« 20 gram Links for July 13th ‘07 · Misquoting Jesus »

July 15, 2007

Soft Atheist, Hard Agnostic

Posted at 5:03 pm by Richard and tagged , , , , , . Popularity: 74% [?]

Welcome Stumblers! This post seems to keep getting “stumbled” upon, so I just thought I’d leave this note to say, “Hi”, and please feel free to check out some of my other posts – the most popular ones are listed down the side of this page. Also feel free to subscribe via RSS if you like what you read. Also, I welcome comments/criticisms, so don’t be shy!

6th Century Sinai JesusWhile I was watching a documentary on the history of religion recently, my sister said to me “but aren’t you an Atheist?”1 At the time I replied, “no, I’m Agnostic”. It has made me think, however, about the nature of Atheism and Agnosticism.

While I generally describe myself as “agnostic”, and avoid describing myself as “atheist”, I could be viewed as both, depending on your definitions. As there seem to be many different views on what Atheism and Agnosticism entails, let me be very clear about what I take the meaning of these words to be.

Belief

Definitions for both Atheism and Agnosticism rely on the notion of “belief”, which itself can be contentious at times. For my purposes, when I say “belief”, I refer “to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true”2 Belief, here, does not imply any lack of certainty – even though it might sometimes in common usage.

Atheism

Atheism, it seems, can mean many things – but broadly it seems to fit one of two definitions:

  1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God3, or
  2. a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods4

The first definition is the one which I had always taken (I’ll call this “hard” Atheism), and it is why I have never described myself as an “Atheist”. To me, to hold a belief that these is no god is just as illogical as a belief that there is a God – possibly even more so. While it may (hypothetically) be possible one day to prove that there is a God (perhaps he shows himself in some incontestable way, or we find a scientific method for exploring “heaven”) proving the universal non-existence of something is impossible (we can prove something doesn’t exist in one place – say, a box that’s empty – but proving universal non-existence is very different).

The second (”soft”) definition of Atheism, however, is one I’d not been aware of until the last year or so. It seems this definition is common among Atheists, but in my experience it is certainly not the generally understood definition of Atheism. In this definition, Atheism is not the opposite to theism or religion, but an absence of it. It is in this sense that I am an Atheist, although without qualification, I still feel the word “atheist” misrepresents my views.

Agnosticism

This is where we get to Agnosticism. Agnostic means, literally, “without knowledge” and as such an Agnostic holds they they have no knowledge about the existence of God. This is not necessarily a “fence sitting” position, however, as Agnosticism (like Atheism) can be viewed in two subtly different ways:

  1. a religious orientation of doubt5, or
  2. a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God6

Certainly using this first definition (”soft” agnosticism), one could argue that the holder of this world-view is “fence sitting” – possibly still exploring or reasoning to discover the truth, or perhaps unable or unwilling to. But again, the second definition offers an entirely different position. A “hard” agnostic does not simply doubt the existence of God (and may, in fact, have faith that there is a God) but makes the claim that it is impossible to ever know if God does or does not exist.

When I describe myself as “Agnostic”, I make the claim that it is impossible to know if any of the Gods described by traditional religions exist. I am also, however, open to the idea that perhaps “God” (if he exists) is nothing like that described by traditional religion, and therefore may one day be provable. For me, the problem with the traditional notions of God are that proponents of these Gods leave no way to ever truly prove his existence – as the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy joke goes:

“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

The Christian God, therefore, will always be out of the reach of science because as soon as it becomes answerable by science (no matter what the outcome), God will be relegated (by some, at least) to an even further “far away place ” so as to ensure the existence of God can never be proven.

So in this sense, I am a “hard” agnostic when it comes to Gods like that of Christianity (only because no one is willing to say exactly where this God might exist) but a “soft” agnostic when it comes to other possible higher powers. Either way, the existence of any such higher power seems unlikely (but certainly not impossible).

Popularity: 74% [?]

  1. I’ll ignore the obvious issue with the suggestion that Atheists aren’t allowed to have an interest in religion… for now. [↩]
  2. Schwitzgebel, Eric, “Belief“, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). [↩]
  3. WordNet Definition: Atheism [↩]
  4. WordNet Definition: Atheism [↩]
  5. WordNet Definition: Agnosticism [↩]
  6. WordNet Definition: Agnosticism [↩]

40 Comments »

  1. JR said,

    July 15, 2007 at 7:44 pm

    Nicely put. It is sad, however, that most theists wouldn’t bother to read it, and thus will continue to knee-jerk against anything that threatens their fairy world.

  2. Richard said,

    July 16, 2007 at 12:44 am

    Don’t say that! You’ll kill the fairies! ;)

  3. Mike said,

    July 19, 2007 at 12:35 am

    After reading this post, I kind of view myself as fitting to both definitions of atheism, and the second of agnosticism. Actually, I am having trouble differentiating between the atheist definitions and that second agnostic definition. I just think that a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God and the doctrine or belief that there is no God, or a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods all mean the same thing: you don’t believe in god, whether that is christ , ala, zeus, or hoobojulu the spirit of the trees…any god whatsoever. JR’s comment is also true, my own parents are pretty strict christians, and anything not in the bible or told to them by their pastor is just plain nonsense, and they are really really close-minded to other ideas or alternatives.

  4. Richard said,

    July 19, 2007 at 1:03 am

    The second agnostic definition claims, not that god does or does not exist, but that it is IMPOSSIBLE to really know. I think it’s a difficult distinction to make sometimes, but it’s certainly quite different to any atheistic stance (which is more about belief).

    I think a lot of the “anti-atheism” (which, thankfully, I’ve experienced very little) out there comes down to a misunderstanding of what we mean when we use the words, so I think it’s important to make these distinctions.

    Thanks for your comments!

  5. 20 gram Soul : Conversations with God said,

    July 22, 2007 at 8:33 pm

    [...] with traditional religions (which is probably a good thing!). I mentioned in my previous post “Soft Atheist, Hard Agnostic”, that I am a “soft” agnostic when it comes to “spiritual” gods or other [...]

  6. JohnnieCanuck said,

    July 23, 2007 at 7:48 am

    I consider myself an atheist – strong, hard; close enough. I can’t prove there are no gods, but the chance that there are is not worth considering. That doesn’t mean that such a belief should be held without the possibility of revision. I acknowledge that should an entity make an appearance in such a way as to prove its godhood, I must then believe. In the meantime, I live my life as if gods do not exist and none is ever going to be detected.

    Surely most people who choose to label themselves agnostic rather than atheist actually live their lives as if gods do not exist. They neither worship, pray nor look to gods for moral authority. Functionally they are atheists. I suspect most are simply avoiding the negative baggage loaded onto the term by religionists.

    I am intrigued by the idea that theist or atheist is a binary condition, period. Whether you are sure or not, you are either pregnant or apregnant. There is no third halfway kind of option.

    In this context gnostic and agnostic are also binary. One claims it is possible to know or not-know something, and this exhausts the possibilities.

    This leaves us with four states to consider – 00, 01, 10 and 11. Since I contend that few, if any atheists claim to know (with proof) that there are no gods, the majority of atheists are agnostics. In spite of an historical use of the label Gnostic which was declared a heresy, I would say that modern religionists who claim their holy texts as proof, are gnostic theists.

    However, humans being what we are, most of us will be seeking nuances to distinguish ourselves from others.

  7. Richard said,

    July 23, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    Johnnie,

    Certainly a clear and interesting way of looking at things, but I think what I was trying to highlight is that – yes, for any one definition of atheism or agnosticism, it’s certainly a binary condition – the problem is, that there are different accepted definitions!

    Another example, perhaps – you’re either a Christian, or you’re not (binary condition), but that doesn’t make all Christians equal. Christian can mean Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, Church of Christ, 7th Day Adventist, etc., etc. – None of these churches (I’d assume?) would agree on the definition of “Christian”.

  8. kumarei said,

    July 24, 2007 at 3:46 pm

    I used to believe something similar to what you believe, until I discovered that your definition of “Hard” atheism is actually something almost nonexistent, at least in the circles of atheists that look at the issue with any thought. The people thought of as “militant” atheists certainly don’t hold this belief, in fact Dawkins hardly gives the position mention in his book “The God Delusion”. As far as I can tell, the “Hard” atheism position that you define here seems to exist mostly in people who don’t really think about religion, or in strawman arguments constructed by the religious right to pretend that Atheism is a religious viewpoint, despite the fact that it is the clear lack of belief (or rather, faith).

    What separates atheism from agnosticism is the understanding that although it is possible that there is a god, the probability is not equal to the probability that there is not. Like the teapot in space or the invisible pink unicorn, any claims regarding its existence should be met with extreme skepticism, as there is no evidence to support it, and ample evidence that it is in fact unnecessary in our reckoning of the world.

    It would be somewhat arrogant and unscientific to claim absolutely that there is no god. In science, everything is a theory, including the things that have so much support that it is nearly unthinkable that they will be proven wrong (e.g. gravity, evolution). It is with this mindset that atheists define themselves by their lack of faith in the unknowable. There is no evidence for it, so, like any other theory which seems to have no credentials, we feel perfectly reasonable in handling it as a slight probability (so slight as to be dismissible) until someone has succeeded in showing otherwise.

  9. kumarei said,

    July 24, 2007 at 4:05 pm

    In addendum, few atheists tend to have a problem with people who conceive of the universe as “god” (e.g. Einstein), or who hold that it is possible that there is some as yet undefined force in the universe that may exist that is beyond our current knowledge. I think that we would deny, though, that either would be supernatural. By definition, anything supernatural could have no effect on us, or else it would move into the realm of natural. Because of this, we can discount the supernatural with a nice swing of occam’s razor: any supernatural being would by necessity have no measurable effect on the natural world, so there is no reason to posit one, beyond philosophical ponderings.

    In fact, many atheists really don’t have a problem with any beliefs, although we reserve the right to think they’re a bit silly. The problem comes when others attempt to apply these beliefs in a way that effects others (e.g. restricting gay rights, using texts as an excuse to abuse women, blowing people up) that most of us have a problem with.

  10. Richard said,

    July 24, 2007 at 4:53 pm

    Kumarei,

    I agree with you completely. My reasons for not generally identifying myself as atheist are simply because of the common misunderstanding that Athiem IS necessarily this “hard” type – I realise that it’s an uncommon view, and I certainly agree that this position would be a completely unscientific one. As I said in the post to hold a belief that these is no god is just as illogical as a belief that there is a God – possibly even more so. I suppose I really have no reason to NOT identify myself as atheist, simply for convenience – if someone wants to have an in-depth discussion about my views, I’ll happily define atheism, and pledge my allegiance to it (so to speak).

    I also like the way you’ve worded your second comment – atheists not having problems with a naturalistic “god”. It’s something I’ve tried to articulate in posts like How Rudy Rucker Showed Me God – if you haven’t already, have a read, and let me know what you think.

    Thanks for your thoughts!

