Alleged Contradictions in the Bible

Sorry DS but the first person that came to me and told, had and has NEVER seen me play and as far as i know she never knew of my ability or anything otherwise, and specifically because i didn't live in the same city as she did, like i mentioned she came to visit. Now i am not using this particular situation of my whole basis for belief, it was just one example of the MANY things that have happened to me.

You are in all right to doubt, like i said before, but the fact that God is exists is unrefutable, you might not want to believe, but that doesn't change the fact. Remember i said in order to see you must believe, not the other way around.

Also why are you trying to make human reason of one situtation that has happened to me? what about the others i have stated? Try to explain why people show demonic possesion (like in the exorcist, but sometimes worse)? or How do you explain miraculous healing, like quadraplegics and paraplegics no longer needing their wheelchairs? of blind people finally seeing? is that also a placebo effect?

Come on! if you don't believe, don't, but don't come and tell me that it is all an illusion, you can be smarter than that.

 

A god may exist. But if she really saw a vision of you on stage, does it necessarily follow that the Bible is God's word? Maybe she really did see something, but does that mean it's Jesus by default? That's the only explanation?

 

You are in all right to doubt, like i said before, but the fact that God is exists is unrefutable, you might not want to believe, but that doesn't change the fact. Remember i said in order to see you must believe, not the other way around.

Immune to refutation? On the contrary, it's impossible to substantiate the existence of a God because no theist has ever given the concept of "God" a coherent meaning. Perhaps you'd like to support your wild, unjustified assertion.

Also why are you trying to make human reason of one situtation that has happened to me? what about the others i have stated? Try to explain why people show demonic possesion (like in the exorcist, but sometimes worse)? or How do you explain miraculous healing, like quadraplegics and paraplegics no longer needing their wheelchairs? of blind people finally seeing? is that also a placebo effect?

As I have stated, attributing something to God explains nothing scientifically. The choice between a scientific theory and supernatural interference is the choice between a possible explanation and no explanation whatsoever.

How do you define a miracle? The refutation is different depending on which definition you ascribe to the word:

1. Supernatural interference in the world. This is useless for establishing the existence of a God since it presupposes that God exists.

2. An event that is so unusual that it can only be explained with reference to supernatural power. I reiterate: putting something down to the supernatural is no sort of explanation. The primitive nomads of millennia ago thought they had "explained" the creation and the nature of the universe by putting it down to God. They achieved nothing with this false "explanation".

3. An event that cannot be contained within the realms of natural law. This presupposes knowledge of all the principles of nature. Until we have knowledge of all natural principles, we are unable to make this declaration.

Take this quote from Thomas Paine:

If...we seen an account given of such miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is, is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is, therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.

Now, I don't entirely agree with this statement. For a start, nature goes out of her course all the time, and that's how new scientific principles are discovered. The basic point, however, is that the vast majority of human experience indicates that people do not rise from the dead, show demonic powers, etc. There are also millions of examples of untruths being told. Therefore, it is far more likely that someone has lied, than such a wildly out-of-course event has actually occurred.

 

"However, you cannot expect another person... such as myself... to accept that it would work for me. Knowing what I know, I realize that it is, in fact, a placebo because the path only works for those who believe it does."

Actually, no one starts out believing. Yet something always happens which convinces the person to believe. Do you expect the placebo effect to work when there is on placebo? And just to add a personal thought, the Bible is clear God gives blessings to the just and unjust. No matter who we are, God does still provide so on one is free from God.

"Religion basically fails the litmus test of clinical consistency because there are good people in every faith whose prayers aren't answered 100 percent of the time."

How do you clinically define God? God wants faith not puppets. If God could be proved in a clinical sense, then there would be no faith or freewill.

"But that explanation is really a red herring that was originally concocted by institutions that could not explain why their subjects would experience the same kinds of tragedies under the new regime that they had with the old"

Well, that is nice. But to turn around the common reaction to Christianity, why don't you prove what you say?

"You are truly the master of your own fate"

Tell that to the 3,000 people in the WTC.

