, instinct and intelligence. A spectrum of these would include 300,000 species of plants, 30,000 species of fishes, and 6,000 species of mammals. There are more species of invertebrates such as ground insects which live on land, as well as life forms that exist in the deep of the oceans. Could all these have emerged from “simple cells” that evolve entirely by themselves over millions of years? As we consider how trillions of living creatures live in a symbiosis manner in the ecosystems, one cannot help feeling that it would be mightily impossible for all these to have happened by themselves. When we look at the amazing diversity of life on earth, at the planets revolving around the sun along their set paths, and the regularity and rhythm in the universe, we have to wonder if there is more to it than meet the eyes. Can all these happen without a Designer who planned out the precise and intricate details?

I was not a believer by birth. One day, I asked a friend why he believed that God existed, and he said, “Look at the creation. How come all these happen by itself without God?” At that time, I found it difficult to deny that what there was a ring of truth in what he said. In school, we were told about the theories of creation and evolution. However, looking at the millions of species of living creatures on earth, I could not help feeling that it was just too far-fetched to believe that they could have evolved all by themselves into such a highly-sophisticated state: The possibility is just too minute. And this is the most common opinion among most people, even if they are not Christians.

 

[roman2819]

The way I see it is that with in the ongoing creation process itself, with in the Life Force of Life, are the means to Create infinite possibilities.

A recent post by Davidz777 offers a good answer about the infinite possibility in the creation process.

Your observation (Davidz777's observation) is so true: that "... fine tuning arguments powerful and the complexity of multicellular DNA life especially at the cellular level too incredible to have evolved on its own". It is easy to say that apes evolved into humans, but it is another to explain how the minute cellular transformation happen. The same argument stands for those who claim that millions of living things - from plants to animals - evolve on their own. They will realize it is mighty impossible. I wrote about that in my book "Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's will". As well, I also comment on how some people (whom I was acquainted with) left church but came back many years later.


Chapter 11

What about the theory of evolution? It was proposed by Charles Darwin, who believed that life started by itself as the simplest basic cells, and over eons of time, they gradually evolved into more complex living organisms, and eventually into various kinds of life forms including plants and animals. With a view of the general landscape of living things and species, Darwin drew a “tree of life” diagram, and proposed that basic life forms evolved into more complex ones. If true, it would mean that at a very gradual pace, amphibians evolved genetically into reptiles, then to mammals, and finally into humans. But as to how the process could have happened, the theory did not offer any explanation of the intricate transformation at cellular level that would be necessary in order for evolution to happen.


When Darwin’s theory came about in 1860 AD, little was understood about cells. Science was not advanced and the use of anesthetics in medicine had just begun. Now, more than two hundred years later, with phenomenal progress in science and knowledge in the past century, microbiologists have found that even basic cells are not simple. Each unit – made of proteins, DNA and chromosomes – is in fact very complex and yet well organized; Darwin and his peers would have been astounded indeed if they had known this. Basic life forms such as amoeba appear “simple” only when compared to eagles, lions or salmon fish, for instances.

Today, modern discoveries come from research, improved scientific methodologies, plus precise and powerful laboratory equipment, which were not available during the nineteenth century. Scientists build facilities to smash atoms and measure the energy emitted by using sophisticated instruments. Having learned more about DNA, surgeons perform gene therapy. With our knowledge of “simple” cells with their intricate properties, it would be far-fetched to believe that they would be able to design and construct their own chromosomes in such an exacting manner. Today, there are still general postulations about how life might have started by itself and gradually evolved into the present state, but such loose and general hypotheses never attempt to explain the necessary DNA transformation that need to happen first.

Why then is there a case for creation? On earth today, so far, about 2,000,000 species of living creatures have been identified (which is only a conservative estimate), each with their own forms, functionality, instinct and intelligence. A spectrum of these would include 300,000 species of plants, 30,000 species of fishes, and 6,000 species of mammals. There are more species of invertebrates such as ground insects which live on land, as well as life forms that exist in the deep of the oceans. Could all these have emerged from “simple cells” that evolve entirely by themselves over millions of years? As we consider how trillions of living creatures live in a symbiosis manner in the ecosystems, one cannot help feeling that it would be mightily impossible for all these to have happened by themselves. When we look at the amazing diversity of life on earth, at the planets revolving around the sun along their set paths, and the regularity and rhythm in the universe, we have to wonder if there is more to it than meet the eyes. Can all these happen without a Designer who planned out the precise and intricate details?