  11. kumarei said,

    July 24, 2007 at 5:33 pm

    Again, while it’s obviously possible that there is some naturalistic higher power (and by definition, any power that interacts with reality must have some naturalistic component), there isn’t much more reason to accept that than a totally supernatural god. Until there is evidence, it’s all dinner-table philosophy, which is very fun and interesting, but tends to have little hold in the measurable world.

    What Einstein did was use “god” as a metaphor for the patterns and complexities of the universe. “God” for him was natural process, something which he believed was very deterministic (one of the reasons for the infamous quote, “God does not play dice with the universe”). And while it’s perfectly natural to posit that there is (or was) other life out there, whose boundaries are currently undefined due to our lack of knowledge, it’s also true that this knowledge is not really very useful. At present it’s easiest to make a couple of statements on the subject, and then leave it hang:

    1) We do not know everything about the universe
    2) That does not mean that we should give up trying and make up whatever we feel like. As long as there are more things to measure, we will come up with more ways to measure things

    Please don’t take this as a disregard for fiction or wonder. I hope to write the former in the future, and I certainly hold great reserves of the latter, but I think that fiction is an exploration of the self far more than it is an exploration of the other, and that wonder only grows as you see and understand more of how the universe works.

  12. eye-of-horus said,

    July 25, 2007 at 6:02 am

    There’s no need to agree with theists or deists or agnostics that gods’ non-existence can not be established. When they refer to god(s) to what (if anything) are they referring?

    That is, the statement ‘the god X exists’ can be shown to be false. It’s up to claimants to specify just what concept of god they’re playing with. (Dealing with an irrationalist or a mystic requires different approaches not discussed here.)

    Some concepts are simply inconsistent. For example is the concept of god X just like the concept of the round-square? “The” round-square does not exist because its (supposed) concept is incoherent.

    In the Middle Ages an attempt was made to explicate “the” concept of God’s omnipresence by recourse to an analogy drawn from plane geometry. God is like . . . a circle whose circumference is nowhere and whose center is everywhere. Clever stuff.

    But there can be no such circle. Among closed plane figures, the circle shares the property of always being finite. The analogy backfires — well if God’s omnipresence is like that; then, there can be no such God.

    A different approach to showing conceptual limits of any concept of God also comes from the Middle Ages. “Can an omnipotent God create a stone too big for Him to lift?” To say either yes or no immediately implies that God is not omnipotent. And, consequently, not the god of the so-called big 3 monotheisms.

    Language here is being misused. Adjectives are always relative to some context. A context free absolute adjective describes nothing. Stretching language past it limits is a commonplace in discourse about gods. A related gambit is to claim that the word ‘good’ when applied to some alleged divinity does not mean the same thing as ‘good’ when applied to human acts.

    Obviously, most theists or deists won’t immediately offer up lucid concepts of god. Though the panto-divinity: all powerful, all knowing, all merciful, will often make His (Her, Its) appearance. This conjunction of attributes is easy to undermine. Epicurus did so 300 years BCE — that is, two thousand three hundred years ago. Too bad Jesus didn’t get a proper education in philosophy.

    Xianity has spent so much time trying to shore up a failed pantocrator that there’s even a name for this branch of theological special pleading, theodicy.

    Can the negation of an existential claim be proved. Sure. Yaweh, God, and Allah simply do not exist because they can not exist.

    eye-of-horus
    copyright asserted 2007

  13. Richard said,

    July 26, 2007 at 12:36 am

    Eye of Horus,

    Thanks for your detailed comment. While I said theists tend to not give a clear picture on where their supposed God is (and thus, we can never prove it’s universal non existence), I suppose I also meant to say that they don’t ever fully describe the nature of their God, which clearly leads to the problems you mentioned.

    Sure, if some theist wants to provide a “lucid” concept of God, then we’ll probably be able to refute it (if not immediately, eventually). The problem is, I don’t think even Yaweh or Allah are defined in such a way!

    Kumarei,

    I’m not going to disagree with anything you’ve said, I have read a bit about Einstein, and I find his views very interesting.

    While I’m not disagreeing that there’s little reason to accept some naturalistic higher power, there’s certainly some interesting possibilities to consider.

  14. kumarei said,

    July 26, 2007 at 2:43 am

    God yes there are.

  15. Richard said,

    July 26, 2007 at 7:42 pm

    That does my head in… ;)

  16. kumarei said,

    July 27, 2007 at 1:25 am

    Speaking of which…

    The Last Question

  17. kevin said,

    July 27, 2007 at 8:33 am

    chrisitanity has an unusually strong defense mechanism……. anything that disputes it or questions it is ………….. OF THE DEVIL. the devil put doubt in your mind…… and if you doubt gods eternal UNCONDITIONAL LOVE… he will burn you FOREVER… so……

  18. rivalarrival said,

    July 28, 2007 at 7:45 am

    Spot on!

    The etymological definition of Atheism means “lacking theism”.

    Something that lacks “belief in god” is atheistic.

    The antonym of Atheism is Theism. The two are mutually exclusive and together, these terms can be used as attributes for everything.

    The etymological definition of Agnosticism means “Lacking Gnosticism”

    Gnosticism means “possessing spiritual or intellectual knowledge”

    This leads to 4 classifications:
    Atheist-Agnostic: the “Soft” atheism you described, generally referred to as “weak” atheism

    Atheist-Gnostic: Strong (Hard) Atheism. They claim to KNOW that god does not exist.

    Theist-Agnostic: “I don’t know if god exists, but I’m afraid of him” Most Americans fall into this category. They believe in God but understand that God’s existence can’t be discovered thought and thus don’t try to do that.

    Theist-Gnostic: Christian Fundamentalists would be a good example. Their knowledge of God’s Existence is based entirely on the Biblical accounts, and those biblical accounts can be used to “prove” God’s existence.

    The way you have described your point of view parallels my own, and appears to be the predominant viewpoint in the atheist community. I myself identify as Atheist.

    To me, the root issue is belief. Every “proof” of the Christian God’s existence boils down to a fundamental assumption (belief) that God exists. Christianity is simply an intricate, detailed fairytale wrapped around that belief, and it falls apart completely when that core assumption cannot be demonstrated.

  19. Richard said,

    July 28, 2007 at 3:58 pm

    Most atheists I’ve met/talked to seem to have the “soft” atheist stance, but the problem is that most NON-atheists (is that a double negative?) seem to have the view that atheism is always the “hard” type. I think that’s why I’m careful (?reluctant?) to identify myself as atheist, simply because it’s easily misunderstood.

    I also think that most Christians don’t even think about “proof”. Sure, they can “prove” the existence of god through circular reasoning, but I think most don’t even bother to do that. If you read through the comments on my post misquoting jesus you’ll see some comments by Scavella, who I would view as one of the small number of Christians who even bother to think about their views. While I obviously disagree with those views, I usually have less problem with people who can justify their beliefs with at least SOME semi-rational argument.

  20. rivalarrival said,

    July 29, 2007 at 7:02 am

    Richard:

    By definition, non-atheists would be theists.

    I’ve repeated the argument I made in my last comment probably 50 times over the past couple years.

    Thanks to Dawkins et al, the “Default Stance” variety of Atheism (Weak atheism, referred to as “soft” atheism by the author of this post) is beginning to be understood as the mainstream variant.

    I disagree with your statement about Christians needing “proof” – when you use the term “proof” in its non-scientific sense. the clergy are always speaking about demonstrations of God’s nature, and offering solutions as to why it is inconsistent (Mysterious Ways) They claim that Faith is enough, but they sure go out of their way to imagine God’s Hand in everything.

    I do agree, that most Christians don’t even bother to consider their viewpoints. They are – LITERALLY – fed Christianity from Cradle to Grave. And, when they do consider their beliefs and have a “crisis of faith” they are surrounded by family and clergy who are only supportive of regaining that faith.

  21. Richard said,

    July 29, 2007 at 1:58 pm

    I think you’re right that Dawkins is helping the public awareness of atheism being weak/soft (I really should have looked up his book to figure out what he called it before I wrote that post), but I think the general public (particularly theists) still have the view that atheism is necessarily the other definition.

    And re: Christians needing proof. I think we’re both right – Christians might claim anything they see as being “proof” of God, but at the same time they’ll quite happily admit that they don’t need it.

  22. CursedPerfection said,

    July 30, 2007 at 3:57 am

    Good Posts. I consider myself an Agnostic, as I believe neither way and that the knowledge of god is (possibly) something the human race should not be allowed to handle.

  23. rivalarrival said,

    July 30, 2007 at 9:24 am

    CursedPerfection,

    By definition, the phrase “I believe neither way” is indicative of atheism, at least how Weak Atheists use the term.

    Atheism covers a spectrum ranging from “I have no beliefs regarding gods” to “There is no god”

    A rock has no beliefs either way; it would be Atheistic because it does not (cannot) explicitly believe in God. Same thing with a baby or the mentally impaired.

    Agnosticism and Atheism are (or at least should be) completely separate issues, one concerning itself with Belief and the other concerning itself with Knowledge.

  24. Richard said,

    July 30, 2007 at 11:59 am

    RivalArrival – Thanks for the reply. Saves me having to do it! ;)

    That said, CursedPerfection also says that “the knowledge of god is something the human race should not be allowed to handle” – this could be interpreted as agnosticism. So, perhaps Cursed Perfection is a weak/soft atheist and a hard/strong agnostic!

    I also just saw recently a distinction between “implicit” and “explicit” atheism. Implicit atheism would be what the rock has, or what a baby has, and explicit atheism would be of the two forms discussed above.

  25. rivalarrival said,

    July 30, 2007 at 1:17 pm

    Richard,

    “So, perhaps Cursed Perfection is a weak/soft atheist and a hard/strong agnostic!”

    Yeah, that’s pretty much what I meant, although I should have at least paid lip-service to agnosticism in my reply. :)

    I elaborated on my theories in myInaugural post at thejesusmyth.com.

    I’m subscribing to your RSS feeds.

  26. Richard said,

    July 30, 2007 at 3:03 pm

    Just going over to have a read of your post now.

    Good to have you subscribing, and even better to know – I’ve tried to keep an eye on the number of rss subscribers, but it’s always nice to know who they actually are!

  27. Arkaro said,

    July 30, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    The problem here is that you, and most religious people, are stuck thinking of atheism as a religion when it is most assuredly not. It is simply a label for people who do not believe in a god. There is no doctrine to adhere or dogma to trust. It is not like a religious stance at all so thinking of it in relgious terms is fallacious. Do you ponder the will of a diety while you make decisions throughout your life? No? Then no matter what else you call yourself, you are an atheist.

    Furthermore, it is rather useless to force distinctions of soft to hard since the rigid definitions represent reality about as much as any other false dichotomy. Reality instead reveals the position as an almost infinite variation in shades of gray.

    Are you also agnostic? Sure.. none of us know anything to be 100% true, no matter how much we want to believe that we can. We’re all technically agnostics.. which is why I think the term is rather meaningless other than to express some trite stance of humility.

