Should we throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Does opening our mind to questions necessarily lead away from God? Here is an email dealing with that issue:

I have just found your site while researching the question of God without Jesus and The Bible. To be brief, I have been in a questioning mode for the last 5 years after being in church for 55 years. But, God has been too good to me and to interactive in my life, still today, that I can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Why do so many who begin to question their faith, either go purely agnostic, or atheistic? I can not deny God. But yes there are many things I have learned and believed over the past 50 years that I now question big time--but as I say--God is far too real in my life. Do you think that one MUST throw the baby out with the bathwater? That one must disbelieve in God altogether if he begins to doubt certain criteria? And like you, after half a century as a student AND teacher of the Bible, I have been strongly startled by this change--but no matter what I question, I just can not delete my personal relationship with God himself --He has been and is far too involved in my life for me to do that. Do you not feel that a man can keep his relationship with God, yet still question and ponder all the other trappings? I'd really love to hear from you, as this really is a strange and heartfelt journey for me. I know of a Christian turned atheist who was glad to denounce God, but cried because in doing so, he had to leave his best friend ( JESUS ) whom he missed very much. I am questioning the exact opposite..... the total, certain belief in God himself, even if He is not, ultimately, the GOD of The Bible. please respond if you will.

One of the hurdles to questioning the faith is the thought that God is inside of you. Many of us have believed for years that God is literally residing inside our own minds; that he is thoroughly aware of every thought as it occurs; that an open link exists to the very throne of the universe; that communication with the ruler of the universe is only a prayer away; and that God is actively inserting thoughts into our mind to guide and comfort us. Some find it acceptable to question assertions about the Bible, but it becomes very hard to question this inner voice. After all, God supposedly hears every thought, and can supposedly bring trouble to the mind that is not thinking the right thoughts. Is a thought that questions God an allowable thought? If not, then one cannot even ask those questions, for there is no private place where one can retreat to think things through in privacy. A God that is "hearing" every thought eliminates any moment of complete inner privacy.

The idea of this loss of privacy can be enslaving, but many also find it comforting. They like the idea of a constant companion inside the mind, keeping thoughts from going too far astray, and providing peace to the troubled mind when needed.

We find that the writer above does not want to question this relationship with God, for he does not want to think of leaving his best friend behind.

Sidestepping the question of whether a creator God exists--a question I don't usually address--the issue here is whether God is intimately involved in a relationship with people, and whether this relationship should be cultivated.

Being scientifically minded, my natural response is to ask for the evidence that God really is inside your mind communicating with you. Yes, you may find the concept comforting, but others find it comforting to imagine that Abraham Lincoln or some other person is inside communicating with them. That is a technique that helps some people clarify their thought flow when nobody is around to talk to. They simply summon their imaginary friend, and imagine speaking to him, thus helping them to organize their thoughts and to think of other perspectives to the problem. It is not real, but some people find it a helpful technique. Could the same thing be happening in prayer? The fact that you find it comforting does not mean it is based on reality.
What exactly does God say to you? For any real relationship requires two-way communication. Does he provide you with information you would not otherwise know? Does he give you advice that you could not think of yourself? If so, do you claim that people who communicate with God in this way intuitively know things they would not otherwise know, or have a better judgement in moral decisions? Both claims could easily be tested by scientific experiments, but I think we already know what we would find. It is very doubtful that either claim would yield statistically significant results in a controlled study. And if the claims do not stand to scientific scrutiny, can you be sure they are true?

During the years of my "personal relationship with Jesus", I readily whispered a quiet prayer to God many times a day. Many times I thought I heard God directing me. Sometimes I dogmatically followed that inner direction. After all, who was I to question a thought that had been inserted into my mind by God himself? But I no longer whisper prayers, and no longer assume that a thought in my mind must be the direct revelation of God. And I find that my mind is now much more at peace. Perhaps the same will work for you. Or perhaps you will continue to find more peace in life if you assume this direct communication.

You certainly do not need to throw away your belief that a God was somehow behind creation, or even your belief that there is a God inside of you. You do not need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. But I do think you need to ask if there is a baby in the bathwater. If you search and find no baby in the bathwater, then you can throw out the bathwater without fear.

An answer to every question that needs answering

I received this email with an amazing promise, that there is a way to find an answer to every question that needs answering.

Although I do not claim to have all the answers to life's questions, I do know that God has an eternal purpose for everything that is allowed to happen as well as what is not allowed. God loves man, as his creation, yet mans natural body and well-being is not his first concern for man. God's first concern would be for a man's soul, his eternal destination. The Bible says life is but a vapor. The Bible states in 2 Corinthians 4:18, "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." While many times we see tragedy, God, through his Omniscience, sees eternal consequences. He knows how 1 situation, as tragic as it may be, could have a greater impact eternally even more so. As I have come across & read some of your writings, I can tell you are a very educated and wise man. I know you probably have many more questions of how and why things in this world happen. I am sure you have questions that I have no answers to; however, I know a man who has all the answers, His name is Jesus. If you truly seek a relationship with him I assure you he will answer every question in your mind that needs answered. I did not write this email to anger or upset you, just in obedience to God. I have never responded to anything like this before, I hope you sense God's love this hour.

I can assure this writer that I, and many others, have indeed truly sought a relationship with Jesus, indeed have lived in what we understood to be such a relationship for years, and yet did not find the answer to every question when we needed an answer. It is those unanswered questions that have led us on our journey of discovery and exploration, and have led us beyond the faith we inherited.

The writer seems to be satisfied with the answer that earthly tragedies are acceptable because God knows they bring the best eternal good. I wonder, for instance, how the recent tragic tsunami was for have eternal good. If such tsunamis are the best that could happen for eternal good, why are scientists and engineers working to develop better warning systems to prevent such disasters in the future? If small pox plagues and tsunamis are planned by God for eternal purposes, why are scientists working to eliminate or minimize the consequences of such events? The answer given by this writer--"greater impact eternally"--only increases my questions.

I wonder if the writer has indeed found the answer to every question that his mind needs to have answered. If so, perhaps his mind asks fewer questions than mine does.