"Mysterious indeed... If you remove God from the equation... almost consistently you will find that the outcome of a person's situation is directly correlated with either their actions or their perceptions, or their presence in a situation that is outside their control because of the overwhelming influence of someone else's actions or perception"

How exactly do you want God to work? By miracles? Miracles are by definition rare. If not, they would be 'commons'. God more often than not uses the very things around us. That is just how he does it. This is not a 'failing'. Nor does it mean there is no God. Remember, if he didn't let us have free will, then such factors would not matter anyway.

The rest of your post is interesting, but again, God doesn't fit in a test tube. In fact, he even says that blessed are those who believe without seeing. Prayer studies in any regard are not measuring the 'God' varible anyway. Not one of those studies ever mentions a single implication on God.

 

How exactly do you want God to work? By miracles? Miracles are by definition rare. If not, they would be 'commons'. God more often than not uses the very things around us. That is just how he does it. This is not a 'failing'. Nor does it mean there is no God. Remember, if he didn't let us have free will, then such factors would not matter anyway.

God's omnipotence means that he shouldn't need methods at all. As for "you must agree with me to see why I'm right", that is too stupid to comment on. I don't often insult people, but that's a really, really mindless argument.

 

Where did I say anyone must agree with me? If I did, then it was not intended and I shall amend the statement.

I just said miracles aren't everyday things. We should not expect them to be. Thus since those statements are true, then that means that is how God works. Hence it is not a failing. It is a logical progression. If one doesn't agree with the logic then fine by me. That is their choice.

 

Even more Thomas Paine (hope no one's getting sick of me posting this guy): (i guess this is the main text darkside spirit got his thomas paine quote from )

"In the same sense that every thing may be said to be a mystery, so also may it be said that every thing is a miracle, and that no one thing is a greater miracle than another. The elephant, though larger, is not a greater miracle than a mite: nor a mountain a greater miracle than an atom. To an almighty power it is no more difficult to make the one than the other, and no more difficult tomake a million of worlds than to make one. Every thing, therefore, is a miracle, in one sense; whilst, in the other sense, there is no such thing as a miracle. It is a miracle when compared to our power, and to our comprehension. It is not a miracle compared to the power that performs it. But as nothing in this description conveys the idea that is affixed to the word miracle, it is necessary to carry the inquiry further.

Mankind have conceived to themselves certain laws, by which what they call nature is supposed to act; and that a miracle is something contrary to the operation and effect of those laws. But unless we know the whole extent of those laws, and of what are commonly called the powers of nature, we are not able to judge whether any thing that may appear to us wonderful or miraculous, be within, or be beyond, or be contrary to, her natural power of acting.

The ascension of a man several miles high into the air, would have everything in it that constitutes the idea of a miracle, if it were not known that a species of air can be generated several times lighter than the common atmospheric air, and yet possess elasticity enough to prevent the balloon, in which that light air is inclosed, from being compressed into as many times less bulk, by the common air that surrounds it. In like manner, extracting flashes or sparks of fire from the human body, as visibly as from a steel struck with a flint, and causing iron or steel to move without any visible agent, would also give the idea of a miracle, if we were not acquainted with electricity and magnetism; so also would many other experiments in natural philosophy, to those who are not acquainted with the subject. The restoring persons to life who are to appearance dead as is practised upon drowned persons, would also be a miracle, if it were not known that animation is capable of being suspended without being extinct.

Besides these, there are performances by slight of hand, and by persons acting in concert, that have a miraculous appearance, which, when known, are thought nothing of. And, besides these, there are mechanical and optical deceptions. There is now an exhibition in Paris of ghosts or spectres, which, though it is not imposed upon the spectators as a fact, has an astonishing appearance. As, therefore, we know not the extent to which either nature or art can go, there is no criterion to determine what a miracle is; and mankind, in giving credit to appearances, under the idea of their being miracles, are subject to be continually imposed upon.

