I am now officially burned out on the exchanges going on in the comments sections of my last couple of blogs. Boringly enough (for me) what started and had amazing legs as a genuinely interesting series of exchanges has now in the main become (a refresingly intelligent, actually) “debate” about evolution. (You can see what I mean at “What the Atheists Taught Me,” or, “An Honest Question: Atheists, How Do You Process Your Guilt?” And while I’m at it, might I recommend that you don’t miss, “Christians and Atheists in Communion–In Harmony, I Mean. Now What?“)
Still. It’s starting to get that queasy-making, round-and-round-we-go feel. Which is boring. And I have serious issues with being bored. I hate it. So I want to move on now.
Still, I am by nature a Seeker of Closures. So, by way of not simply stopping the aforementioned comments (because I will, man: I’ll do it!), let me hereby offer the statement below as a Healing Balm upon the open wound that is too often the relationship between Christians and atheists. The only caveat I would like applied to this statement is the manifestly obvious one that I don’t speak for all Christians. (And remember, everyone: No one does.)
Anyway, here is my olive branch to the atheists:
Dear Atheists,
On behalf of whatever Christians I might actually be speaking for, I would hereby like to apologize for ever in any way insisting that anyone who is not a Christian needs to become one. The reason it’s wrong for we Christians to insist upon the conversion of non-Christians isn’t because we don’t think it is very good indeed for non-Christians to become Christians. It’s wrong because communicating that to non-Christians cannot (we now see) help but be righteously offensive to them. And offending people isn’t exactly the shortest path to in any way communing with them. We see that now. Sorry we didn’t see it sooner.
We certainly get angry enough when you tell us why we shouldn’t believe in God, don’t we? So it’s then unreasonable for us not to expect you to get at least as angry at our insisting that you should believe in God. Of course that’s how you’d respond to that. What were we thinking?
Please do understand that what we were, in fact, thinking, is that we love you. The Big Push behind our rather-too-constantly insisting that you need to become Christian is simply that we do not want you to go to hell. As you know, a great many of us are deeply convinced that that is what happens to people who die without first believing in Jesus Christ. We don’t want that to happen to you. We don’t want that to happen to anyone! It sounds awful!
So please don’t think of us as shallow, egotistical, intolerant, obnoxious power-mongers. Think of us instead, please, as people who love you, and are trying to stop you from suffering in a way that our belief system tells a lot of us you will if you don’t open up your heart to the joys and realities of what we very definitely believe is God. That’s all it is. We deeply and sincerely apologize for all the times, and for all the ways, that we’ve turned what we only ever really meant as an expression of love into something that we now understand you couldn’t have possibly received that way.
Our bad, for sure.
Further, we’d like to extend to you our true and deep respect for the way you’ve utilized and shown your respect for rational thought, which we certainly understand as a critical, paramount value. We’re actually huge on rational thought — a fact which we know too often gets buried in some of the, shall we say, louder aspects of our public presence. We apologize for not often enough making clear the degree to which we value rational thought — and for how much we appreciate why anyone would want to make it the primary vehicle they use to wind their way through this decidedly bizarre series of experiences we call life.
Okay? One love, atheists. For sure.
Well, thanks for listening! Bye! See ya’ … constantly! Everywhere! What with our all sharing the same world, and all.
Posted by Nick H on September 20, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Very well spoken, you should write stuff. Ha!
I just have to ask… Do you ‘love’ Michael Vick, do you ‘love’ Osama Bin Ladin, and so on… in the same way you profess to ‘love’ me as an Anti-theist?
<3
Posted by The Boar’s Head Tavern » on September 20, 2007 at 12:22 pm
[...] John Shore has an Olive Branch for atheists. Posted by: Michael Spencer @ 4:22 pm | Trackback | Permalink [...]