Omphalos

Here is an email reviving the old argument that the earth was created young with an appearance of age. This is commonly referred to as the Omphalos argument, after the book by that name that popularized this argument.

I've read your page on 'How Old is the Earth' and I am glad to see that you addressed what I call the 'Apparent Age' theory (ie light from the stars was created enroute as well as other aspects you did not address). It appears that the sum total of your argument against this theory is your subjective characterization of it as being deceptive. Was it deceptive to create Adam as a fully grown man even though he was only one day old or was it simply a constraint of creating a being who was immediately self-sufficient unlike a day old baby? Was it deceptive to create fully grown trees bearing fruit so that Adam and the other animals had something to eat or was it simply a constraint of creating an environment in which man and animals could immediately survive without having to wait years for a seed to grow into a tree and bear fruit? Was it deceptive to create a star or a supernova AND create the light that would have emanated from it in order to provide light to the earth or was it simply a constraint of needing to provide light to the earth and not wanting or needing to wait millions or billions of years for the light to arrive? Do you have anything other than a subjective characterization to address this argument? I suspect you don't or you would have already included it in your article. I look forward to hearing back from you.

Well, yes God could have created light en route from the stars at the moment he created the stars. But would that light contain a history of the stars as it arrived at us? As I explain at my site, the arriving starlight shows details of supernova explosions and other stellar activity. The light from SN 1987A even had a built in delay for the reflected light to arrive at earth. Scientists say the delay was caused by the light needing to travel 8 months to the clouds it reflected off of before it came in our direction. I suspect the writer has no answer for this. Why was the reflected light delayed 8 months in reaching us?

For more on this argument, see Omphalos.

"I was a fundamentalist Christian for 27 years"

Here is another email I received:

I was a fundamentalist Christian for 27 years. I became "born again" after joining the Air Force in 1979. I remember reading a bible I had bought and for the first time read what the New Testament said about salvation. I realized that I was a great sinner and needed help. I was upset with the way my life was going and saw no way out. I was in my barracks by myself reading the bible when I came across the passage "If you will confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved". I bowed my head and repeated this to God and put my trust in him. I felt great release and love flowed into my heart. I started to go to church, go out with Christian friends, sing and witness in the park and of course read my bible day and night. For a year I was on cloud 9 but then I was sent to an Air Force base in England. At RAF Lakenheath (a nuclear bomber base) I was charged with guarding the various weapons we had and prepare for nuclear war with the Soviet Union. It was an exciting time for me since I truly believed that the Rapture would happen anyday now and was not worried at all about the world situation. In fact the worse it got, the better. But I noticed my spiritual life was leveling out. I found it harder and harder to keep my body from sinning. I struggled with thoughts of sin and battled everyday with unclean thoughts. I was going to a Full Gospel Charasmatic Church in the meantime that believed in all the fruits of the Spirit. I remember watching the healing services and seeing the same people go up week after week with the same complaints. Never did I see someone healed of a major illness, it was always a back problems or cold. I then began to see what power does to people. The pastor was only part time but he wanted to be full time and bullied the members of the church to pay him a full time salary. Anyone who opposed him was cast out of the church, including me. I returned to the United States, still in the Air Force and went to another Full Gospel Church. I was beginning to see problems with the bible. I saw that there were some very real contradictions that couldn't be explained but I just let it go believing that God had a reason for everything in the bible. One thing that really bothered me was the violence that God used in the Old Testament against various nations. I just couldn't understand how God could order Israel to kill entire cities, including women and small children. I imagined them being lined up for execution, the woman holding onto their children who were crying and then getting a sword run through both of them. It didn't make sense to me at all and I was very upset at this. I imagined myself an Israelite soldier being ordered to kill children. "Would I do it?" I thought. If I didn't I would be disobeying God and would be killed and sent to hell. That thought put terror in my mind and I quickly thought of different things. I also questioned the idea of an eternal hell. Again I thought how could God send someone to a lake of fire for ever and ever? How about all these people in the world who never heard of Jesus? Were they doomed? The Church was telling me that they were and that God was justified in sending them to hell and in fact one day we would all rejoice at the justice of God for sending those people there. I also saw the state of the Church itself in two parts. The first was Church history which was terrible! The entire 2000 years since Christ was filled with violence, hatred, greed and powerful Christians doing bad things to others. I saw the Church take over the Roman Empire and turn it into an Empire of Christian horror. People with different opinions were called heritics and hounded out of the cities. When the Empire finally fell and the Church was the only law, things really got out of hand. I don't know how many people were killed in the name of Christ, but it was not a few. The second part about the Church was what I saw people doing now. I saw very little love in the Church. I saw greed and people seeking power and money. I saw various churches that didn't care one lick about their members except how they could continue to contribute money to the Church. I was amazed that I never found a man or woman that I could say truly lived the life I envisioned a Christian should live. It seemed that the Church as a whole was even worse than the general public. Divorce was rampant, various sexual sins were all the rage and money was the new god. The straw that broke the camals back for me was Rev Ted Haggard. I didn't know much about him except that he was very big in the Church. When he fell like he did I finally said to myself "THAT IS ENOUGH!" I began to read articles critical of the bible and saw that my past concerns were also the concerns of others. I started reading books about how the bible was written and the various problems with the ressurection accounts. My eyes seemed to be open for the first time. I saw the problems with creation science and began reading books on evolution for the first time with fresh eyes. I felt like I had been in prison for many years and that my learning was very very far behind. I loaded up with science books and read many articles questioning the bible. I read testimonies of former Christians who believed exactly like I did and saw that they truly believed the bible at the time but had the same questions that I did. I also found your web site and read every article and at that point I began to feel a great relief in my very essence. I then promised myself that I would examine the evidence fully and then decide if the bible is truly the Word of God or not. If it is, then it must be fully followed without question. If not then I cast it away. Today, December 31st, 2006 I am making the following declaration: I have studied the evidence and have come to the conclusion that 1. The bible is not the Word of God. It was written by man at various periods. 2. Jesus is not God, or Christ or anything. If he existed he was just a man. 3. God does not exist. That is my story in short. I plan on writing a much longer version later when I finally get things settled in my mind. I just wanted to declare before the new year starts that I am no longer a Christian in any sense of the word. Neil Houston, Texas

I am glad that this writer experienced a relief in his very essence. His story is typical of what many have experienced.