Since then appearances are so capable of deceiving, and things not real have a strong resemblance to things that are, nothing can be more inconsistent than to suppose that the Almighty would make use of means, such as are called miracles, that would subject the person who performed them to the suspicion of being an impostor, and the person who related them to be suspected of lying, and the doctrine intended to be supported thereby to be suspected as a fabulous invention.

Of all the modes of evidence that ever were invented to obtain belief to any system or opinion to which the name of religion has been given, that of miracle, however successful the imposition may have been, is the most inconsistent. For, in the first place, whenever recourse is had to show, for the purpose of procuring that belief (for a miracle, under any idea of the word, is a show) it implies a lameness or weakness in the doctrine that is preached. And, in the second place, it is degrading the A

 

Who the heck is this Thomas Payne? And why would i care who he is? Forgive my ignorance.

 

He was, once his name is free from spelling mistakes, one of the great American patriots, quite possibly responsible for the outcome of the War of Independence. (Ooops! Did I attack the myth that the founding fathers were pious Christians? )





Anyway, Paine wrote The Age of Reason. Unlike the Bible, it was vastly ahead of its time. It tore the doctrine of Biblical errancy to shreds, along with making great inroads into Christianity on a broader scale. Paine raised points that, as you can see, are still being quoted by freethinkers today.





You should not judge an intellect by reputation, however, but by the virtue of each individual argument. It is up to you to determine how great a man he truly was when you attempt to answer quotations that we may take from his works.


cydonia, the part I quoted is in the middle of that big mass of text. Glancing over it, it looks like my above criticism of his words may have been redundant. I will look into this further, but I must go to bed now...

 

I am the border of the Founding Fathers not being Christian at all.

But I'm interested to know why do you think Paine was responsible for the success of the Revolution? He wrote which is a noble job, but compared to Daniel Morgan, George Washington, James Madison, Greene, Marion, Adams, and Knox, what did he contribute? Did he even once pick up a rifle or aid in the government (I'm asking because I don't know but I don't think he did).

Christianity has been attacked by a lot of people smarter than Paine. Christianity hasn't died out yet.

 

It's not an attack on christianity. From Paine's view, christianity is an attack on reason and logic.

Lots of things that could be perceived as bad haven't "died out" yet. Fill in the blanks.

Anyway Paine being smart or not smart has nothing to do with the points he was making that darkside and myself posted, namely the nature and possiblity of miracles (the issue being discussed when i posted that particular excerpt). Thanks for adding to the discussion.

 

His writing (particularly his pamphlet Common Sense) inspired many, many others to take up arms in defense of the cause. Washington's army would have been considerably smaller without his influence on the public opinion.

 

For that matter, without Washington, the army would have faded away. Off topic, I don't consider Washington that brilliant of a tactician. Except for Trenton, he was average at best.

Paine is (by his opinion) ruling out God so why should he believe in the miraculous being done? Paine is relying on his reason and intelligence to systemically disprove Christianity. That is fine for him. But humans are limited in wisdom. He can be no more certain of the spirit world than anyone else on either side of the debate. Relying upon the reasoning of a man is an invitation to flaws.

We are all colored by our opinions and views. It is not given that Paine is right simply because of his 'reason'. For every Paine, there is a C.S. Lewis.

Bottom line: You make your choice and I'll make mine. If you want to rely upon a man's philosophical musings, then I wish you well. For me, that is not proof, but that is my opinion. Eventually we will know who is right and who is wrong.

 

You can say he was ruling out God in the miracles, but in general he didn't rule out God. Paine was a deist. All throughout the age of reason he refers to the moral rightness of deism, and not "blasphemising" the "true word of God (creation as a whole, it seems)" by ascribing the accounts of barbarity and superstition (he perceived) in the bible to the true God.

Side note on desim, in the age of reason paine says that all science and all progress has come from our attempts to understand the night sky and planets, the discoveries made in astronomy way back when applied themselves to all the scientific discovery of today. He is of the opinion that the true word of God is creation, that those stars are there in order to educate us and to educate whoever else might be out there. I don't know if i agree with that, but it's still a nice thought.

 

I agree with him, but find it too limited.