Posted by Dane on September 20, 2007 at 1:34 pm
What is it about Christians professing their love for us and desire to save us from the depths of hell and imminent Armageddon? This self-serving and just plain creepy rhetoric can be summed up by my hero Christopher Hitchens:
“One of the very many connections between religious belief and the sinister, spoiled, selfish childhood of our species is the repressed desire to see everything smashed up and ruined and brought to naught. This tantrum-need is coupled with two other sorts of “guilty joy,” or, as the Germans say, schadenfreude. First, one’s own death is cancelled – or perhaps repaid or compensated – by the obliteration of others. Second, it can always be egotistically hoped that one will be personally spared, gathered contentedly to the bosom of the mass exterminator, and from a safe place observe the suffering of those less fortunate. Tertullian, one of the many church fathers who found it difficult to give a persuasive account of paradise, was perhaps clever in going for the lowest common denominator and promising that one of the most intense pleasures of the afterlife would be the endless contemplation of the tortures of the damned. He spoke more truly than he knew in evoking the man-made character of faith.”
Just leave us alone. I don’t need nor want your love or your “message of hope”. I’m probably much more versed in religious studies that the typical Christian and have chosen to reject this mythological nonsense.
Posted by Billy B on September 20, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Can’t speak for everyone but I have been among believers who have prayed for Bin Ladin. Every heard of Saul of Taurus? He was killer of Christians before he became Paul one of the greatest apostles that ever lived. Praying for people who want to kill you is not easy. Personally I don’t hate Vick, he has done more to hurt himself than others. I am however an X falcon fan. They just lose to much.
Posted by John Shore on September 20, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Everyone: Let’s just let “Dane” be, okay? Thanks.
Posted by ric booth on September 20, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Well done. Again, thank you John for these posts. I think the fence is showing some cracks! I think I’ll have a tall glass of MILK to celebrate!
Posted by John Shore on September 20, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Yes. YES! You must embrace the Lactose. God bless you, Ric.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 20, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Walking down the street you observe flames through the bottom windows of a two-story house. Through a large, open upper window you see someone, apparently unconcerned, sitting in a chair on the other side of the window. What will you do? What if the person upstairs hears you shouting a warning but would rather not be bothered becasue he/whe sees no flames?
Anyone without Christ is like that person in the burning building – destined for a fiery death unless someone comes to the rescue. God has chosen the preaching of the good news as the means whereby He saves sinners.
I can’t save anyone, but I can proclaim the good news with my life and my words. Since salvation is of God, and wrought in the life of those in whom the Holy Spirit is already at work, I do not force my opinion on anyone or tell anyone they have to do anything. I just share the good news. If you are an athiest within earshot (if I am using words) and don’t like it, I will still tell it from my heart, WITHOUT apology.
If you claim to be an an athiest, I will not become angry if you lash out at me. You are living a life in rebellion against the God who created you and in bondage to sin – it’s in your nature to lash out at me. Hopefully I will have the compassion of Christ and be able to feel the pain of your bondage even if you don’t.
To not speak about my faith when urged to do so by God’s indwelling Spirit is to grieve that very Spirit who gives me life and is a sin against you, athiest friend, even if you don’t like it when I do. I owe you no apology.
Posted by John Shore on September 20, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Um. Okay, so now we’ve heard from the more … passionate voices on either side. Isn’t that nice? Nothing like a little sane, thoughtful, good-natured, open-minded, clear-thinking, empathetic, compassionatle, reasonable, good-humored, patient, polite discourse to really give us all a sense of how GREAT it is to belong to the family of man, is there? No, sirree, there sure isn’t!
No. Sir. Eeee!
Posted by Karen on September 20, 2007 at 4:04 pm
John, you seem to be a terrific guy and you’re certainly a good writer. I appreciate your olive branch and your reasonable and kind approach to us “heathens.” Best of luck with your writing in the future; I hope your thinking influences a lot of Christians.
Meanwhile, I would say we atheists are being shown the door, so to speak.
It’s certainly your prerogative if you no longer wish to engage this discussion that you ignited. However, I hope that you and the other regulars here who might have been intrigued by some of the intellectual points that were raised won’t abandon your questioning, thinking, reason and logic.