What about the trinity?

Here is another email I received:

I wonder if you have considered the trinity in light of the anthropomorphic nature of religion and politics previous to and concurrent with biblical times. In short wouldn't this place Jesus, if he did exist, on a par with the Roman Emperors, self declared gods incarnate? The experience of the Jews, in all the societies in which they lived, was of gods that could incarnate at will and walk the earth with the common man. Here, in Jesus, was a God incarnate who, unlike the emperor, was a man of the people,a man for the people.

Yes, when you consider the times, it was not that unusual for a man to be considered God incarnate. As you mentioned, Roman emporers made that claim. What is unusual is for Christians to accept this view, while carrying the Old Testament that says there is one God. Of course many accept the idea of 3 beings that are all God, but think that the concept of the trinity explains it. I discuss that issue at 3 Gods?

Another Challenge to my Site

Here are portions of another email I received, defending the Bible and opposing my site. The writer begins with an interesting take on science:

You can tell us about light reaching the earth at the rate of speed that in some way you believe makes your theories disprove those of the bible. Since the so called big bang theory which i believe was Gods original creation of our universe, since then the universe has been constantly expanding. The light was already there and the distance to travel was closer to the original point of entry and some of those are actually moving away from us, and others with us.,some reflecting from other bodies such as the moons reflection of the sun.. The expansion of the universe along with the enormous black hole that was created also would bend and transverse all areas. And light that reached the earth would not necessarily have to travel far since expansion of the universe is still moving all things out at a terrific rate of speed, and also the expansion of the black holes which accellerate all matter and anti matter to speeds that cannot be measured. And what about light from stars that exploded before we arrived or could record the event. , the light is still coming. How fast does a small atomic blast spread, and how fast would it spread if in a vacuam and with black hole accelleration and warpage and an uncomprehensible size.with no original gravity from other universes and constellations to slow that growth and expansion.. So much for Science

So much for science? Some might suggest that this paragraph doesn't even begin to cover real science.

How do I begin to unravel the errors here? First, how can you say that the light was already there when the stars were created? The light contains information about the stars from which it came. Was that information ingrained in the starlight to make it look like it came from those stars, even though it hadn't? Wouldn't that be deceptive?

And yes, stars are moving outward, but that does not solve the problem that the light we see came from stars that were millions of light-years away when the light left the stars. And the light shows that the stars were very far away from us at that time.

Hell can scientists bring a man back from death after 4 days.

Nope. But science can develop the technology to give you a computer which allows you to get on the Internet and attack science. You know. if science hadn't done that, you wouldn't be here attacking science, would you?

Did it ever occur to you that you might be cutting off the branch you are sitting on?

Anything one Scientist says can be explained away entirely with a little thought.

Uh, and which scientist are you referring to , whose every word can be explained away entirely with a little thought?

Or are you condemning all scientists? If so, please explain away Isaac Newton's Principia with a little thought. I would be interested in hearing you explain that one away.

about these fossils and such. Science still has not proven that humans came from other species as in evolution, in fact they are completely at a loss in DNA mapping and fossil studies. Now they are telling us that aliens from outer space may have created mankind .

Scientists are at a complete loss in DNA mapping? Really? Why is it that we can find the spot in the human genome where two of an ape's genes were joined together to make the human gene? Can you explain that? That is one of the many ways that DNA mapping verifies evolution.

And please show me one respectable scientists that says aliens made humans. Where in the heck are you getting this stuff?

Our Scientists are only human and many of our best cant perform some simple tasks, but can offer baffling explanations to get noteriety or sell a book.

Many of our best scientists cannot perform simple tasks? My you go to extremes to attack science. Can you prove this statement? How do you know it is true?

There are some obviously fabricated lies even on the Discovery channel. I have even responded to their program about one of their shows, and caused them to remove the program. They removed it because they knew they would lose credibility in their programming. Funny thing is they even called me with an apology. I told them to apologize to the people who watch, but that never happened.

Oh, so your search for science has taken you all the way to the Discovery channel?

I think I may have found part of the problem with what you write.

If you want to learn about science, you will need to move beyond the Discovery channel. I would recommend you turn to the writings of scientists themselves.

I can buy books to tell me how to do anything, but most are total garbage and I end up doing it another way.

You end up doing it your way, and ignore what the books say? Somehow, I am not surprised.

Is it possible that your willingness to write off the ideas of others is preventing you from expanding your horizons?

Yes we may look like descendants of apes but it doesnt mean Mom and Dad were apes.

Ah, but what about all of the fossils that have been found intermediate between humans and apes? Don't they indicate something?

Now they say birds may have descended from Dinosaurs, yes the got real tiny and sprouted wings?.

Uh, some dinosaurs were small. And no, they didn't spout wings. Have you ever studied the structure of the wing of a bird? Amazingly, it resembles the forelimb of a dinosaur. Can you explain that? Could it be that the reason for this is that the dinosaurs' forelimb evolved into a wing?

Yeah this is from Sceintists who tell us they can prove chocolate is bad, then no, now its good for us. Take these pills proven to keep you from heart disease but give you an aneurism which stops your heart.

Okay, now you turn to attacking nutritionists, medicine, and pharmacology? You sure have unleashed a broad based attack on science.

Surely you must be aware that science and medicine have made tremendous advances in the last 200 years. Could it be that, although medicine has had some setbacks, that the advances in modern medicine far exceed the setbacks?

Then we find that if we ate fish twice a week and got off my butt it would accomplish better cure for the problem. at least for me it has. Hey thats a diet used in the bible, better than the doctors cure for me. Isnt it strange that the bibles words about food are still the most healthy.

Uh, but the Bible also encourages the eating of beef, which is not very healthy.

And when you talk about the old testament you need to realize that many of those laws were created for the Isrealites who were in need of strict law. And these same laws were nailed to the cross with Jesus.

Hmm. So the Israelites needed a strict law? Why? Were they not human just like you and me? And don't humans work better when not restricted by strict laws? So why did they need a law forbidding people to wear mixed fabrics or to work on Saturday?