The deism of the Age of Reason seems so conflicted to me. Ben Franklin's "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy" and of course Paine seem to believe in more of a universal trend in nature rather than a god. That is how it seems to me at least. Unfortunately the backgrounds of the Founding Fathers is not my main area of interest in the Revolution so I could be missing something important.

 

I was just kicked out of this debate, i have NO idea what you are talking about.

 

It was off topic. Soldiers and political figures of the American Revolution.

 

The quotation from Paine was a refutation of the notion of miracles being used as evidence for theism.



As it happens, Paine was a deist - he believed in an impersonal God, but rejected the absurdities of Christianity. You would have found that out if you had read cydonia's quote properly. Deism heightened his distaste for Christianity, because he considered the religion derogatory to God.

If you want to rely upon a man's philosophical musings, then I wish you well.

Philosophical musings? No, it was a most thoughtful and effective refutation of Christianity - in this case, the use of miracles to substantiate religion.

Please stop going on about irrelevant aspects of Paine's character. The question at hand is the concept of miracles, and a Thomas Paine quotation was provided to debunk that concept. You won't get anywhere by attacking deism, or disputing Paine's role in the War of Independence.

Paine is (by his opinion) ruling out God so why should he believe in the miraculous being done? Paine is relying on his reason and intelligence to systemically disprove Christianity. That is fine for him. But humans are limited in wisdom. He can be no more certain of the spirit world than anyone else on either side of the debate. Relying upon the reasoning of a man is an invitation to flaws.

In other words, you've admitted that Christianity is not founded in reason. You've admitted defeat for your religion as far as a rational debate is concerned. TVM for the sweeping concession.

Perhaps, if we would like to get back on topic, someone would care to scroll back up and answer my points about Galilee/Judea and corporeal/spiritual Christ, synoptics/John and gospels/P. Epistles respectively. This discussion has gone off on a major tangent.

 

I have said that reason alone cannot be the basis for a debate. I made no confessions of defeat nor will I fall for your trap.

"it was a most thoughtful and effective refutation of Christianity - in this case, the use of miracles to substantiate religion"

I would agree miracles alone do not substantiate religion. My point is that the 'effective refutation' is not so effective. I see no one who believes being shaken by Paine. I don't think anyone who doesn't believe is convinced of their postion because of him. Your claims are a little bold that Christianity is refuted.

I'll go back to the other things in a while.

 

Just because someone believes something, no matter what it is, doesn't necessarily make it true, no matter how many arguments are made to the contrary. Something surviving in the face of criticism is not proof that it is true. I suppose that goes for both sides of an argument, but with regards to this issue, when you are expected to devote your life to something that has no verifiable basis, it becomes more serious. It deserves to be dissected and questioned until it is absolutely proven to be true or not true. Faith in anything that is of a high ideal is a good thing (optimism). But it shouldn't be treated as something that can go head to head with the law of gravity, for instance.

 

Certainly so. There is no reason in physics, biology, or chemistry that conflicts with God in my mind. That leaves me only interpretation of what is out there claiming to be truth. Using reason, questioning, and personal experience we arrive at what we believe.

That is all any of us can do.

 

R2D2: Let me first state my position so you understand where I'm coming from. I'm not an atheist. I'm a Brahmanist/agnostic. I believe that all beliefs have a universality to them in the sense that they all originate from the same source... the eternal "Why?"

Fundamentally, religion attempts to answer the question of "Why?" but it doesn't sufficiently answer the question of "How?" For those who take scriptures literally, it may... but there are numerous assumptions one must take for granted in order to accept that as truth. You mentioned one of them: the fact that God is exists is unrefutable. Let's face it, that's an assumption, because no matter how much you believe it... your belief doesn't prove it... nor is it relevant to the issue of faith, because faith isn't concerned with proof. Secondarily, you're assuming that everyone accepts the same definition of god, or that there is one to begin with. Not everyone does. By believing in a god, particularly one rather nebulous definition thereof, it still doesn't begin to explain to me half of how this god works... except perhaps by matter of hearsay, poetic license (i.e. exaggeration). So, Jesus, tell us, really, just how big was that fish you caught?

in order to see you must believe...