    Another argument against agnosticism is the term’s complete dismissal of the existence of gnosticism.. since it is defined not from the stance of the root but from either ignorance or misunderstanding of the term’s religious useage. Were agnosticism not in the same field of philosophy & beliefs, it would be slightly more acceptable to take such liberties.

    Of course, neither the terms atheism or agnosticism tell you anything very meaningful about the individual.. which is why I prefer to consider myself a Secular Humanist (also a bit of a redundancy except for the intentional emphasis on the political position of Secularism).

  28. Richard said,

    July 30, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    Arkaro,

    Assuming that comment is directed at me, the author of the post, I think you might have my stance confused – I’m certainly not religious at all!

    That said, I think I might have touched on some of what you’re discussing here in one of my most recent posts – “Atheist” as a label.

  29. rivalarrival said,

    July 31, 2007 at 12:58 pm

    Arkaro,

    There is a difference between “Dichotomy” and “False Dichotomy”

    The Hard/Soft examples that Richard presents is a valid dichotomy. The two terms are subsets of Atheism as a whole.

    As far as A/Gnosticism: One either possesses knowledge of God’s existence, or one does not. This is another valid dichotomy. Agnosticism is NOT in any category of Belief.

    As far as whether they tell you anything “meaningful” about the individual, that depends on what you consider to be meaningful. You apparently don’t consider a person’s beliefs and knowledge about God very meaningful, that’s your prerogative. Personally, I prefer the company of people who can rationally discuss reality. I generally dislike people who live their lives as if they were part of a fantasy. A self description of Atheist and/or Agnostic speaks volumes about a person’s character, in my opinion.

    Secular Humanism is a vague term, especially compared to Atheist or Agnostic. Depending on what definition you choose to use, Secular can mean several things, from non-denominational to non-religious, to Atheistic. The “human” condition can be interpreted in several ways as well. From a Christian standpoint, humans are flawed creatures. Other viewpoints could consider Humanism to be worship of humans as the most perfect entity. Vague terms.

    I covered some of your points in depth Here (same link as in my last post)

  30. Arkaro said,

    August 2, 2007 at 12:34 pm

    I didn’t say that you were religious.. however, I stand by my comment that it is very common for atheists (let’s take you as an example of that category) to be mired in the misconstrued perspectives of religious people. Note that I never assumed you to be in the latter camp.

    Atheism is certainly a label.. and I, too, wear it proudly! I also wear the terms: agnostic, freethinker, secular humanist, pantheist (in the most vague sense), cultural christian (as being raised steeped in such a society), etc. I’m even both a hard and soft atheist in that I’m as close to being sure there is no god as I’m sure of anything else I know but I also admit that I could be wrong about it.. just as I admit the possibility of being wrong about anything.

    So, given your expertise of definitions.. and even if I ignore your non-rebuttal on my false dichotomy claim (please review the logical fallacy: False Dichotomy or bifurcation).. which label would you expect me to carry? Given your argument, I should ignore all the other aspects of my knowledge and study by labeling myself with the open 0.0…01% chance of being wrong: ie: agnosticism. To boot, no one knows anything with 100% certainty.. even if they think they do, it is a false belief. Science doesn’t even “prove” anything with such determination. Even the laws of thermodynamics are (barely) open to crticism despite centuries of experiments and tests that depend on it being true.

    Secular Humanism may be vague.. but no less vague than the others. If we’re going to start throwing out labels just because the possibility exists that they might lead to misunderstandings, then we might as well not call anyone anything. Naturalist – what, environmental? Rationalist – who thinks of themselves as irrational? Materialist – so you only care about personal wealth? Empericist – are we talking monarchies here? Skeptic – so you doubt your own existence? Atheist – why are you anti god/so that means you worship satan? Agnostic – you really don’t know anything, eh?

    You’ve alwasy got to work at educating people when you have a different perspective. Why bother educating people by what you don’t believe.. or refuse to pretend to know or don’t know something that others believe?

    Just to clear up your twisted version of the terms.. I couldn’t care less if religious people can claim the term “Secular”.. that’s the whole point of the term. I don’t consider it to be the antithesis to “Sacred”.. it just means the opposite: Not sacred, or (as I like to think of it) Irreligious. Our constitution dictates that our government takes an irreligious stance. Neither to promote nor deny personal choice of religion.. secular.

    Humanism is most typically defined as atheistic or based on reason and the scientific method. Religious people will often also say that “they used to be atheists”.. and while that may be technically true, I usually take them to mean “the state before devoting to a theistic belief” which is not quite the same as my stance of atheism. So, for religious people to accidentally use the term “humanism” in religious terms simply reveals a lack of education on the term. Striving to be “humane”… and Rejecting supernaturalism, dogma, and doctrine in favor of reason, science, and human compassion are completely different takes on the same root.

    And about character.. when someone says they’re Agnostic, I immediately assume open-minded,spinelessness mental carelessness. Do you pray to a god? Do you worry about making a god happy or angry with your decisions? Do you live in fear of the fate of your being after death?… If you answer no to all of these, then you are atheistic whether or not you like the label. If you answer yes to any of these, then you are in some part theistic whether or not you like the label. Hiding behind the “openminded” quality of agnosticism is pointless.. just say you’re openminded!

    BTW, agnostics and gnostics *know* the exact same things about life. Their level of “knowledge* is exactly the same. However, gnostics actually think that the unknown contains god. And agnostics.. despite the root usage, has absolutely nothing to do with gnosticism. Huxley should have been kicked in the head for coining the term because it is meaningless outside of the blatent disregard for stating a position.

    You’re right.. Agnosticism isn’t within a category of belief.. it’s completely outside of every possible category of anything, ie: Worthless.

  31. Richard said,

    August 2, 2007 at 3:57 pm

    Arkaro, I’m a little confused as to who you’re points are directed at – you seem to be answering two comment posters in the one comment! (me, and rivalarrival).

    That said, I think some of your points really highlight the need to be careful with definitions, and this is possibly one of the reasons I’m sometimes hesitant to describe myself as atheist or agnostic – because the words can have significantly different meanings.

  32. rivalarrival said,

    August 2, 2007 at 4:16 pm

    Arkaro,

    Why the hard, confrontational approach? I mean, you’ve called Agnostics spineless, careless, and worthless. (yet you did attach that label to yourself in the second paragraph) Your abusive tone doesn’t come across well.

    Moving on:

    “(I am) mired in the misconstrued perspectives of religious people. ”

    You have not demonstrated this opinion or why you hold it. You’ve stated it a couple times, but you have not demonstrated it.

    I think your second and third paragraphs revolved around the idea that we were shoehorning you into the category of Agnostic. You either meet (One of) the (many) definition(s) or your don’t.

    Furthermore, even if you do meet the definition of Agnostic, that does not preclude other labels. Agnosticism refers to lack of knowledge of God’s existence. It says nothing about your beliefs. It says nothing about your intelligence. It says nothing about your favorite color. (you’re a reddist, aren’t you?) In my opinion, ALL people are Agnostic, and those that claim otherwise are deluded.

    You still have not provided a definition of Secular Humanism, you’ve only said that the definitions I’ve provided are wrong. I’ve got a certain concept in my mind, but I have no desire to impose that concept on you.

    In your 9th paragraph: Who are you to make a claim about other people’s knowledge?

    Agnosticism and Gnosticism are terms used to state a person’s knowledge regarding God’s existence. That is a category. That you don’t consider that category important, necessary, or worthwhile is your business. I wonder why you continue to discuss it.

  33. Arkaro said,

    August 2, 2007 at 5:36 pm

    Richard,

    Please be a little more specific. Which comment? Some were directed to you, others to rivalarrival, and yet others about general misconceptions. If you mean being labeled an atheist, yes, I do mean you, Richard. It doesn’t matter whether you like the term or not, you are an atheist. There’s no hard or soft about it. You say so yourself in the “technical” sense.. You’ve never once professed belief in a divinity.. and you even just said “I’m certainly not religious at all!” If you need me to draw pictures, I’ll be happy to connect the dots for you.

    If you don’t like how people misunderstand your labels, please stop retreating to more obscure labels, creating your own labels, or refusing to use labels at all… defend your position! Again, the only full dichotomy here is between theism and atheism. Either you fall under one or the other!

    Do you worry about praying or pleasing any gods? It’s a very simple question. Even if you’re not sure.. it’s certainly a yes or no as to whether you appeal to the concept of a diety in your actions. The false dichotomy is whether you’re more of a nonbeliever (atheist) or open to being wrong (agnostic). The real dichotomy here is whether you’re atheistic agnostic or theistic agnostic. For the sake of clarity, forget gnosticism as that is actually a subset of theistic agnosticism. For more on this, please read Robert Price’s essay “Agnostic a gnostic” the premises of which every Gnostic friend I have has agreed:

    http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/websermons/agnosticgnostic.htm

    That’s the trouble I have with the term agnosticism.. it also applies to gnosticism just as it applies to everyone! That’s why I can be agnostic yet chastise people who use the term to describe themselves. It is meaningless other than to set yourself apart as being somehow *more* open-minded as another.. but even that doesn’t really make much sense. I prefer to ignore such meaningless terms entirely.

  34. Richard said,

    August 2, 2007 at 6:09 pm

    I am an atheist, I certainly agree – and I specified that in my post. I’m also agnostic, as I mentioned in my post – but I would disagree with you as to “agnostic” having no meaning, and it’s not about being “open minded”, it’s about knowledge, and whether a) you claim to have that knowledge, or b) whether you think such knowledge is possible. I think there are some people who are “gnostic” (in the sence of th opposite of my definitions of agnosticism, which I believe is the accepted modern defintion), and believe they actually “know” that god exists/doesn’t exist. yes, such people are rare, but their very existance gives the words (a)gnostic usefull meaning.

    also, regarding defending my position – I do when the opportunity presents itself. however, due to common misunderstandings about the meaning of “atheist”, if I don’t have the opportunity to quality what I mean, then I tend not to use it.

  35. Arkaro said,

    August 2, 2007 at 6:21 pm

    rivalarrival,

    You confuse my words and take them too personally. I did not call agnostics those things.. I said I consider a person who actually resorts to solely calling themself an agnostic because of all the points I mention in my posts including the fact that it is typically used to back away from answering the question: do you believe in god? Either you do at the moment or you don’t..

    What you’re really saying when you call yourself an agnostic is: “I refuse to state my current position in the case that I might change my position in the future depending on my collection of evidence at the time… in which case I may refuse to state my position at that time.” I consider this answer cop-out to be spineless and meaningless. However, please don’t take that too far! I completely grant that you may be a bold individual in other aspects of your life – just not in the topic of god belief.

    About misconstrued religiocity among atheists:

    There are lots of topics I could delve into here.. and I’ve already discussed a few great examples. Precisely, my first paragraph of my first post (you know… where I first mention the concept) . To be redundant, don’t fall into the trap that “atheism” is a religion. Yes, it’s an answer to the question “What is your religion?”, but the answer of “none” or “atheist” does not attach preconceived dogmas or doctrines that you must follow in order to maintain that label. It is just a label.. such as father, dad, man, husband, son, cousin, Bob, or what have you.