If these laws were later nailed to the cross, why were such strict laws given out in the first place?

And as The New Testament states in so many places we are not bound by most of those laws. [Jesus] dispelled many of their laws and rulings in the old testament.

What about the New Testament verses that say we need to keep the law?

And if most of those laws have been obsoleted, which of them have been dispelled and which have not?

You claim to have read every line in the bible numerous times but I guess you cant see the forest for the trees. So what if every line in the bible were not perfect, or even the printer may spell some wrong, or even leave some pages out accidentally. How many places are most things explained frequently, and where is there a better guide anywhere to living.

Ah, so you admit the Bible may not be perfect? I agree. So let's discuss which verses might be in error.

Where is a better guide for living? How about the Humanist Manifesto? Many agree with me that it is a better moral guide.

Read history before Christ. The strongest dominated the weak . Seventy five percent of the world were treated as slaves.Unwanted children were killed or fed to animals regularly. Babies were sacrificed to pagan gods. Children born with defects were commonly killed or disposed of. Do you have any defects?. There were no morals and people lived like animals, could do whatever they pleased, take your property, kill you , steal your wife and children.

Uh, actually Greek and Roman civilizations had some high standards of human decency before Christ. And the advances that have been made by civilization can be attributed to many causes, not just the life of one man.

Even the Isrealites killed their people for breaking the commandments. Work on the sabbath, they killed you, steal a mans property or wife, they could kill you or beat you until you were a vegatable.

Uh, yes, and the Bible told the Israelites to kill a person who worked on the sabbath. That is the problem with your book. It commands things that you apparently consider to be wrong.

Pestilance and disease killed whole cultures because of lack of cleanliness, and sex with animals, and many partners, and lack of morality which leads to more disease. There was no charity , no respect for life, no hospitols. Much of the non Christian world still live like savages , with no respect for life, women, children, disease and more. Hospitols and nursing were founded by Christians.

Well, yes, disease killed many until modern science developed many cures. It would seem to me that science should take the credit for overcoming diseases.

And hospitals are primarily funded by secular governments, not by Christians only.

It is irrefutable that Chritianity is responsible for modern science.

How so? Much of the foundation of modern science was laid out by Greeks, Chinese, and Arabs, who were not Christians. It seems to me that people of many religions have contributed to science.

All and every branch of Science was developed by a practicing Christian.

That depends how you define branches of science. Much of science began outside of Christian lands. Yes, there was a period when science grew most rapidly among Christian Europeans, but there were other factors--such as plenty of food and leisure time-- that probably contributed more to Europeans' success than their religion.

The greatest litirature, the greatest art, the most beautiful architecture , the rules of law, government, The Constitution, our money , Can you honestly believe that Christ has not influenced every aspect of our life. I shudder to think what the world would be like if he had not been born.

There have been many influences on culture besides just Christ.

And I believe now that many are denying God we will see a faster decline in our way of life.

But in many ways life today is so much better than life in the past. Slavery and oppression of women have been largely eliminated in many countries.

Are you sure society is in decline?

You are one of our generation that has been affected by Jesus even if angry or in denial of him.

Angry? Gosh, what makes you think I am angry?

In denial? How can I be in denial when I was driven to my new view by the weight of the evidence?

I know the power of prayer as it works for me because i have been to that door numerous times.

And has the power of prayer delivered results that are better than chance? If you think so, how do you know this to be so?

The death of Judas

By popular demand, let's talk about the death of Judas. The conflict between Matthew and Acts is well known:

Matthew says:

Mt.27:5 And he [Judas] threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself.

But Acts says:

Acts 1:18 Now this man [Judas] acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

The verses indicate that Judas died in two incompatible ways.

In another thread, "Honey" argues that Acts 1:18 is not referring to Judas's death, but that the verse takes place after his death. I think that is a very unnatural interpretation of Acts 1:18. If the author was intending to convey that thought, could he not have expressed himself more clearly? After all, we have seen on this blog where Pastor Al thought this verse is referring to Judas's death. If the writer of Acts wanted Pastor Al to understand that Judas was dead before this verse, why didn't he make it clear so Pastor Al and I would understand it correctly?

Let's look at the verse. First we find that Judas acquired a field. Honey has argued that this event could have occurred after his death, and it could have been the high Priests who did the purchasing, acting as executors for Judas's estate. Well, yes, that could have been, but what an odd choice of words for the author to use. Why didn't the writer of Acts say Judas's executor's obtained the field for Judas? Whenever such transactions are done, it is usually said that the executor buys it for the estate, not that the dead man buys it. I challenge Honey to find one document anywhere where it tells us that a person executed a financial transaction without clearly telling us that the person was dead when the transaction occurred. So I find it extremely doubtful that the author intended us to understand this verse as meaning that Judas was dead when the transaction occurred in his name.

Moving on, Acts immediately tells us that this Judas (who had just acquired a field) fell headlong and his guts burst out. Surely if Judas had died between the financial transaction and this headlong fall, the author would have told us so. And Honey seems to agree that Judas did not die in the middle of verse 18. So we can write that explanation off as unlikely.

So it seems that, according to Acts, Judas was alive at the beginning of the verse, and was alive up until the fall. But even if Honey insists that Judas could have been dead several days before "falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out," this is a most unusual way of saying that. If people come across a body that had been dead for several days, it is invariably referred to as a dead person. Again, I challenge Honey to find any passage in literature where a dead person is referred to as a "he" doing something, without making it clear that the person of interest is dead.

So yes, of course, it is remotely possible that the writer of Acts meant to say that Judas was dead before Acts 1:18, and used extremely unclear words to express that thought. But a much more likely interpretation is that the writer of Acts thought Judas died as described in verse 18. As such, the verse contradicts Matthew.

You decide: Is it really feasible that the author intends Acts 1:18 to say, "Now this [dead] man['s estate] acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong [after he had been dead for a while] , he [or, more accurately, his body] burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out"? I doubt very much if this is the intended meaning of this verse.