Convenient. Not only are you attempting to sell me a placebo, you're telling me to believe in god based not only on self-fulfilling prophecies and placebos, but also on the basis of what is known in psychological circles as a self-perpetuating delusion.

Among many anthropologists, sociologists and philosophers, it has recently become fashionable to dismiss all religions as memes -  parasitic mental processes which propagate in the same manner as chain letters. A meme (rhymes with 'dream') may be defined as any self-referential belief-system which contains within itself the instructions for its own propagation. Memes are often described as the cultural equivalents of computer viruses.

A meme carries exactly the same psychological motivation as a chain letter - "If you propagate me then something nice will happen, if not then something horrible will happen". In order to justify themselves against attack by reason, memes place absolute reliance on faith, which is seen as being superior to reason. They also contain self-referential or circular claims to the truth such as "This meme says it is the divine truth. Since it is the divine truth whatever its says must be true. Therefore it must be divine truth because it says so and all competing memes must be the work of the devil".

These two types of self-referential statement "propagate me" and "I am the only truth" provide the driving force for memes to invade the minds of their hosts.  In addition, many memes contain the instructions "Help people who believe in this meme, attack people who do not". These commands being the ultimate cause of all religious wars throughout the centuries. 

The general defining features of all memes can thus be seen to be self-referential 'closed-loop' type of  circular statements,  and a strong tendency towards intolerance. The science of the study of memes, their internal structures and modes of propagation is known as memetics (by analogy to genetics - how biological entities propagate themselves).



Sources: Dawkins, R. (1989) in  'The Selfish Gene'  p 197 - 198  (Oxford University Press,  ISBN 0-19-286092-5)

Dennett, D.C. (1995) in  'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'  p 515 - 517 (Penguin, ISBN 0-14-016734-X)


Palpazzar: How do you clinically define God? God wants faith not puppets. If God could be proved in a clinical sense, then there would be no faith or freewill.

Faith I cannot argue... If a person wants to believe the sky is green, I'd just as soon let them and be on my merry way. It harms me none, unless by defending their belief they choose to infringe my individual rights.

Free Will? Scroll up and read my comments on self-perpetuating del

 

Darkside_Spirit,

Perhaps, if we would like to get back on topic, someone would care to scroll back up and answer my points about Galilee/Judea and corporeal/spiritual Christ, synoptics/John and gospels/P. Epistles respectively. This discussion has gone off on a major tangent.

Agreed. Let's have a look at your points...


However, the Galilee/Judea problem is far more significant than the 1/3 years one.

I don?t see a problem. I?m reading John at the moment (well, actually memorizing ? I?m up to Chapter 7). During the three years, Jesus goes down to Jerusalem for the Jewish Festivals as most Jews would have. At other times he?s in Galilee. The Wedding at Cana was in Galilee (John Chapter 2), as was the feeding of the 5,000 (in Chapter 6). What?s the problem?


John tells us that the wrecking of the temple occured at the beginning of the ministry and there were no serious consequences, whereas the synoptics indicate that it brought on the serious wrath of the priests and led to Christ's crucifixion.

Exactly. When you read them, John?s account is different to Matt, Mark and Luke because it?s not the same event. The surrounding circumstances and details are different. If he went down to Jerusalem one year and was so enraged that he drove all the traders from the temple area and overturned their tables, would he not do it again next time he was there? Personally, I think he did it every year.


The only possible reference to Jesus' existence on earth is "that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve" - and this could easily signify that Christ is perceived by revelation, not by witnesses to a historical character.