    Perhaps one may prefer one label over another. However, this does not mean that denying the term “dad” makes your children disappear nor does one feel compelled to keep having children when their first ones grow up because the term no longer applies in some dictionaries.

    The same situation is the case with agnosticism.. however the example is much more like bearing the label of “human” since it technically applies to everyone. Your comment about “shoehorning” me as an agnostic obviously confuses my point.. I am an agnostic. Again, don’t take my dislike for the label personally.. I certainly don’t. I just don’t find it to be very useful unless you’re trying to avoid answering certain questions.

    Obviously, your third paragraph is an extension of your confusion of my position. The only thing I would add is that your points completely back up my position of it being a useless term to all except perhaps the deluded few who claim to know anything with 100% certainty – a very few and possibly even clinically insane demographic.

    Please refer to my second post, paragraphs 6 & 7 for quite clear breakdown of the term as I consider it. Also see a shortened version at Richard’s post on “Atheist as a Label”:

    http://20gramsoul.com/2007/07/30/atheist-as-a-label/

    If you have further clarifications, please spell them out because I’m not quite sure what more you want me to state. Again, this isn’t a religion here so if you’re waiting for me to spill out a doctrine or dogma, please don’t hold your breath.

    I don’t remember making claims for other’s knowledge.. however I may make incorrect assumptions based on what you’ve said that you know or believe. If I’ve done so, please feel free to correct me.

    As far as agnosicism and gnosticism is concerned.. no, they really do not deal with differences in what people know. It’s more accurately a reflection of perspective. Gnostics believe that the unknown contains god and gathering all there is to know takes you closer to god. Agnosticism simply awknoledges that the unknown exists and that everything we know could possibly prove to be wrong. As you can see, these are not opposites.. which is another really huge complaint I have for Huxley’s term.. even if it weren’t meaningless as a label to distinguish people. As examples, all gnostics are also agnostic due to the open-mindedness of their religious perspective. Likewise there is no “knowledge” that gnostics claim to have over agnostics.. gnostics take a different perspective (generally religious) on what they learn.

    The reason why I mention gnosticism is to point out these misconceptions of what the “knowledge” religious movement is about. Which makes the term “agnostic” even more meaningless. No one is “without knowledge” in the most literal sense.. nor does it make sense to say that you’re “without traditional gnosticism” outside of a theistic religious context. Agnosticism is a meaningless term used to avoid religious questions and hide your position.

  36. Arkaro said,

    August 2, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    Richard,

    The problem with using gnosticism as a label is that no one who holds an absolutist position uses the term. Like I said, gnostics are proud of the “agnosticistic” quality of their religion. Here we have modern usage of a religious term used as a label that no one really self identifies with as defined in “modern” terms. In fact, I argue that this definition is wrong and is actually a misinterpretation since the coining of “agnosticism.” Of course, all this ignores the fact that these deluded people do not really know what they claim to know.. so they’re not really “knowledgable” after all. The “modern” use of “gnostic” doesn’t even truly apply to these people – even if they did use it to label themselves, which they do not.

    Even the phrase “gnostic gospels” is also a modern misunderstanding. They’re not labeled as such because they claim to “know” anything more than other gospels.. Instead, these were traditionally used to label the scriptures ignored by the canon and maintained by the overall gnostic movement. The tem “synoptic gospels” describes those found within the traditional canon (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.)

    Well, you’re free to call yourself however you prefer. You have yet to make a case for defending your definition of choice other than by stating the fact that others are also confused by the terms. Agnosticism was a poorly coined word that means nothing associated to anyone who calls themselves a gnostic (of which people do use in the modern world, by the way.. but they strangely don’t adhere to your “modern” definition.)

    Continue to use it to “define” you at your own risk because some of us overlook your meaningless usage for what it actually implies: that you abstain from stating your current position in the topic at hand. Granted, there’s nothing wrong with using the term if this is actually what you’re trying to communicate.

  37. Richard said,

    August 4, 2007 at 8:19 pm

    Agnosticism defines me, and I would imagine most other people. That certainly doesn’t mean it’s the only label which does so. I’m not sure why you’re focusing solely on that term, and not on the fact that I also specifically state in this post that I’m also an atheist.

    Perhaps you’re think I somehow use agnosticism solely to describe my views because of the tagline on this site? (”Friendly outgoing eclectic agnostic seeks one gram of soul”). In which case, I’d suggest that I only use the term agnostic in that sentence because:
    1. Yes, it DOES describe my views, but not exclusively.
    but more importantly…
    2. It seems more like a good word to describe someone searching, rather than someone who’s found what they’re looking for…

    It’s certainly not to say that I ever describe myself purely as agnostic (without clarification) – particularly not since I’ve actually looked into the definitions of atheism.

  38. 20 gram Soul : Organised Atheism said,

    March 16, 2008 at 2:11 pm

    [...] do atheists share? Nothing. Many of us can’t even agree on a definition of Atheism! I don’t mean to say that there’s nothing that we share, but what we do share is, quite [...]

  39. jeremy brooks said,

    March 26, 2008 at 6:27 am

    Well, i guess there needs to be at least one theist comment.
    I actually think discussions like this are important. Actually as a Christian, I believe that God welcomes these sort of discussions as long as we all keep an open mind. Therefore I must keep an open mind to. I enjoyed reading these comments, and although I haven’t ‘converted’ to atheism, or agnosticism, there is certainly much to think about in the above. So thanks everybody.
    Questions welcomed!