Honey may be quite happy to find a possible solution to the problem, even if it is very unlikely. But remember, in order to prove the Bible flawless, she would need to find many similarly unlikely solutions for other conflicts in the Bible. If one must choose between hundreds of unlikely interpretations for each contradiction, or believe that the Bible is errant, is it not more likely that the Bible is errant?

David and Solomon (and Judas)

Recently I have read the book, David and Solomon, having had my curiosity aroused by the discussion here with "Honey". It is an interesting book, putting together archeology, history, and the Bible to discuss the story of David and Solomon.

The authors see that David and Solomon may well have been real men who started a dynasty known as the House of David, but the actual events of their lives must have been very different from that recorded in the Bible.

Archeology shows that Jerusalem and the surrounding areas were only sparsely inhabited by a few herders and farmers in the time of David. Archeology has found many remains at Jerusalem from earlier times (before 1550 BCE) and from later times (after 750 BCE), but very little from the reported time of David and Solomon (1010-930 BCE). This indicates that Jerusalem in the time of Solomon was far from being the capital of a mighty empire from Egypt to the Euphrates as indicated in the Bible.

The book portrays the historical David as a bandit leader in the Jerusalem area, with a small group of men. David's bandits would have served partially to protect the people of the area, and would have been a nuisance to rich, established people in surrounding areas. In the meantime, it appears that the area of Benjamin north of the Jerusalem area was fairly prosperous. This may be the source of the story of King Saul, who ruled in the north, and ended up chasing the bandit David. But Saul's kingdom was destroyed by Egypt, perhaps with the aid of the Philistines and even David. The kingdom around Jerusalem survived, and could have come to be ruled by David, thus establishing the House of David.

But all of this happened before writing was established in the area, so the stories were only passed down by word of mouth. Later the stories were recorded, and later events could have then been incorporated into the stories, eventually leading to the record as we know it today.

It is an interesting read, although nobody knows exactly what happened. In any case, actual history appears to be much different from that recorded in the Bible.

-------

(I have renamed this post, since many of the comments below are about Judas, not about David and Solomon.)

Going Free without Going Wild

Here is another email from a person that moved beyond fundamentalism:

I cannot even begin to tell you how much your story is like mine. However, I went straight from being a fundy to an outright agnostic or theist. I have been bothered by religious concepts for so many years, and trying to live a secluded life without people outside the small church I attend is mentally destructive. I said and did some really crazy things. People probably thought I was just cold or crazy because I really wanted to break away for a long time (I knew something was not right), but my low self-esteem from my religious ideology just kept me down. I think I can stand on my own two feet now and face the world the way it is. You have to admit though, fundies are better off in at least one respect: they are taught to read their Bibles. More liberal Christians never do this, so even though they don’t have such an oppressive lifestyle, they will still do stupid things like pay tithes and waste their time and money on Christian books and/or counseling without ever knowing their beliefs. A lot of marriages will end in divorce (and considerable guilt) for these liberal Christians because they think that God actually has something to do with the marriage when they start, but they will never see that the success of the marriage is all up to them to begin with and the tough times don’t call for extra prayer or church dogma. At least fundies have a chance to examine their beliefs, and with a little help from some external stimulus, maybe they will someday question their belief and will free themselves from the horrible mental stranglehold called religion. I just hope that people realize that they shouldn’t go wild or crazy after they cast off their yoke; I hope they go looking for the truth and see what works best for society and themselves (e.g. humanism).

I too hope that those who examine their beliefs move on to something better, and do not simply go wild when they start to question their beliefs.

The Timing of Salvation

Anonymous writes, questioning a plan of salvation that could not possibly have helped until that message had time to reach other lands. He is right. Unless there is a way for us to find hope without believing certain facts about Jesus, then many who lived have never been given a chance. He writes:

Consider the following: You are a person living in North America around 30 AD. Jesus has just died on the cross and risen again. For that matter, let’s say he’s already ascended into heaven and the 11 apostles have been given their mission. Now, let’s say the guy living in North America dies almost immediately after this event. Thus, it is IMPOSSIBLE for any missionary in any possible way to ever have reached this person. In addition, the guy had no idea of the OT laws, since there were no Jews in North America . Is this person going to hell even though it is IMPOSSIBLE (not just inconvenient) for him to know about Jesus? I find this hard to believe, but maybe you have something to add. The issue is really about the timing of salvation. Several preachers press the urgency of believing NOW because you may not get the chance later, but the guy in North America never got the chance. Also, why did God wait so long before providing the sacrifice for sins? Why did he not do it immediately after Adam and Eve sinned or after the flood around Noah’s time so that we wouldn’t have the problem with the guy in North America . Why do people have to be told they are a sinner with scriptures several years later? Why couldn’t God just come down after Noah’s flood, tell them they made him mad by basically being alive, send his Son to die for everyone’s sin, and leave it at that? For that matter, why did he have to destroy mankind with a flood? Why couldn’t he just send his Son then so that those people could be redeemed without being drowned? Going back even further, why did he have to punish Adam and Eve to begin with? Couldn’t he just let Eve or maybe one of her daughters have his Son so that everything could be made right immediately and everyone could live happily ever after? This also brings up the question of why did Jesus have to be killed by the Jews? Couldn’t God just do the tormenting himself without involving mankind? After all, he expected Abraham to kill his son (which he seemed more than willing to do); can’t God get his hands dirty without involving people?

One finds it hard to believe that God would have designed salvation so restrictively that so many people never had a chance. These are good questions.

In Defense of Science

"Honey" continues her defense of Answers in Genesis (AiG) at my blog. Instead of concentrating on specific claims of that group, she has chosen instead to deliver a broadside attack against the validity of mainstream science in general. I respond once more in defence of mainstream science. (Click here to read more.)

Did David Exist?

Did David exist as a powerful king? "Honey" is quite sure that he did, but archeology seems to indicate that, if he did exist, he was a marginal leader of a small tribe, who had little of the glory attributed to him. Click here to read more.

Was David Alone?

At my site, I mention many of the contradictions in the Bible. In one place the Bible says Judas hanged himself, but another place indicates he fell headfirst to his death. One passage claims Jacob was Joseph's father, but another says it was Eli. One passage says it is okay to divorce an unchaste partner, and another forbids it. (See Is the Bible Perfect?) Many of us have concluded that the Bible has errors.