I was not a believer by birth. One day, I asked a friend why he believed that God existed, and he said, “Look at the creation. How come all these happen by itself without God?” At that time, I found it difficult to deny that what there was a ring of truth in what he said. In school, we were told about the theories of creation and evolution. However, looking at the millions of species of living creatures on earth, I could not help feeling that it was just too far-fetched to believe that they could have evolved all by themselves into such a highly-sophisticated state: The possibility is just too minute. And this is the most common opinion among most people, even if they are not Christians.

Chapter 10
I have seen people who walked away from God but returned many years later. At the same church in Tokyo, there was an elderly Christian, Paul, who left Him many years ago because of prayers not answered. But many years later, he and his wife returned, and he encouraged his children and their families to go to church. I know him to be a Christian in both words and deeds. He might have left God earlier, but residues of faith were still in him. I also heard of other believers (whom I was acquainted with before) who came back after a long time. While away from the Lord, they were trying to find happiness, success and security, but subsequently, they realized that what the world offered was neither appealing nor assuring. Christians who keep faith know that God gives us a permanent peace that surpasses understanding. Amidst trials and struggles, what Jesus gives is eternal hope, which people won’t find in this world.

 

[roman2819]

In an infinite universe with infinite potential, it is reasonable to suggest that such constructs will inevitably arise in one part of the universe or another.

It's just that we, as constructs wherein consciousness has arisen, reflect on the arising of all of these things and impose our concepts and our ideas of meaning on it all, when in reality they are simply just things which arose from the aggregations of more simple components.

Needless to say, it seems impossible to truly know the answer to "why or how did it happen?. As the Buddha pointed out, this is ultimately an exercise in futility and madness, since we cannot know - only speculate. As a Buddhist, the real question is rather "how do I address it?" with the tools at my disposal.

A recent post by Davidz777 offers a good answer about the infinite possibility that you claim is possible.

Your observation (Davidz777's observation) is so true: that "... fine tuning arguments powerful and the complexity of multicellular DNA life especially at the cellular level too incredible to have evolved on its own". It is easy to say that apes evolved into humans, but it is another to explain how the minute cellular transformation happen. The same argument stands for those who claim that millions of living things - from plants to animals - evolve on their own. They will realize it is mighty impossible. I wrote about that in my book "Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's will". As well, I also comment on how some people (whom I was acquainted with) left church but came back many years later.


Chapter 11

What about the theory of evolution? It was proposed by Charles Darwin, who believed that life started by itself as the simplest basic cells, and over eons of time, they gradually evolved into more complex living organisms, and eventually into various kinds of life forms including plants and animals. With a view of the general landscape of living things and species, Darwin drew a “tree of life” diagram, and proposed that basic life forms evolved into more complex ones. If true, it would mean that at a very gradual pace, amphibians evolved genetically into reptiles, then to mammals, and finally into humans. But as to how the process could have happened, the theory did not offer any explanation of the intricate transformation at cellular level that would be necessary in order for evolution to happen.


When Darwin’s theory came about in 1860 AD, little was understood about cells. Science was not advanced and the use of anesthetics in medicine had just begun. Now, more than two hundred years later, with phenomenal progress in science and knowledge in the past century, microbiologists have found that even basic cells are not simple. Each unit – made of proteins, DNA and chromosomes – is in fact very complex and yet well organized; Darwin and his peers would have been astounded indeed if they had known this. Basic life forms such as amoeba appear “simple” only when compared to eagles, lions or salmon fish, for instances.

Today, modern discoveries come from research, improved scientific methodologies, plus precise and powerful laboratory equipment, which were not available during the nineteenth century. Scientists build facilities to smash atoms and measure the energy emitted by using sophisticated instruments. Having learned more about DNA, surgeons perform gene therapy. With our knowledge of “simple” cells with their intricate properties, it would be far-fetched to believe that they would be able to design and construct their own chromosomes in such an exacting manner. Today, there are still general postulations about how life might have started by itself and gradually evolved into the present state, but such loose and general hypotheses never attempt to explain the necessary DNA transformation that need to happen first.

Why then is there a case for creation? On earth today, so far, about 2,000,000 species of living creatures have been identified (which is only a conservative estimate), each with their own forms, functionality, instinct and intelligence. A spectrum of these would include 300,000 species of plants, 30,000 species of fishes, and 6,000 species of mammals. There are more species of invertebrates such as ground insects which live on land, as well as life forms that exist in the deep of the oceans. Could all these have emerged from “simple cells” that evolve entirely by themselves over millions of years? As we consider how trillions of living creatures live in a symbiosis manner in the ecosystems, one cannot help feeling that it would be mightily impossible for all these to have happened by themselves. When we look at the amazing diversity of life on earth, at the planets revolving around the sun along their set paths, and the regularity and rhythm in the universe, we have to wonder if there is more to it than meet the eyes. Can all these happen without a Designer who planned out the precise and intricate details?