    jeremy

  40. rafael said,

    June 22, 2008 at 1:33 am

    I shall begin by assuming that the issue of God’s existence is settled. We all believe that there is a God. As those who desire to know the truth, we must go one step further to find out what kind of God He is. God is the greatest Unknown. We must spend some time to find out about this unknown One. The next step now is to know what kind of a God He is. In the past few thousand years man has been inquiring about the nature of God. Is He kind or is He righteous? Is He indifferent towards us, or is He extremely interested in human affairs? These types of questions are the direct cause of all human religions. What is religion? Religion is man’s inquiry about God and his explanation of Him. Through these explanations, different men have arrived at different concepts about God. What kind of God is He? This is a big question. It is also a very serious question. We have all given our thought to this subject at one time or another. The question might even have occurred to our little mind when we were five years old. All men, educated or ignorant, have been intrigued by this question. It comes naturally after some contemplation and observation. But a person trying to speculate about God is like an ant attempting to understand a human being. It is extremely difficult for the little creature to try to realize our life, nature, and mind. In the same way it is impossible for us to try to comprehend God. For this reason, in the past few thousand years, all kinds of people, theologians and philosophers alike, have done much thinking about Him. What has God been doing all this time? Has He been indifferent to us or has He tried to reveal Himself to us? What is God’s attitude? Do you think He would say, “I am God and have nothing to do with human beings. I do not care what you think about me. I shall stay in heaven as God. Let the mortals be ignorant!” Or do you think He has a desire to reveal Himself to man and visit him? When I was in India, I saw some people lying naked on beds studded with nails. Some walked with bare feet on burning coals. These people devoted a great deal of energy to seeking after God. What has God done to them? Did He hide Himself and take no notice of them at all? Has He not kept Himself as a perpetual mystery? This is a great question. We have to consider it scientifically and objectively in order to find out what God is like. A few years ago I spoke on a similar subject to some medical students in an auditorium in Cheloo University. I said that man is an organism with a life. God also is a life. Man’s life is higher than that of the lower animals, and God’s life is even higher than that of man. I asked the students, “Since we realize that all living organisms have some common laws and express some common traits, can you name them?” Different ones then started to bring up different points. At the end we summed up the discussion in this way: all living organisms contain two common characteristics. You can call these characteristics their common expressions or their common laws. First, every life wants to preserve itself. It tends to reproduce itself. There is the ability to produce posterity, to continue its own life. Second, every life wants to have fellowship with other lives. It cannot stand being by itself. When a man cannot find fellowship with another human being, he goes to dogs, cats, fish, or birds and makes friends with animals. All living creatures desire fellowship. Based on these two characteristics of life, namely, the preservation of itself and fellowship with others, laws of human government are instituted. For example, the death penalty reflects a convict’s desire to preserve his own life; punishment comes in the form of taking away and terminating such a life. This is the way to inflict suffering on a life. Imprisonment, as a less serious punishment, cuts him off from having fellowship with others. This reversal of the life principle becomes then a suffering for him. From this we see that punishment is applied according to the principles of life. With these two chief characteristics in mind, let us turn to the life of God. God is an organism of a higher order than human beings. He is naturally governed by this law of life. We can know God by the characteristics and distinctive features of His life. From this we can deduce whether or not God wants to have fellowship with man. There are two kinds of religion: religion based on natural concepts and religion based on revelation. Natural religion starts with man as the center. He is the one that is seeking after God and studying about Him. What then is revelational religion? Revelational religion comes directly from God. He is the One who comes to reveal things to us. Man’s thoughts are often useless fancies. God’s revelation alone is trustworthy. Christianity is different from all other natural religions in that it is a religion that comes from revelation. Christianity begins from God. It is God who comes to seek out man, rather than man who seeks after God. I will not try to persuade you to believe in Christianity or to read the Bible. I will only make a few suppositions. We will treat the subject in the same way as if we were solving a problem in geometry. We will start from the suppositions and then deduce our arguments step by step. We will examine our reasoning’s to see if they are sound and if our conclusions are logical. As in mathematics, with some problems we work forwards, while with others we work backwards. At any rate, in the end we should be able to tell whether or not a supposition is justified. We have to make a few suppositions. The first one is that God exists. This in fact has been covered by us already. We have agreed that there is a God. He is a Being who has a purpose. Second, we assume that God has a desire to reveal Himself to man. If God wants to reveal Himself to man and if He wants us to know Him, how does He do it? In what manner can He be made known to us? If He speaks to us through thunder or writes to us through lightning, we will not be able to comprehend His message. How then does God make Himself known to us? If He is to reveal Himself and if He wants us to know Him, He necessarily must do it through human means. What then are the common ways that men communicate with one another? First, they do it through speaking and second through writing. All means of communication, whether telegraph, telephone, sign, or symbols, are all included in these two categories. If God is to manifest Himself, these are the only two means for Him to do so. For the present we set aside the aspect of speaking; we will see how God communicates with us through writing. If God reveals Himself through writing, of all the volumes written by different people throughout the centuries, there must be one book which is divinely inspired. This is a very crucial test. If such a book exists, it proves not only the existence of God, but it contains His written revelation to us as well. Is there then such a divinely written book? In the search for such a book, let us first mention a few basic principles. Suppose I want to order a book from a publisher. If I can tell him the name and author of the book, there will be no trouble getting it. If, however, I forget the name and author of the book, I can describe the characteristics of it to the publisher, such as the contents, size, color, binding, etc. The publisher will then search through all his books and locates the volume I want. God has one book in this universe. How do we find it? We have to know its characteristics first. If there is any book that has been written by God, it must meet certain conditions or have certain qualifications before one can say that it is from God. Let me put forth a few propositions. If there is a book written by God, it must first of all mention God. It must tell you that it is from God and that its author is God. This is the first qualification. Second, it must carry a moral tone that is higher than what we commonly know. If it is a fabrication, it can at the most be on the same level as man. Third, if there is such a divine book, it must tell us about the past and the future of this world. Only God knows clearly what occurred in the past and what will happen in the future. Only by telling us these matters will we know Him as God. Fourth, this book must be simple and available so that all may be able to secure and understand it. If there were only one such book in the world, then only a very few people would be able to see it. It would not pass the test unless it is a book accessible to everyone. In the United States there is a group of people who claim to have a book from God. It is engraved in gold and contains only twelve pages. Such a book then would not be accessible to the Chinese. God would never write to us a book at which we could not look. Now the matter is simplified. Let us repeat these four conditions once more.
    (1) If such a book exists, it must tell us explicitly that its author is God.
    (2) It must carry a high tone of morality.
    (3) It must give a detailed description of the past and the future of the universe.
    (4) It must be available.
    Let us pick out some of the more important writings throughout human civilization and check them against these qualifications to see if any meets our requirements. We will start from books that are generally considered to be good. Let us take the Chinese classics of Confucius. They are immediately disqualified under the first requirement, for none of them claims to be written by God. They do have a high tone of morality, but they fail to give the origin and destiny of the world, the universe, and man. This does not mean that they are worthless books; it means that they do not contain the qualifications we want. They are not what we are looking for. Let us go to the classics of other cultures. There are numerous volumes of famous writings, but none of them passes the first test. They are all clearly written by man. They may be masterpieces in philosophy or morality, but they are not written by God, nor are they divinely inspired. We have to set them aside. There is a book in India called the Rig-Veda. It once dominated Hinduism. However, it does not claim to be written by God. Another book called the Avesta, written by a Persian named Zoroaster, is also extremely influential in the Middle East. It does not claim to be from God either. Moreover, its moral tone is not especially commendable. Let us come to the Koran of Mohammedanism. This is the closest one we can find. It tells us that it comes from God; it meets the first requirement. However, it does not fulfill the second requirement, for its moral tone is too low. The heaven it describes is full of lusts and flesh. God could never write a book with such licentiousness and immorality. Hence, this book does not pass the test of morality. After searching through all the books, you have to come finally to the Bible. If God desires to communicate with man, and if He does so through writing, then this is the only book that can pass the four tests. Hence, this must be the book God has for man. What does this book say? In the books of the law in the Old Testament, it says, “Thus saith the Lord,” at least five hundred times. Other books in the Old Testament repeat the phrase about seven hundred times. In addition to the references in the New Testament to the speaking of God, the Bible has more than two thousand claims of divine origin. If God has no intention of communicating with man, we can forget about this book. But if He does communicate with man through writing, then this book has to be of immense value. Can you find another book where God is claimed as its author that many times? We have to see if the Bible meets the second qualification. Let us take a look at its moral tone. Everyone who has studied this book confesses that it carries the highest moral standard. Even the sins of the noblest persons are recorded and condemned without mercy. Once a strong opposer of the Bible was asked by his son, “Why are you so strong against the Bible?” He answered, “If I do not condemn it, it will condemn me.” This book does not let us get by easily. The human concept is that all sexual acts outside marriage are considered as fornication. The Bible, however, says that even an evil thought is fornication. Human morality condemns an act of killing as murder, but the Bible condemns a slight hatred in the heart as murder. We consider a man who lets his enemy get by without paying vengeance as forgiving. But the Bible charges man to love his enemy. How high is its moral tone and how low we are before its standards! You cannot help but admit that it presents the best ethical code for humanity. Furthermore, this book describes in detail the past and future of the universe. Once a friend told me that he could believe in everything the Bible says except the parts in Genesis and Revelation where it talks about the origin and destiny of the heavens and earth. I told him that if this is indeed a book from God, it must, of necessity, contain these matters. If the Bible did not contain Genesis and Revelation, it would be the same as any other book, and we would have to look for another book; it would not be the one we want. But the past condition of the world and its future destiny are recorded here. Hence, the third qualification is also met. What is the circulation of such a book? Last year (1935), more than two hundred million copies were sold. Can you name another book that has such a high circulation rate? This statistic, moreover, is not limited to just last year; every year the number has remained approximately the same. In one sense this book is very popular. In another sense it is like a thorn in your hand; it pierces you. This book gives you a headache. It creates an unspeakable uneasiness within man. It even causes man to oppose it. In spite of this, its annual sales are still over two hundred million. Furthermore, this book is translated into more than seven hundred twenty languages. In every country and among every race, there is a translation of this unique book. It is extremely easy for anyone to obtain a Bible anywhere in the world. If the Rig-Veda were God’s book, then more than half of the world would perish due to a failure in obtaining it. Even if you put the Rig-Veda in my hand, I would still be unable to understand it. If only the educated ones can contact God, then I am destined to go to hell. If only the Indians have the opportunity, we Chinese, as well as other races, are out of hope. If God speaks through the Rig-Veda, then where can we find that book? Maybe we can only find the original copy in the London Museum. And even that may not contain the original meaning of God’s revelation to man. This is not all. The Bible contains sixty-six books and it is divided into the Old and New Testaments. It was written by no less than thirty people. The span from the time the first book was written to the time when the last book was finished is more than sixteen hundred years. The places where they were written are also different. Some were written in Babylon, some in Italy, some at one end of Asia Minor, others at the other end of the Mediterranean. Furthermore, the writers themselves differed in their backgrounds. Some were lawyers; some were fishermen. There were princes, and there were shepherds. All these writings by men of different backgrounds, languages, environments, and periods are put together. The amazing thing is that it is still a complete book. All those who have had some experience of editing know that in order to put together a few articles written by different authors, it is necessary for the authors to be of comparable level of academic achievements and viewpoints. Even when the academic standard and viewpoints are similar, there will still be conflicts and contradictions when you put five or six articles together. But the Bible, though complex in contents, contains history, poetry, laws, prophecies, biographies, and doctrines and was written by so many different ones at different times and under different circumstances, yet when you put them together, they surprisingly run as one continuous volume. There