On this blog Honey has chosen to challenge one of those contradictions: I Samuel says David was alone when he asked the priest for holy bread, but Matthew says he had companions. Honey has been trying to argue that I Samuel could be interpreted as saying that David was with companions. Let's read the passage and see what it says. The story begins after David flees his house in the middle of the night when he hears that King Saul's men are coming to kill him. Clearly David was alone when he fled, and we can see that he was alone leading up to his visit with the priest.

1And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what is mine iniquity? and what is my sin before thy father, that he seeketh my life? 2And he said unto him, God forbid; thou shalt not die: behold, my father will do nothing either great or small, but that he will shew it me: and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so. 3And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth that I have found grace in thine eyes; and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this, lest he be grieved: but truly as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, there is but a step between me and death. 4Then said Jonathan unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth, I will even do it for thee. 5And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to morrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat: but let me go, that I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even. 6If thy father at all miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem his city: for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family. 7If he say thus, It is well; thy servant shall have peace: but if he be very wroth, then be sure that evil is determined by him. 8Therefore thou shalt deal kindly with thy servant; for thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of the LORD with thee: notwithstanding, if there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself; for why shouldest thou bring me to thy father? 9And Jonathan said, Far be it from thee: for if I knew certainly that evil were determined by my father to come upon thee, then would not I tell it thee? 10Then said David to Jonathan, Who shall tell me? or what if thy father answer thee roughly? 11And Jonathan said unto David, Come, and let us [Jonathon and David only] go out into the field. And they went out both of them into the field. 12And Jonathan said unto David, O LORD God of Israel, when I have sounded my father about to morrow any time, or the third day, and, behold, if there be good toward David, and I then send not unto thee, and shew it thee; 13The LORD do so and much more to Jonathan: but if it please my father to do thee evil, then I will shew it thee, and send thee away, that thou mayest go in peace: and the LORD be with thee, as he hath been with my father. 14And thou shalt not only while yet I live shew me the kindness of the LORD, that I die not: 15But also thou shalt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever: no, not when the LORD hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth. 16So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the LORD even require it at the hand of David's enemies. 17And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him: for he loved him as he loved his own soul. 18Then Jonathan said to David, To morrow is the new moon: and thou shalt be missed, because thy seat will be empty. 19And when thou hast stayed three days, then thou shalt go down quickly, and come to the place where thou didst hide thyself when the business was in hand, and shalt remain by the stone Ezel. 20And I will shoot three arrows on the side thereof, as though I shot at a mark. 21And, behold, I will send a lad, saying, Go, find out the arrows. If I expressly say unto the lad, Behold, the arrows are on this side of thee, take them; then come thou: for there is peace to thee, and no hurt; as the LORD liveth. 22But if I say thus unto the young man, Behold, the arrows are beyond thee; go thy way: for the LORD hath sent thee away. 23And as touching the matter which thou and I have spoken of, behold, the LORD be between thee and me for ever. 24So David hid himself in the field: and when the new moon was come, the king sat him down to eat meat. 25And the king sat upon his seat, as at other times, even upon a seat by the wall: and Jonathan arose, and Abner sat by Saul's side, and David's place was empty. 26Nevertheless Saul spake not any thing that day: for he thought, Something hath befallen him, he is not clean; surely he is not clean. 27And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month, that David's place was empty: and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday, nor to day? 28And Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem: 29And he said, Let me go, I pray thee; for our family hath a sacrifice in the city; and my brother, he hath commanded me to be there: and now, if I have found favour in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee, and see my brethren. Therefore he cometh not unto the king's table. 30Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness? 31For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die. 32And Jonathan answered Saul his father, and said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done? 33And Saul cast a javelin at him to smite him: whereby Jonathan knew that it was determined of his father to slay David. 34So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month: for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame. 35And it came to pass in the morning, that Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed with David, and a little lad with him. 36And he said unto his lad, Run, find out now the arrows which I shoot. And as the lad ran, he shot an arrow beyond him. 37And when the lad was come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried after the lad, and said, Is not the arrow beyond thee? 38And Jonathan cried after the lad, Make speed, haste, stay not. And Jonathan's lad gathered up the arrows, and came to his master. 39But the lad knew not any thing: only Jonathan and David knew the matter. 40And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said unto him, Go, carry them to the city. 41And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded. 42And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the LORD, saying, The LORD be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city. 21:1Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?

How can it be more clear? David was alone. While he was in hiding he talked only with Jonathon. It was only David that was noticed to be missing, and not any of his men. The lad with Jonathon was not even allowed to see David, for David was hiding from everyone. I have heard this story many times in Sunday School, and never once was it said that there were other people hiding along with David. Never once was it suggested that all these men in hiding then came together and ran off together. Honey seems to think that those who do not agree with her interpretation of this passage are deceitful. Were all my Sunday School teachers deceitful?

Honey argues that David had to be with companions, for Saul would have known he was lying about the trip to Bethlehem if his companions weren't with him. But surely David would have been allowed to go to his own home--only 10 miles away--without requiring companions to be with him. And if David thought his lie about going to Bethlehem would raise too much suspician unless his men were missing, he could have had Jonathon ask some of his men to go into hiding to make the story more believable. The last thing he would have done is tell Jonathon to bring those people to him. After all, he was a fugitive from the king, and they were the king's men! If David wouldn't even trust the lad that was with his best friend, why would he trust the king's soldiers?

Nowhere does this passage say anything about men being in hiding with David, or meeting up with him to run away from Saul. Let's read on.

2 So David said to Ahimelech the priest, “The king has ordered me on some business, and said to me, ‘Do not let anyone know anything about the business on which I send you, or what I have commanded you.’ And I have directed my young men to such and such a place. 3 Now therefore, what have you on hand? Give me five loaves of bread in my hand, or whatever can be found.” 4 And the priest answered David and said, “There is no common bread on hand; but there is holy bread, if the young men have at least kept themselves from women.” 5 Then David answered the priest, and said to him, “Truly, women have been kept from us about three days since I came out. And the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in effect common, even though it was consecrated in the vessel this day.” 6 So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread which had been taken from before the LORD, in order to put hot bread in its place on the day when it was taken away.