I was not a believer by birth. One day, I asked a friend why he believed that God existed, and he said, “Look at the creation. How come all these happen by itself without God?” At that time, I found it difficult to deny that what there was a ring of truth in what he said. In school, we were told about the theories of creation and evolution. However, looking at the millions of species of living creatures on earth, I could not help feeling that it was just too far-fetched to believe that they could have evolved all by themselves into such a highly-sophisticated state: The possibility is just too minute. And this is the most common opinion among most people, even if they are not Christians.

Chapter 10
I have seen people who walked away from God but returned many years later. At the same church in Tokyo, there was an elderly Christian, Paul, who left Him many years ago because of prayers not answered. But many years later, he and his wife returned, and he encouraged his children and their families to go to church. I know him to be a Christian in both words and deeds. He might have left God earlier, but residues of faith were still in him. I also heard of other believers (whom I was acquainted with before) who came back after a long time. While away from the Lord, they were trying to find happiness, success and security, but subsequently, they realized that what the world offered was neither appealing nor assuring. Christians who keep faith know that God gives us a permanent peace that surpasses understanding. Amidst trials and struggles, what Jesus gives is eternal hope, which people won’t find in this world.

 

[ananda]

A recent post by Davidz777 offers a good answer about the infinite possibility that you claim is possible.

Your observation (Davidz777's observation) is so true: that "... fine tuning arguments powerful and the complexity of multicellular DNA life especially at the cellular level too incredible to have evolved on its own". It is easy to say that apes evolved into humans, but it is another to explain how the minute cellular transformation happen. The same argument stands for those who claim that millions of living things - from plants to animals - evolve on their own. They will realize it is mighty impossible. I wrote about that in my book "Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's will". As well, I also comment on how some people (whom I was acquainted with) left church but came back many years later.

Chapter 11

What about the theory of evolution? It was proposed by Charles Darwin, who believed that life started by itself as the simplest basic cells, and over eons of time, they gradually evolved into more complex living organisms, and eventually into various kinds of life forms including plants and animals. With a view of the general landscape of living things and species, Darwin drew a “tree of life” diagram, and proposed that basic life forms evolved into more complex ones. If true, it would mean that at a very gradual pace, amphibians evolved genetically into reptiles, then to mammals, and finally into humans. But as to how the process could have happened, the theory did not offer any explanation of the intricate transformation at cellular level that would be necessary in order for evolution to happen.

When Darwin’s theory came about in 1860 AD, little was understood about cells. Science was not advanced and the use of anesthetics in medicine had just begun. Now, more than two hundred years later, with phenomenal progress in science and knowledge in the past century, microbiologists have found that even basic cells are not simple. Each unit – made of proteins, DNA and chromosomes – is in fact very complex and yet well organized; Darwin and his peers would have been astounded indeed if they had known this. Basic life forms such as amoeba appear “simple” only when compared to eagles, lions or salmon fish, for instances.

Today, modern discoveries come from research, improved scientific methodologies, plus precise and powerful laboratory equipment, which were not available during the nineteenth century. Scientists build facilities to smash atoms and measure the energy emitted by using sophisticated instruments. Having learned more about DNA, surgeons perform gene therapy. With our knowledge of “simple” cells with their intricate properties, it would be far-fetched to believe that they would be able to design and construct their own chromosomes in such an exacting manner. Today, there are still general postulations about how life might have started by itself and gradually evolved into the present state, but such loose and general hypotheses never attempt to explain the necessary DNA transformation that need to happen first.

Why then is there a case for creation? On earth today, so far, about 2,000,000 species of living creatures have been identified (which is only a conservative estimate), each with their own forms, functionality, instinct and intelligence. A spectrum of these would include 300,000 species of plants, 30,000 species of fishes, and 6,000 species of mammals. There are more species of invertebrates such as ground insects which live on land, as well as life forms that exist in the deep of the oceans. Could all these have emerged from “simple cells” that evolve entirely by themselves over millions of years? As we consider how trillions of living creatures live in a symbiosis manner in the ecosystems, one cannot help feeling that it would be mightily impossible for all these to have happened by themselves. When we look at the amazing diversity of life on earth, at the planets revolving around the sun along their set paths, and the regularity and rhythm in the universe, we have to wonder if there is more to it than meet the eyes. Can all these happen without a Designer who planned out the precise and intricate details?