I?ve had a quick flick through Paul?s letters. These are some references that leapt at me. There?s probably others, but these are the ones that grabbed me. I?ve deliberately left out, wherever possible, verses about the crucifixion, resurrection and second coming:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God - the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David(Romans 1:1-3)

Each of us should please his neighbour for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." (Romans 15:2-3)

Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:1)

The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." (1 Corinthian 11:23-25)

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross! (Philippians 2:5-8)

For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation (Colossians 1:19-22)

For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form (Colossians 2:9)

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. (1 Timo

 

Snowdog, i am not trying to convince you of anything, i see that you are convinced of what you believe, i am just stating ONE OR TWO of the many reasons of why i believe what i believe, we chistians call it giving testimony of God's work on our lives. But calling it a dilusion, well then it would apply to EVERYONE, even non believers, why? because they are convinced of their non belief, to them their god is disbelief. Everyone believes in something or someone, that is just human nature, some believe to dis-believe.

Now many people claim that since God didn't leave any physical evidence of His existence, then He doesn't exist. But God is a spiritual being, therefore he only leaves spiritual evidence, that spiritual evidence is His Holy Spirit, which is the One who speaks to our spirit, which the Bible says is dead, and can only be resurrected through belief in Jesus and God. Since Jesus is the physical representation of God, he left physical evidence, which are the records of His existence, such as historical books, the Bible, testimonies from people who saw Him, etc.

Like i said before, believe if you want, but don't call it an illusion, because i can call your belief in whatever an illusion too, and i can claim that you have NO evidence to your belief.

Thankfully i have stated my point on the subject therefore i will not state any more posts refuting the subject, so i will stay on the subject which was posted originally.

 

Funny you should mention it... spiritually speaking, I believe in the Hindu concept of maya... that the material world we live in is, in fact, an illusion... on many levels. The reason I believe it is because there's scientific evidence to substantiate or give meaning to that relatively metaphorical analysis of the world we live in. I don't, however, pay much attention to the minutiae of who said what on which mountain... because that's just scenery to get people interested enough to stick around for the real lesson or moral. Unfortunately, people seem more interested in the stories than the lessons, these days. All the aspects of organized religious beliefs, are, to me, scenery which, like adjectives in a sentence, surround, exaggerate and even obscure the basic truth.

My beliefs are rooted more so in science than they are in religion. As such, what I believe requires faith and proof. I believe it when I see it. I don't take anything for granted... not even one's definition of god. Now, my ideals and philosophy don't require proof... but then for those ideologies, theories and philosophies for which I have little or no proof, I don't go around prematurely assuming they are universal truths. I am constantly questioning and testing my faith and beliefs every day... both scientific and spiritual.

But God is a spiritual being, therefore he only leaves spiritual evidence, that spiritual evidence is His Holy Spirit, which is the One who speaks to our spirit, which the Bible says is dead, and can only be resurrected through belief in Jesus and God. Since Jesus is the physical representation of God, he left physical evidence, which are the records of His existence, such as historical books, the Bible, testimonies from people who saw Him, etc.

This again is one definition of god, based on the assumption of exclusivity of the Bible... which my previous post addresses. Religion in and of itself isn't a delusion. The self-perpetuating delusion lies in claiming that this is the truth because it says it is... and that because it says it is the truth, no other truth can exist. It's a circular argument, which doesn't give me any spiritual comfort nor does it give me any scientific answers.

Granted, I'm not here to convert you... but I'd much rather you try to present your arguments in a fashion that doesn't already presuppose the issue of various religions all laying claim to the "exclusive" definition of god. Not all religions have self-perpetuating delusions, nor are all religious scriptures taken literally by their followers... see my excerpts from Dawkins again if you're not sure what I mean. e.g. Buddhism doesn't seek propagation by proselytization, nor do Buddhists assume that theirs is the one true path to enlightenment. Therefore it doesn't run into the paradox of defending itself through circular logic.

If god really is omnipotent, he cannot be confined by the Bible's limited definition. Likewise, if the Bible is the only true, precise, and complete description of god, and how one reaches god... then that would also mean that god does not exist... because by that very definition, you strip god of "his" omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, and make god into nothing more than a shylock.

To take any scripture literally, in my opinion, is the greatest blasphemy against the transcendental nature of god.

"Welcome to God-in-a-Box, may I take your order? By the way, we have a $3.99 special on salvation today..."

Oh... hey! Look! There's Elvis... I saw him with my own eyes... *wanders off*