Now clearly David was lying here. The King had not ordered him on any business. He was a fugitive, and was running from the King. Clearly this is a lie, and was said only to keep the priest from being suspicious.

7 Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD. And his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chief of the herdsmen who belonged to Saul. 8 And David said to Ahimelech, “Is there not here on hand a spear or a sword? For I have brought neither my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king’s business required haste.” 9 So the priest said, “The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the Valley of Elah, there it is, wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod. If you will take that, take it. For there is no other except that one here.” And David said, “There is none like it; give it to me.”

Once more we find David alone, and he has no weapon. Now if he had a number of companions from the King's army, they would have brought along plenty of weapons. There would be no neead to rouse suspician with his ridiculous story that he left so hastily he didn't have time to get a weapon. But David knows he needs a weapon, for he is alone and unarmed.

10 Then David arose and fled that day from before Saul, and went to Achish the king of Gath. 11 And the servants of Achish said to him, “Is this not David the king of the land? Did they not sing of him to one another in dances, saying: ‘Saul has slain his thousands, And David his ten thousands’?”12 Now David took these words to heart, and was very much afraid of Achish the king of Gath. 13 So he changed his behavior before them, pretended madness in their hands, scratched on the doors of the gate, and let his saliva fall down on his beard. 14 Then Achish said to his servants, “Look, you see the man is insane. Why have you brought him to me? 15 Have I need of madmen, that you have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence? Shall this fellow come into my house?”

This story makes no sense at all if David was surrounded by traveling companions from Saul's army. What did they all do when David pretended to be mad? Did they all put on an act? Were dozens of men dribbling saliva down their beards? Why didn't the Bible mention that group comedy? But if instead the others that were along were acting sanely, why didn't Achish address them? Why does Achish refer only to the madman, without noticing all the sane men around him? Surely David was alone.

22:1 David therefore departed from there and escaped to the cave of Adullam. So when his brothers and all his father’s house heard it, they went down there to him. 2 And everyone who was in distress, everyone who was in debt, and everyone who was discontented gathered to him. So he became captain over them. And there were about four hundred men with him.

OK! We finally read of people joining up with David. But this is long after the incident with the priest. Why does the Bible mention these men joining David, but fail to mention the others that had joined David earlier? Once more, if there were people with David when these others joined, why doesn't this passage mention them?

Now let's contrast this with Mt.12:3-4:

But He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he became hungry, he and his companions, how he entered the house of God, and they ate the consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests alone?"

Now here Matthew says they can read that David and his companions ate the holy bread. But we cannot read that, at least not in the Old Testament we have today. Even if Honey tries to claim it is possible that somebody could have joined up with David to eat the bread, that does not solve the contradiction. For Mathew says people can read about these others eating the holy bread with David.

Now let's look at some of Honey's comments:

Actually Merle, it would be deceitful of you to just claim errors with no substantiation. Really the onus is on you to support your claim.

I have many pages of substantiation for my claims on the web. How can she pretend otherwise?

And God demonstrates and even states, that He does not write to be easily understood by the masses, but by those who lean on Him for understanding. Proverbs 25:2It is the glory of God to conceal a matter.Luke 8:10He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, " 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.

That's odd. One would think God would want to write for the masses to understand.

I find it odd that one would use parables for the specific purpose of making his point difficult to understand. Most people add illustrations to their speeches to make it easier for people to understand. Why would one add illustrations for the purpoes of confusing people?

David was a man after God’s own heart. 1 Samuel 13:14 Is it likely a man after God’s own heart would up and lie to the priest of God? I think not, so there must be another explanation.

Well, David lied when he said he went to Bethlehem, and he was surely lying here when he said that he was on the king's business. You may quote from the Psalms to prove David was honest, but, of course, there is no real proof that these psalms actually came from David, so that really doesn't tell us much. Even if David did write that lying is evil, that does not say he did not lie in this instance. Many people don't practice what they preach. And besides, even a person who thought lying was generally evil might see that lying was excusable in this case, when David was fleeing for his life from a wicked king. Most good people can see that a lie in such circumstances might be acceptable

Later David is reported to have sinned so horribly against God that God killed 70,000 men because of his sin. (2 Samuel 24). If David could do that, I can understand that he might also tell a lie.

Throughout David’s life the Bible records David as seeking out the Lord’s direction. So instead of his reply to the priest being a lie, he was in fact following the instructions of his ‘Supreme King.’, God.

Uh, if David, in direct response to a question about the King Saul's men, said that the king ordered him on some secret business, then in context that should clearly be understood as referring to King Saul. If he deliberately used the word "king" here but actually means it to refer to God, then David is deliberately wording his remarks to be deceptive. That is the same thing as lying.

The whole point is that David was a man who was expected to have men traveling with him at all times, which the text indicates. If he was not to alert his enemy that he was in hiding and had not gone to Bethlehem as was the claim, then his men would need to be missing from their base post. If Saul (the enemy) could see that all David’s entourage of men were accounted for and that none had traveled with David, then Saul would be alerted to the fact that David had not gone to Bethlehem as claimed but was on the run.

The whole idea that this proves others were hiding with David seems silly to me. For Saul to recongnize that none of David's 1000 men were with David, he would have had to gather them all together and count them. When he heard that David was gone, I doubt very much if he would have counted all David's men, and then concluded, that since none were found missing, that David must not have gone to Bethlehem. I can't see how anyone can use this argument to prove that David was not alone.

And if Saul was indeed in the habit of counting David's men when David said he was gone, then it would have been easy for some of those men to simply have hid from Saul without actually being with David. This in no way proves that these men were now with David.

Some explanation needs to be given as to how his family knew his whereabouts when he was hiding.

Very simple. People relied on word of mouth in those days. Travelers would share stories with everybody they met. (After all, they didn't have telephone or television, but they still had "telawoman", so messages still spread.) David was a very famous man. If he was known to be in Adullum, word soon spread to his family.

But look at 1 Samuel 19:8‘Once more war broke out, and David went out and fought the Philistines. He struck them with such force that they fled before him.’I guess that means he went out single handedly and fought them huh?