is no conflict or contradiction. They are written in one breath. If you read this book carefully, you have to admit that God’s hand is behind all the writings. More than thirty people of varied backgrounds and ideas in different times and places wrote these sixty-six books. When you group them up, they link together as if they were written by one individual. Genesis was written about fifteen hundred years before Christ, and Revelation was written ninety-five years after Christ. There is a time span of sixteen hundred years. One talks about the beginning while the other projects the end of the world. Yet whatever begins in Genesis is concluded in Revelation. This amazing feature cannot be explained in human terms. Every word of it has to be written by God through man. God is the motivating One behind the whole composition. There is another remarkable thing about this book. In itself it is a book that gives life. Yet countless numbers of people have lost their lives for its sake. There was a time when anyone who held this book in his hand would immediately be put to death. The most powerful empire in history was the Roman Empire. There was a time when this empire summoned all its forces to destroy this book. Everyone who possessed it would be inhumanly persecuted and later killed or burned. They wiped out thousands of people and burned countless copies of the Bible. They even set up a monument at a place where they killed Christians. On it was the inscription: “Christianity is buried here.” They thought that when they had burned all the Bibles and removed all the Christians, they would see Christianity lying there beneath their feet. But it was not long after that when the Bible came back again. Even in a country like England, which has already accepted Christianity as its state religion, you can still find tombs of martyrs for Christ if you visit different places there. Here and there you can find places where the Bible was once burned. Or you may come across a tombstone that tells you that such and such a person tried so hard and wrote so many books in his life to oppose the Bible. One place may tell you that the Bible was once burned there, and another place may tell you that Christians were once killed there. One signpost may point you to a statue of martyrdom, and another may point to a site of Bible burning. Why is it that so many people have tried so hard to oppose this book? Why is it that men would pass by other books, but would either oppose this book with every fiber of their being or would put their whole life to the stake for it? There must be something extraordinary here. Even if you do not believe that this is God’s word, you have to admit that there is something unusual about this book. This book seems to be very simple and easy. If you consider it from the historical point of view, it tells the origin of the universe, the earth, the plants, human beings, how they established their kingdoms, and how they will eventually end. This is all. There is nothing special about it. Yet it has been handed from generation to generation for centuries. Today it is still with us. Moreover, if you do not confess that it is truth, you have to conclude that it is false. You can disregard many books, but you cannot ignore this book. Nor will it ignore you. It will not let you go. It demands a verdict from you. It will not pass you by. Another remarkable thing about this book is that almost half of it is prophecy. Among the prophecies, almost half of them are fulfilled. The other half is for the future and await fulfillment. For example, it predicted the fate of the nations of Moab and Ammon and of the cities of Tyre and Sidon. Today when people talk about big cities, they mention London and Shanghai. Then it was Tyre and Sidon. They were two chief cities of the ancient world. The prophecies concerning these two cities were all fulfilled. Once I was in the Middle East. For some reason I did not visit those two places. However, I bought two pictures of those cities. It amazed me when I looked at those pictures. I could not help but believe in the Bible. It was prophesied that if these two metropolitan cities did not repent, they would be destroyed and devastated. Their land would become hills of rocks and pebbles where fishermen would come to dry their nets. In the pictures that I bought, there was nothing but fishing boats and open nets on the shore. This is only one small fact that proves the reliability of biblical prophecy. If you compare past events with the prophecies in the Bible, you will find that they all correspond one with another. For another example, take the birth of Christ. Isaiah prophesied concerning a virgin with child a few hundred years before Christ actually came. Later, He was born indeed of the Virgin Mary. The prophecy was accurately fulfilled. As the prophecies concerning the past have been fulfilled, so the prophecies concerning the future must also be fulfilled. If God desires to communicate with man, He must do so through common human channels of communication. He must use the human language or human writings. In other words, there must be a book in the world that is a direct revelation from God. If such a book does exist, it must contain the four criteria we mentioned. Now we can say that such a book is found. This book tells us that God desires to have fellowship with us. He speaks to us through this book. Through it God is no longer an unknown Being. We can now know Him. This book is the Bible. I hope all of you will read it.
    THIS IS SERIOUS: WAS JESUS CRAZY? WAS HE A LUNATIC? OR THE BIGGEST LIAR?
    God desires to reveal Himself to us. He does so through means that are comprehensible to man. These are namely written and spoken language. We have seen how God reveals Himself through writing. Now we want to take a look at His revelation through speaking. Suppose that you have had correspondence with a person for many years; however, you have never seen him. Naturally, you would want to know him more by having some direct acquaintance with him. Full understanding of someone cannot be achieved merely through writing. Direct contact gives a better chance. It seems as if communication through speech is of a more intimate and thorough nature than writing. When spoken language is added to written language, communication becomes enhanced. If you take away either of the two, you have a gap. Of course, if you take away both, communication is completely voided. Effective communication is always carried out by these two means. If God’s intention is to reveal Himself to us, He must of necessity do so through speaking. But how does God speak? Does He trumpet from the heavens? If so, we would all be frightened to death. We would all run away. No one would dare to listen. There is a chasm between Him and us. He, being so high and great, would drive us away from His holiness. How then does He speak?
    THE WINTER ON THE MOUNTAIN
    Let me relate to you a story. One winter I was staying on the mountain Lu-shan, recovering from an illness. It was immediately after the war, and there was practically no one living on the mountain. In the vicinity of my dwelling, one could hardly see anyone all day long. I am a quiet person by nature. This kind of environment was very appealing to me. Not only was it quiet there, but the weather was cold as well. From morning till dusk, all I saw was a boy who came three times to deliver my meals. At the beginning I was quite at ease. But after a while, even a person like me began to feel lonely. One day after lunch I went to take a nap. There was a balcony outside my bedroom window. When I woke up I saw some little creatures gathering around the balcony. Bits of my meal had been dropped there, and the birds were busily chirping around them. As they hopped around, they chirped and made many cheerful noises. I said to myself, “All right. Since I cannot find any human beings, I will try to make friends with these little birds.”I rose up and went out to greet them. But in an instant they all flew away. An idea came to me. I took some of the leftover rice and began to arrange it in rows, with only a few grains in the first row and gradually increased them towards the entrance of the doorway. I hid behind the door and watched them coming. Soon they gathered around again. I said to me, “This is my chance.” I walked out and began to make friends with them. But the minute they saw me, they all scattered. Some perched on the branches of the tree across the balcony and stared at me, as if trying to determine what my intention was. Every time I approached them, they flew away, and every time I walked away, they came back. This went on a number of times. I wanted to preach to the birds. I wanted to tell them, “Little birds, I have no special intention in doing this. This is winter on the mountain, and food is scarce. I have enough food with me, and I just want to share it with you. Please be at peace and come down. I only ask that as you eat, I can sit among you. I want to listen to your songs and watch you playing. Come. Let us be friends…” But the birds would not come. They did not understand me. I had to give up. Later I had a certain realization within. I began to preach to myself. I said, “This body of mine is too big. If I could shrink from five feet eleven inches to the size of a bird, and even change myself into a bird, they would not be alarmed by my presence. I could then tell them my heart’s intention, and we could spend the winter on the mountain Lu-shan together.”We have a similar problem today. If God remained God, we could never understand Him. If He talked to us in His language, we would be altogether lost. If God wants to reveal Himself through speaking and have fellowship with man, He must shrink Himself to such a degree that He and we are the same. Only then would He be able to speak to us and tell us of Himself and of the mysteries of the universe. Only then would we be able to understand Him. Has God become a man to reveal Himself through His speaking? Let us again use the method of supposition. What if God revealed Himself through the human language? What if He became a man and fellowshipped with man? The implication is tremendous here! It would mean that in this world, among all the human beings throughout history, one person was not merely a man, but God as well! If it is granted that God became a man, there must be a mortal who was also divine. We need to find out about this One. This is a thorny task. But we will employ the effective method we have adopted—namely, setting down a few principles. Then we will search according to these qualifications and directions. We want to base our evaluation on what manner of life a person should possess and what qualifications he must have if he is God.
    The first condition that this person must fulfill is that he must claim to be God while he is on earth. He cannot be apologetic about it. He must declare boldly that he is God. Only then can we know who he is. Without this declaration, we have no way to guess his identity. Hence, a declaration is our first qualification.
    Second, the way this person came into the world must be different from ours. If I said that I am God and yet was born in the same manner as every other mortal, my words would carry no force. If on the other hand, I dropped down from heaven; my assertion would be taken seriously. The way this person comes into being must be extraordinary. He must come in an absolutely different fashion; otherwise, his words will not carry the necessary weight. Third, this man must bear a moral standard that is far above that of all other human beings. He must have God’s holiness, and his life must bear the mark of God’s righteousness. For example, if I became a bird and lived in exactly the same way as other birds, without showing them anything extraordinary, I could not convince them that I was actually a man. If God is to become a man, His moral behavior must be of the highest quality. This is the only way that we could identify Him as God. Furthermore, if a person is God, he must necessarily be able to perform things which no mortal can do. If he can achieve what we cannot achieve and know what we do not know, we can say that he is truly God. Lastly, this person must be able to tell us the divine purpose concerning man. What was God’s purpose in creating the universe and man? How does He take care of human pains and sorrows? What is the origin and ultimate solution of everything in the universe? What should our attitude towards God be? All these he must reveal to us. Unless this one shows us what we do not see, we cannot say that he has shown us any revelation. We will set down these five conditions and put the whole of humanity to the test. Let us find out if someone meets the five requirements. Such a person would surely be qualified to be God. The first person to put to the test should be yourself. Of course, you are not God, because you have never claimed to be God. Nor have I ever claimed to be. So that rules out you and me. Very well, now we will introduce Confucius. If you read his books, you will find that he did conduct a very moral and proper life. But he never claimed to be God either. Hence, he fails in the first step. What about Sakya Muni, the founder of Buddhism? Not only was there an absence of the claim of divinity, but his philosophy itself is void of deity. He did not believe in the existence of God. Since he had no God, he cannot be God either. Next, go to Mohammed. He believed in God. But he never claimed to be God. He called God Allah and himself the prophet of Allah. If you go through every person in history, you will discover that no one ever claimed to be God except One. That One was Jesus of Nazareth. He claimed to be the living God. No other person put forward such a claim. How can Jesus of Nazareth claim to be God? Before going on, we have to pause for a moment to seriously consider the matter. It is not a light thing to claim to be God. A person who makes such a claim falls into one of three categories. He must belong to one of these three categories; he cannot belong to all three. First, if he claims to be God and yet in fact is not, he has to be a madman or a lunatic. Second, if he is neither God nor a lunatic, he has to be a liar, deceiving others by his lie. Third, if he is neither of these, he must be God. You can only choose one of the three possibilities. If you do not believe that he is God, you have to consider him a madman. If you cannot take him for either of the two, you have to take him for a liar. There is no need for us to prove if Jesus of Nazareth is God or not. All we have to do is find out if He is a lunatic or a liar. If He is neither, He must be the Son of God. These are our three choices. There is no fourth. What did Jesus of Nazareth say about Himself? In John 10:30 He said, “I and the Father are one.” We need some explanation here. In the Bible the invisible God is called the Father. The Son manifests and expresses the Father. What is hidden is the Father, and what is expressed is the Son. The Son is the One who can be seen and touched. Behind, you have the Father. In front, you have the Son. The two are actually one. They are the two sides of the same reality. When we talk about two, we refer to the fact that one is hidden while the other is revealed. When we talk about one, we say that the revealed One is just the hidden One in manifestation. This is the biblical interpretation of the Father and the Son. Therefore, when Jesus of Nazareth one day said, “I and the Father are one,” it was a statement that no one else could make. This man was saying in reality that He and the invisible God are one entity. He is God and God is He. God is the invisible Father, and He is the manifested Son. The Father and the Son are one! Who can this One be that made such a claim? Is He a madman? Is He out to deceive us? After Jesus spoke such a word, what reaction do we see? “The Jews again took up stones that they might stone Him. Jesus answered them, I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these works are you stoning me? The Jews answered Him, We are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, are making Yourself God” (vv. 