I was not a believer by birth. One day, I asked a friend why he believed that God existed, and he said, “Look at the creation. How come all these happen by itself without God?” At that time, I found it difficult to deny that what there was a ring of truth in what he said. In school, we were told about the theories of creation and evolution. However, looking at the millions of species of living creatures on earth, I could not help feeling that it was just too far-fetched to believe that they could have evolved all by themselves into such a highly-sophisticated state: The possibility is just too minute. And this is the most common opinion among most people, even if they are not Christians.

1. "Minute possibilities" are actually definite certanties in an infinite universe with infinite potential. 2. Buddhism actually teaches that we are generally undergoing a process of devolution, not evolution.

Chapter 10
I have seen people who walked away from God but returned many years later. At the same church in Tokyo, there was an elderly Christian, Paul, who left Him many years ago because of prayers not answered. But many years later, he and his wife returned, and he encouraged his children and their families to go to church. I know him to be a Christian in both words and deeds. He might have left God earlier, but residues of faith were still in him. I also heard of other believers (whom I was acquainted with before) who came back after a long time. While away from the Lord, they were trying to find happiness, success and security, but subsequently, they realized that what the world offered was neither appealing nor assuring. Christians who keep faith know that God gives us a permanent peace that surpasses understanding. Amidst trials and struggles, what Jesus gives is eternal hope, which people won’t find in this world.

Buddhism taught & gave me a peace and happiness greater than this world too.

"Jesus gives" us "eternal hope" ... for what? I do not seek or care for the hope of eternal life, death, new heavens or a new earth, an eternal city, a kingdom or greatness or a room in it, white garments, a pillar in the temple of god, the privilege of eating from a special tree, god, nor a white stone or a new name. (It reminds me of a quote supposedly made by Napoleon: “A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon”) None of these things matters to me. I simply seek a perfect peace & bliss (nibbana), which Buddhism offers, and I could not find in Christianity.

 

[Bodhicitta]

Being convinced that many rebirths are true, I qualify my 'never' to 'never in this lifetime'.

Had a dream long ago where I was a Catholic missionary in Central Asia.

 

[roman2819]

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he's a member of God's staff,
or a tool in his toolbox.

Even when Judas was getting ready to betray Jesus after Satan
entered into him, Jesus spoke to him like they were collaborating
when he said "What you are about to do, do quickly" in John 13:27.
At that point, it could be said that person Jesus was speaking
to was Satan ("wearing" Judas as his disguise), rather than Judas
himself. It was a team-effort; a joint project.

Regarding your comments about Judas beng used by God ...

God did NOT cause Judas to betray. Judas would have betrayed the Lord even if he was not one of the 12 disciples. As a zealot who was trained in warfare, he would have spied on Jesus and reported to the authorities even if he did not know Jesus personally.

When the religious establishment plotted to kill Jesus, they offered a reward. Several people were tempted but they were afraid of the consequence upon themselves and family if they betrayed a teacher and miracle healer, whom thousands followed. Judas would be the one who decided to go ahead, in spite of certain fear and apprehension within himself.

Anyone who wanted to betray the Lord could have followed Jesus and see where He was. A large crowd greeted the Lord when He arrived at Jerusalem so it was easy to know that He and disciples were in the proximity. The opportuned time to arrest Him would be when the crowd was not around, otherwise an arrest in broad daylight would cause a riot. The betrayer could have keep an eye on where He was. Without Judas, someone else would have done it. But it was Judas who went ahead, while others were afraid or hesistant.

So why did Jesus choose Judas as disciple even though He knew? First reason is unconditional love, and second is damage control. If Judas was not with the twelve, he might have carried out his wilful act NOT according to God's timing. It is easier to manage Judas when he was around, instead of letting him be out there doing whatever he wanted at any time he chose.

Although Scriptures say Judas' deed fulfilled the Scripture, it doesn't mean God caused him to. The Bible is stating what Judas did, on his own free will.

Also: Some people believed that Judas was trying to force Jesus to push back against the Romans (after being arrested) by leading the Jews in a revolt. I believe this is quite a viable theory too even though the Scrptures did not say so. Back then, the disciples had to be careful about writing such stuff because it could anger the Roman authority, just like Jesus publicly avoid answering the question "are you the messiah?" because it was politically sensitive .