No, of course not. When a man is a general, and it is said that he fought a battle, it is universally understood that it means he and his men fought. But when a man runs away alone in the middle of the night, and is acting as a fugitive, and it is never mentioned that anybody joined up with him, then it is obvious this person is alone.

For more information, see What Men with David?

Read Any Good Books Lately?

Would you like to buy a book for your inner skeptic this holiday season? Check out my books pages, which have been overhauled.

The Meaning of Life

Someday the Sun will burn out, and the solar system as we know it will be gone. Perhaps humans of the future will survive for a few more million years by moving to another star where they will find another planet. But someday even that will be gone. The whole universe will degenerate into a thermodynamic blandness that will make all intelligent life impossible. All that we built here on earth will be seen no more. None of our descendents will be around. Civilization will perish. Some people would say that life therefore has no meaning, but I disagree.

See The Meaning of Life for more.

Can We Trust Science?

"Honey" left a comment arguing for the validity of the Answers in Genesis (AiG) site, and condeming mainstream science. Her comment deserves a detailed response, which I present here.

Why not try Allah?

Here is another email from my inbox, recommending that I try Islam.

I am a Muslim woman and, thanks be to God, now am a practising Muslim, though earlier I saw Islam just like you or any one else would. Contrary to popular belief Islam believes in logic and reasoning because faith without logic is blind, and blind faith is the most disastrous on thing on earth. Today I am a person who believes in the reality of the true message of Islam and that Islam is not just another religion but the true message of God Almighty. But I came this far only because of questioning, which in turn strengthened my faith. Prophet Muhammad, may Allah be pleased with him, put it like this "Seeking knowledge is an obligation upon every single Muslim. Ponder, investigate and explore into the things created by God. Verily the ink of the scholar is more precious than the blood of the martyr. Surely the scientist is on the correct way the way of God. Any of you who strives to recieve knowledge for him GOD WILL MAKE EASIER THE WAY TOWARDS HEAVEN and God will elavate them aloof of their kind." I can prove to you in the very best and convincing ways of what is the truth and what is falsehood. Take this as an open challenge and do agree to reason and debate with me in the best of ways. May God Almighty show you the straight path, the path of those whom he has favoured not of those who have earned his anger and have gone astray.

This sounds remarkably like the pleas made by many Christians. Subsititute a few words in the email above, and it would look like many emails promoting another faith. Christians are not the only ones claiming that logic is on their side.

My guess is that Pastor Al will be able to see right through this woman's claims, and could explain to us why Islam is not backed by science. And no doubt this writer could explain why Pastor Al is not backed by the facts. Could it be that neither of those claims of truth are backed by the facts?

When God doesn't quell the doubts

A new deconvert describes her experience:

I was raised in a Christian home and except for a short time in my 20s, I have always gone to church and considered myself a Christian. When I began questioning my faith a few months ago, albeit in the quiet of my mind, years ago, I felt like I was going crazy or perhaps possessed by a demon. When God failed to answer my prayers and quell my doubts, I was devastated and frightened. I felt lonelier than I have ever been, even with a husband and children and many friends. I decided to do some searching on the Internet and there you were. I just want to thank you for your web site. It has answered many questions and encouraged me so much. I still feel very lonely and sometimes afraid, but I don't feel like I'm crazy or possessed anymore and that's partially because of you. I haven't "come out," to anyone yet, but I have more confidence in my quest for the truth. I don't look forward to what will take place when I finally start sharing my discoveries, but I know I will have to eventually; but like you said, I'm not a loser and I will be okay...thank you for that.

Many can identify with the writer. It is not madness to ask questions. The child who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes was not crazy. There is nothing wrong with exploring beyond the religion they you were taught. Sometimes it is like a breath of fresh air to honestly face the doubts.

Evolution debate

I have posted my recent discussion on evolution with Pastor Al on my site at A Debate on Evolution. I include some concluding comments at Conclusion.

Hearing God?

A reader writes about a breakthrough in hearing God, recommending a site where I can learn more about it. The site comes complete with a voice recording. Unfortunately, the voice on the recording is not God, but just a man. What a pity. Since posting a recording on the Internet is such an effective means of communication, one would wonder why God wouldn't put up his own site with recordings for us to hear. Apparently that is not the way God speaks.

I was searching online to get more information on hearing God and found your article on a Christian Forum site... I understand your frustration in hearing God and I also for a long time struggled with this. It makes only sense to start questioning everything one believes when even struggling to commune with Him.

I must say, I got a lot of breakthrough and often do hear Him now. A site which helped me was www.cwgministries.org - If you still want to hear God maybe listen to the "4 Keyes to hearing God" MP3... here http://www.cluonline.com/godsvoice.htm

Its really interesting. I always struggled with people saying that they could hear God. Until I started hearing him. Its almost like fine-tuning a radio... sometimes you get a bit of white-noise or static, but as you tune it in on a certain frequency it becomes more and more clear. The same way I learned to tune in more and more to God - trust me - its worth it. As someone who also used to struggle a lot I want you to encourage to never stop trying. As you say on your website... "The important thing is to not stop questioning" I want to encourage you to not stop listening.

We are told at that site that God speaks spontaneously in our thoughts when we quiet our minds, but does not speak with an audible voice. Now I am all for quieting our minds, and taking the time to relax and to see what is inside. But when we assume that such "voices" are from God, it would appear to me to be very dangerous. What if the voice told you to paint graffiti on your neighbor's car or to buy a house way beyond your means. Would you do it? Or would you let reason override the inner voice? If so, then I would think we should concentrate on our critical thinking and reasoning skills, rather than our voice-hearing skills.

Some might tell me that God never says unreasonable things. Perhaps, but how do you know the voice you hear is God? Surely at least some people are mistaken when they think they hear God. A Catholic may "hear" God telling him to promote Catholicism. A Protestant may "hear" God telling him to destroy what the Catholic is building. Did both hear from God? Then God is the author of strife and confusion. Or is at least one of those people mistaken? If we admit that many are mistaken when they think they hear God, how could we be certain we really hear God? See Does God Speak to Us?