31-33). The Jews understood very well that Jesus’ words meant that He claimed to be God. After hearing these words they wanted to stone Him to death. A claim was made by Jesus, and an accusation was charged by the Jews, both of which concerned His divinity. Was Jesus insane? Did He speak pure nonsense just to cause people to kill Him? Or was He a swindler setting up some kind of a scheme? If so, what was He trying to gain? Was He trying to gain death? Perhaps we will go back a little bit to the earlier parts in the Gospel of John and see what it says there. John 1:18 says, “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Why has no one seen God? It is because God is invisible. Jesus said that He was the only Begotten of the Father; He expressed the invisible Father. When you see the only Begotten, you see the Father. Again He spoke concerning Himself, “And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended out of heaven, the Son of Man, who is in heaven” (3:13). Have you ever heard anyone say such words? I cannot say, “No one has been to Shanghai, but he who comes from Shanghai to Tientsin, even I, Watchman Nee, who is in Shanghai.” If I say so, I would be gibbering nonsense. But Jesus was speaking a heavenly language. He said that He came out of heaven and is still in heaven. What can a person be if he can be in two places simultaneously? Either he is God or he is a lunatic or he is a liar. If you have not yet believed in Christ, please give a verdict to this issue. Who is this man? Let us read John 3:31-32: “He who comes from above is above all; he who is from the earth is of the earth and speaks out of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. What He has seen and heard, of this He testifies, and no one receives His testimony.” He said that He came out of heaven and was above all. After a while He said the same thing again. Let us see what the purpose behind these words is. He came to preach the things of heaven, but no one received His words. He mentioned words like “heaven,” “above all,” “out of heaven,” etc. What kind of man was He? Confucius never said this. Neither did Sakya Muni or Mohammed. Was Jesus of Nazareth a madman, a liar, or the Son of God? John 5:17 says, “But Jesus answered them, My Father is working until now, and I also am working.” He always put Himself in the same place as the Father. Verse 18 says, “Because of this therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath but also called God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” When we read His words now, we may consider them to be ordinary remarks. But the Jews knew what He was saying. They knew that He was making Himself equal with God. The words in fact meant that God is His Father and He came to express God. The invisible One is God, and the visible One is He. Therefore, the Jews sought to kill Him. What should we do about such an unusual person? John 6:46 says, “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except Him who is from God, He has seen the Father.” Here the word is clearer. He said that no one other than Himself has ever seen God. Only He knew what the Father is like. I can only say with soberness and reverence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. Read John 8:18. What did He say? “I am one who testifies concerning me, and the Father who sent me testifies concerning me.” The question in verse 19 is most interesting: “They said then to Him, Where is Your Father? Jesus answered, You know neither Me nor My Father; if you knew Me, you would know My Father also.” Have you seen what He was saying? They had seen Him, yet did not know Him. Of course they would not know the Father either, whom they had not seen. If men knew Him, they knew God. Who is He then? If knowing Him equals knowing God, is that not the same as saying that He is God and God is He? Read John 8:23: “And He said to them, You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.” The preposition “from” in this verse is ek in Greek. It means “out of.” That is how it should be translated. He said, “You are out of this world, but I am not out of this world.” This man claimed to be from above; He did not come out of this world. Who can He be? The Jews were confused. They were totally bewildered. Who was this man? The ancestor of the Jews is Abraham. They boasted of being the descendants of Abraham in the same way the Chinese boast of being the offspring of Hwang-ti. The name Abraham was highly venerated among the Jews. Now they brought out Abraham. Please read John 8:53: “Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? The prophets died too. Who are you making yourself? How did Jesus answer them? Was He greater or smaller than Abraham? In verse 56 Jesus said, “Your father Abraham exulted that he would see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.” What is this? Even Abraham had to look forward to Jesus! Hence, verse 57: “The Jews then said to Him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Now please pay your attention to Jesus’ answer in verse 58: “Truly, truly, I say to you, Before Abraham came into being, I am.” Tell me who this man is. If I told you that before Hwang-ti was, I, Watchman Nee am there, you would immediately write me off as a lunatic. Some of you would say that I am a liar. The words Jesus spoke made Him a madman, a liar, or God. There can be no fourth alternative. We have to read on. In John 10:37-38 Jesus said, “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works so that you may come to know and continue to know…” Know what? The clause following is very crucial. It is a big statement: “…that the Father is in Me and I am in the Father.” Who then is this man? He said that He was in God and God was in Him. Passages like the above are numerous in the Bible. I shall mention one more. Read carefully John 14:6-7: “Jesus said to him, I am the way and the reality and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and henceforth you know Him and have seen Him.” It says clearly that if you know Jesus of Nazareth, you have known the invisible God. Why is this so? It is because He is God. One of the disciples was confused. John 14:8 says, “Philip said to Him, Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us.” Philip was asking to be shown the Father who had been mentioned again and again by Jesus. Verse 9 says, “Jesus said to him, have I been so long a time with you, and you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how is it that you say, Show us the Father?” Here Jesus made it very plain that to see Him is to see God. He made no apology about it. He is God. There is no need to see the Father anymore. If you see Him, you see God! Who is Jesus of Nazareth? What would you say? Is He merely the founder of the Christian religion? Is He merely an example of self-sacrifice and humanitarianism? Is He a social reformer? Is He an advocate for universal love, peace, and freedom? Listen to what He said about Himself. He said that He is God. What is your conclusion? Is He a lunatic or a liar? Is He a hoax, or is He God? This is a vital question. Can He be a madman? If you read His biographies in the Gospels and observe His life and manner, you will realize that not only was He sane and sound, He was very sober and firm. If there is a perfectly sound person in this world, He has to be the One. His mind was clear, and His mentality was alert. If you study His deeds and words carefully, you have to confess that His thoughts are very logical and consistent, and His manners are most comely and appropriate. To opposing ones He only needed to reply a few sentences, and their arguments against Him were defeated. He did not have a trace of madness in Him. A madman could never have done what He did. Then is He a liar? A liar always lies for a profit. If there is no profit to be gained, what is the purpose of lying? Why was Jesus crucified? For no other reason than that He claimed to be God. At the last judgment, the hour when His release or crucifixion was to be deliberated, He was examined as to who He was. What was His answer? He said that the Son of Man would be seen sitting on the right hand of the Majesty on high, descending on the clouds in glory (Matt. 26:64). Even then He claimed to be God. As a result, He was crucified on the cross. Is there a liar who would sacrifice his life for his lie? Once I met a person who wanted to talk with me about our faith. He read some books about Jesus and admitted that Jesus had a high standard of morality. He could consider Jesus as a perfect man, a model for humanity. But he could not believe that Jesus is God. I said, “If you admit that He has a high standard of morality, then He at least is not a liar. If you agree that He is not a liar, then you have to accept His claim of divinity as truth. He repeatedly asserted that He is God. If you admire His morality, you have to recognize His divinity as well. Jesus of Nazareth is God!”Please read John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Verse 14 says, “And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality.” What is the “Word” mentioned in verses 1 and 14? Verse 1 speaks of the relationship the Word has with God.
    In reference to when, the Word was there from the beginning.
    In reference to where, the Word was with God. In reference to what, the Word was God. Today the Word has become flesh; He has taken on a human body and dwelt among men. As to how He dwells, it says that He is “full of grace and reality,” and “we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father.” Who is this One? He is Jesus of Nazareth. Here we have only seen one of the five qualifications mentioned earlier. Only Jesus of Nazareth meets this first condition. This proves that He is God. We shall go on to see the four other conditions or qualifications. Jesus of Nazareth must meet all the other four qualifications before we can conclude that He is God.
    EXAMINE THE CLAIMS
    If God is to be a man, He must come into the world in a way that is very different from all other mortals. We come into the world through our parents and are conceived by our mothers. To ascertain whether Jesus of Nazareth is an ordinary person or the incarnated God, we need to examine His birth. If His birth was no different from ours, we have to conclude that He is nothing but a man. Not only does He have to pass the first qualification, but He needs to pass the second one. Do not hastily believe in a person simply because he claims to be God; we have to test him by our second criterion. If he is indeed God, he must be born in an extraordinary manner. If we study the birth of Jesus, we will find that it was very different from ours. He was born of a virgin. Both the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke in the New Testament tell us this fact. Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary. Before we go on, we have to realize that there are two ways to know God: by natural speculation or by revelation. According to natural speculation, one meditates and conjectures about God. In revelation, God speaks to man. We want to look at the revelation of God. We want to know what God says. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke show us that Jesus was born of a virgin, Mary. This important fact enables us to conclude that He is no ordinary person, and it justifies our being a Christian. The natural mentality cannot readily accept this fact. Some years ago, a big debate was conducted in England. On one side were prominent leaders of modernistic schools of theology. On the other side was a famous Presbyterian pastor-theologian. Four major topics were raised. Twice a day, for four consecutive days, each side took turns delivering a long speech for a total of eight messages. One of the topics was related to our subject—the virgin birth. The modernistic theologians asserted that one reason alone was enough to disprove the virgin birth—the event was biologically impossible. According to the law of biology, it is impossible to have the virgin birth. On the same day, their opponent gave the rebuttal. Let me briefly mention a few of his arguments. He said, “Our friends have denied the possibility of such an event on the ground of biological law. I am here to ask whether such an event happened. They asked, ‘Can this happen?’ They referred you to academic principles. I am asking, ‘Has this happened?’ I point to a historical occurrence. It is one thing to be academically justified. It is another thing to be historically recorded.”As he was speaking, he drew out a newspaper from his pocket. In the paper was an article about an accident that had happened a few days earlier. A man was driving on a winding mountain road. Due to carelessness, the car slid and tumbled down a deep gorge. The car was totally wrecked. Not even a square foot of the vehicle was left untouched. It was thoroughly damaged. But the man on the ground was absolutely unhurt. Later, he rose up and walked away. The theologian read the passage aloud and said, “This car tumbled down a thousand feet into ruin. You cannot even find a square foot of whole metal, and yet the man was unharmed. My friends would ask, ‘Could this man live?’ But my question is, ‘Is this man alive?’ He is alive! If you consider the possibility, there is none. But if you consider the fact, there it is!”What we have is a historical fact. If we try to study the virgin birth from a scientific point of view, we may conclude that this is an impossible event. But my question is whether or not such an event occurred. The Gospel of Matthew says that Jesus was born of a virgin. So does the Gospel of Luke. At least you have to say that these records have said such a thing and that such an event was recorded in history. At least you have to believe that there is a historical event. I am not asserting that Matthew and Luke were inspired by the Holy Spirit when they wrote their books. Whether these books were divinely inspired or not, we will set aside for a moment. We are saying that there were a few people who followed Jesus. They wrote His biography. Both Matthew and Luke were contemporaries of Jesus. Matthew followed Him for more than three years. Luke was not as close, but he “carefully investigated all things” (Luke 1:3). I believe that when he wrote his gospel, the mother of Jesus was still alive. What did they say about the birth of Jesus? They all testified that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. His birth was absolutely different from ours. Today, after almost two thousand years, some who never saw Jesus, never talked to Mary His mother, and never met Joseph His father; conclude that He was not born of a virgin. How can you say that He was not born in this manner? Are you ruling out the possibility of such an event and concluding that it did not happen because of some arguments you proposed in your study room or some theories you fashioned in the laboratory? Perhaps we should read the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew. There are forty-two generations in the genealogy. Beginning from the first generation, it repeatedly says, “So-and-so begot So-and-so.” This phrase is used through verse 15, which says, “And Eliud begot Eleazar, and Eleazar begot Matthan, and Matthan begot Jacob.” Verse 16 continues, “And Jacob begot Joseph.” The surprising thing is that the next part of the sentence does not continue with “Joseph begot Jesus.” Rather, it says, “Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.” When the line reaches Joseph, the pattern is dropped. This is because Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. His way of birth was very different from ours. We have seen that His method of coming into the world was an unusual one. Now we want to look at His way of departing from the world. As we shall see, this was also contrary to our ordinary deaths. No one can ever predict the place, time, and manner he or she is going to die. A hundred years from now, all of us here will be dead. But no one knows how we are going to die. Jesus of Nazareth, however, foresaw His own death. He knew exactly when, where, and how it was to happen. Once when someone told Him that He was going to be killed, He answered that it was not acceptable for a prophet to perish outside of Jerusalem (Luke 13:33). He knew that He was going to die in Jerusalem. One day, He told His disciples that the hour had come. Not only did He sense the imminence of His death; He told others that His death hour had come. He knew also how He would die. A number of times He mentioned that He would be crucified. This was recorded at least three times in Matthew. Not only was this man different in His way of entering into the world, but His manner of departure was no less extraordinary. Both His birth and His death were very unusual. Is this the Son of God? Let us consider the third qualification. What kind of morality did Jesus of Nazareth have? Was He the same as we are? Did He ever sin? I like the sentence Jesus spoke in John 8. Many were opposing Him at that time. They surrounded and cross-examined Him. In return He asked, “Which of you convicts Me of sin?” (v. 46). This was a tremendous challenge! Which one of us would dare to stand before everyone and challenge to be convicted of sin? Whoever dared do such a thing would be put to shame the minute his wife stood up to testify against him. Perhaps, in less than five minutes, seven or eight people would immediately rise up to expose his lies and unfaithfulness. But when Jesus made such a statement, no one was able to convict Him of sin. There has been a countless number of saints and sages throughout the ages, but none was bold enough to claim to be perfect and sinless. Why is it that Jesus alone dared to make such a claim? All I can say is that this man is either arrogant to the extreme or holy to the uttermost. A proud person may talk in an outlandish manner because he does not know himself; he has no realization of what kind of person he is. But when Jesus challenged, “Which of you convicts Me,” there was no way He could be humble or polite about it. He is without sin, and He is holy to the uttermost. Jesus of Nazareth is not like Confucius, who said that given some more time, he would be rid of big, moral flaws. Jesus is sinless. When He made such a statement, He made it before His enemies. If there had been a slight misconduct on His part, the Jews would have caught it right away. The Jews are not prolific writers; they have not produced many books other than the Holy Scripture. But after Jesus, many books were written by the Jews to contradict Him. All these books deny His divinity, but none touch His morality. Of all the opposing writings, none can prove that Jesus ever sinned. Every philosopher or founder of religion, at one time or another, has said, “I repent,” or “I regret such and such a matter. I will do better from now on.” But Jesus of Nazareth never repented. A sinner must of necessity repent. But what does a sinless man have to repent of? Jesus never apologized to anyone; He never did anyone any wrong. When I was in England, some British friends asked for my opinion concerning their people. I said, “Among you, once ever so often, I hear, ‘Excuse me’ and ‘I beg your pardon.’” To the English, anyone who does not know how to make these two remarks has to be an extremely base person, for he knows not his own mistakes. Anyone can make a mistake, but when one refuses to admit his mistakes, he makes himself vulgar. For this reason we have to say, “Excuse me” and “I beg your pardon” all the time. The amazing thing is that Jesus of Nazareth never said “sorry” to anyone. He never apologized. Could He be so evil as to ignore His conscience completely? Was He oblivious to His own errors? Or is He really sinless? If so, He cannot say, “sorry.” It is not a matter of humility or politeness to Him, but a matter of maintaining His standing. I love the story about Jesus once walking down a road. Many people were gathered around Him, hoping to see the resurrection of a dead person. It was so crowded that the people pressed upon each other. One woman, who suffered from an issue of blood for years, thought that Jesus would surely be able to heal her since He had performed all kinds of miracles. She did not come to the Lord directly. All that she did was touch the fringe of His garment, and the sickness was immediately healed (Mark 5:25-29).Jesus felt something, turned around, and asked, “Who touched Me?” How did the disciples respond? They said, “You see the crowd pressing upon You and You say, Who touched Me?” (v. 31). He should have asked, “Who pressed Me?” instead of “Who touched Me?” If I were Jesus, I would have said in a gentlemanly fashion, “Excuse me.” But Jesus did not need to say that. When He said that it was a touch, He meant that it was a touch and not a pressing against. The disciples only knew that many thronged around Him. But He knew that someone “touched” Him. He knew what He was doing. There was no need for apology. He knows no sin because He is without sin. Let me mention another story about Jesus. One day He came to the synagogue in His hometown. Someone handed Him the Scripture, and He started to read from a passage about Himself. The people there, however, despised Him. He remarked that a prophet is always despised in His own place. For this reason, God would not choose them but would rather go to someone else. After they heard this, they were very indignant. They carried Him outside and tried to throw Him down a cliff. I like very much what Jesus did then. He passed through their midst (Luke 4:16-30). If someone tried to push us over a cliff, we would struggle to escape. But He was no ordinary person. He simply passed through the persecutors’ midst. They could do nothing except let Him pass by! He is without sin. Again, you see the same Jesus preaching to a ruler at midnight in a house (John 3:2), while choosing to converse with a woman beside a well at midday (4:5-7). Everything He did was very proper. No one can say anything against Him. You cannot find fault in Him. Another time some opposers came to tempt Him. They asked whether or not it was lawful to pay tax to Caesar. The Jewish nation, as you know, no longer existed then, and Caesar of Rome was their king. If Jesus said “no” to the question, He would have been involved in a political issue, and the opposers would have had an excuse to condemn Him. If He said “yes,” all the Jews would have counted Him as siding with the Romans and hated Him. The result, of course, would have favored the opposers. This was a question that could not be answered “yes” or “no.”How did Jesus reply? He said, “Show Me the coin for the tribute” (Matt. 22:19). He was wise. He even had the opposing ones draw out the money from their own pockets. Then He asked, “Whose is this image and inscription?” (v. 20). They had to admit that it was Caesar’s. Jesus gave an excellent reply: “Render then the things that are Caesar’s to Caesar and the things that are God’s to God” (v. 21). With that He dismissed the whole case. This is where His majesty lies. He never made a mistake. You cannot get a case out of Him. I cannot enumerate all His deeds. Everything He did bears such a mark of nobility that there is absolutely no flaw in His behavior. I will briefly mention His betrayal as a final example. It was very late in the night, and men armed with torches, spears, and swords came to arrest this empty-handed Jesus. He asked them, “Whom do you seek?” They said, “Jesus the Nazarene” (John 18:7). He replied, “I told you that I am” (v. 8). At that very word, the band of rogues whose minds were set on capturing Him fell back to the ground. If Jesus had not voluntarily given Himself over to them, they would never have been able to seize Him. Such calmness and majesty can only be seen in Him! As to the traitor, Jesus knew from the first day of his intention. Yet He allowed the same to follow Him and even let him be the keeper of the money. All the time Jesus knew that money was being stolen by him. Who can demonstrate such forbearance and uprightness? Here is a man who is absolutely different from all others. In every respect, He has been proven to be the Son of God. The fourth qualification we mentioned is that one who claims to be God incarnated must be able to perform what an ordinary person cannot. Has Jesus of Nazareth performed any supernatural acts? We are not His contemporaries; it was almost two thousand years ago that He walked on earth. Naturally, we cannot be His witnesses. But one thing is sure: the apostles who followed Jesus recorded, preached, and testified the things concerning Him. The four Gospels were all completed within thirty years after His departure. Most of the Jews who were then alive had seen Jesus. If the apostles’ records were false, they would have been repudiated long ago. However, the Jews only argued that Jesus is not the Son of God. They never denied His deeds, for the deeds were all facts. Today, when we read the four Gospels, we have no apprehension about their authenticity. If there had been a slight error when they were written, there would have been grave problems because many of the contemporaries had actually seen and heard Jesus. There was no chance for any fabrication. Hence, these books cannot be a hoax. If the Jews could not attack these books, there is even less of a basis for an attack today. Let us examine some of the deeds of Jesus of Nazareth. Matthew 11:2 and 3 say, “Now when John heard in the prison of the works of the Christ, he sent word through his disciples and said to Him, Are You the Coming One, or should we expect another?” John wanted to make sure that Jesus was the Christ sent from God. If He was not, John would wait for another. Verses 4 and 5 say, “And Jesus answered and said to them, Go, report to John the things that you hear and see: the blind receive their sight and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; and the dead are raised and the poor have the gospel announced to them.” Jesus answered neither “yes” nor “no.” He only asked the messenger to tell John of the things heard and seen. He wanted John to think about them and decide for himself if Jesus was the Christ. Jesus proved His divinity by the miracles He performed. Here is a man who accomplished things that are impossible for human beings. You cannot help but confess that He is God. John 7:31 says, “But many out of the crowd believed into Him and said, Will the Christ, when He comes, do more signs than this man has done?” Many people testified that He performed all kinds of miracles which no man could do. John 10:24 says, “The Jews therefore surrounded Him and said to Him, How long will you hold our soul in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.” On the one hand, the Jews hardened their hearts and refused to acknowledge His divinity, and on the other hand, they were puzzled by the many supernatural miracles that He performed. They gathered around Him and pressed for an answer. There is one thing in which Jesus never gave in: His claim to divinity. He performed what mortals could not. These acts testify to His divinity. He told the people clearly, “The works which I do in My Father’s name, these testify concerning Me” (v. 25). On the one hand, He made His claim, and on the other hand, He performed miracles to justify His claim. In John 14:11 He said to His disciples, “Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” This is the same as saying that He is the invisible Father. “But if not, believe because of the works themselves.” If He had not done anything impossible, this word would have had no value at all. If He had not performed any extraordinary acts, they would have asked back, “What works have you done? We do not know what you are talking about.” But the disciples knew of the acts He did. All these acts prove that He is the Son of God. We have to check Jesus of Nazareth against a fifth qualification. If He is God, He has to show us what He is. Is He kind, or is He severe? Is He gentle, or is He fierce? What kind of a God do we have? As a matter of fact, Jesus did show us what God is. This is a most wonderful thing. The eternal, invisible God is now seen by us. There is no need to conjure up an untouchable and far transcendent God or imagine what He is like; He has revealed Himself to us. He has dwelt in our midst and walked among us. Jesus of Nazareth is the very God dwelling among and with man. He has manifested God’s nature and attributes to us. There is no need to search for God anymore because He has revealed Himself. Our mentality is too limited. Our hands are too short, and our viewpoint too narrow. If we were left to ourselves to study and search for God, we could only conclude that He is the unknown One. Now we know that God desires to reveal Himself. In fact, He has revealed Himself to us already. We have said that the two means whereby God communicates with us are the written and spoken language. For this reason, the Bible and Jesus of Nazareth are the two indispensable factors in our faith. When you take away either one, God becomes the gravest problem in the world. Hebrews 1:1 says, “God, having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets.” These speaking constitute the Bible. “Has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son” (v. 2). This is Jesus of Nazareth. Whoever is in Christ now may know Him. To have heard the words of Jesus of Nazareth is to have heard the words of God. Dear reader, what is your attitude towards Jesus of Nazareth? Thomas confessed, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28). Peter proclaimed, “You are…the Son of the living God!” (Matt. 16:16). Martha said, “I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God” (John 11:27). Even a Roman centurion exclaimed at the sight of Jesus hanging on the cross, “Truly this was the Son of God” (Matt. 27:54b). I hope you will make the same confession
    WHO IS HE?
    Our Christian faith is based upon the revelation
    of God. It is different from all other religions which are attained through meditation, conjecture, and searching. We believe that the Bible is God’s revelation to us. In other words, it is His spoken word to us. We also believe that God has become a man, who is the very Jesus of Nazareth. God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ constitute the basis of our faith. Let us begin by looking at the position that Christ occupies in our faith, or we may say, in Christianity. However, Christianity has been altered and is not what it ought to be. At the present we will not mention what Christianity ought to be. Rather, we will only draw a comparison between Christianity and other religions in order to see the distinctiveness of our faith. We will not try purposely to exalt Christianity and debase other religions. We will only draw an objective comparison between them. First, let us consider Confucianism. Actually, followers of Confucius never formally assert that theirs is a religion. Confucianism merely exercises great influence on Chinese culture, education, ethics, and philosophy. One thing, however, is certain: the teachings and doctrines of Confucius are of foremost importance, while the person Confucius is not as crucial. I do not mean that Confucianism has no concern for Confucius. The man indeed was an extraordinary person. However, in order to be a part of Confucianism, one only need to understand the doctrines of Confucius, abide by his teachings, and be thoroughly acquainted with his books. It does not matter whether one understands the man Confucius or not. The principles, doctrines, and teachings of Confucius are the essence of the religion. Next let us consider Buddhism. The founder of Buddhism was Sakya Muni. Once he preached to his disciples about evil persons being reincarnated through the Wheel of Rebirth after death. This is something that attracts man’s attention. But in all of Buddhism, the point of emphasis is doctrines and theories. Concerning the man Sakya Muni, although he has a history and biography, they are something parenthetical. They do not form the crux of Buddhism. The center of the religion is not the man Sakya Muni. Whether there was such a person is unimportant to today’s Buddhism. All that is needed are the doctrines and teachings. Other religions such as Taoism and Mohammedanism are all of the same principle. After each founder set up a religion and left h

Leave a Comment