I’ll leave you with my favorite quote from Galileo, when the Catholic church imprisoned him for the “heresy” of supporting the heliocentric universe theory:
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 20, 2007 at 4:06 pm
All I’m really saying is that while I don’t have the right to force my faith on anyone and have no business thinking I can save anybody, I have an obligation to share it. I don’t believe Christians should proselytize (try and convert someone), nor do we need to. Salvation is of the Lord. I what I do is merely share what I believe in, I owe no man an apolgy because he might be offended. The gospel is offensive to those who do not have Christ, and in whom there is no spiritual awakening by the Holy Spirit.
Posted by John Shore on September 20, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Karen: No one’s being shown the door. No blogger wants LESS readers. I’m just tired of watching the evolution-creation ping-pong game–in which fewer and fewer were playing. No biggy.
Posted by L Palm on September 20, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Hi John…I’m sure you’ve heard about the sane, thoughtful, good-natured, open-minded, clear-thinking, empathetic, compassionatle, reasonable, good-humored, patient, polite speach Kathy Griffin made when accepting her Emmy (I am joking)…
It’s just that I am a very reserved, to myself christian and I can not tell you how many times I’ve been told how stupid, illogical and deluded I am or how uneducated I am (top 5% in the nation scholastically, John) for believing in these ‘fairy tales’.
I know there are fair minded atheists just as I know there are out of control christian zealots, however, I’ve met far more ‘militant atheists’ (something Kathy Griffin calls herself) in my lifetime.
It deeply hurts to have the name of someone I respect and honor and love being used in such a vulgar fashion…no different than if these things were said about my mother or child. Can’t (and shouldn’t) we christians stand up for our beliefs…in a loving non -judgemental way of course.
I know you read all your comment so I’m sure you know my position on trying to ‘convert’ atheists, I just ‘don’t do it’. I will however stand tall for my beliefs, many others do too…nearly 25,000 people (since Tuesday) have on a site that exclaims ‘Enough is Enough’…check it out if you get the chance
http://www.miracletheater.com
Posted by harvey melton on September 20, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Well,
Talking about athiests or just plain folks who have problems believeing. Here is my personal solution that has worked for me and keeps on working for me 24/7/365.GOD or what i percieve to be GOD through the varouise experience with the same in my life, has always provided solutions, answers, help, blessings, wealth, health, etc. the list goes on.I personally give GOD the chance he deserves in my life for a crack at everything that comes along. now that is ”me” and my personal exp. and belief. I dont nor can i ever expect you to have the same great results in your life, that is personally up to you.I have peace at home, a great bunch of kids, my prayers are always answered. couldn’t ask for more. but yet life is not a bed of roses, there are many challenges along the way, but the help i have ,makes it a whole smoother than even a lot of my co-workers, i hear them and thier sad stories, and i am very thankfull to GOD, once more.WEll, good luck in your quest for the right answer i’ll stick with my ”right” answer.
Posted by Andy Christensen on September 20, 2007 at 6:30 pm
We do not need to apologize for preaching the gospel. It is true that from time to time the church has behaved with arrogance and hatred toward non-believers; when this happens we should apologize.
I have had some good conversations with atheist and agnostic friends and they never apologized to me for expressing their views nor did I think they should.
Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life and its imperative that we share the good news with as many people as possible.
Jesus showed us how its done with his conversation with the woman at the well (see John 4). He confronted her with the truth, but did it in a tactful and loving way.
Posted by Billy Bob on September 20, 2007 at 7:01 pm
That Kathy Griffin person. I saw her on Larry King the other night basking in her emmie award. Her personality was so dark all the lights in my apartment went out. Hollywood be Thy Name!
Posted by Damon on September 20, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Hey Andy (and Dan)
How wonderful it is that you’ve found Jesus to fill a void in your once empty lives. But some people, atheists no less, don’t have a void to fill. Simply living the good life and pursuing your dreams, passion, and happiness suffices!
Let’s face it. Most atheists are probably far more intelligent than you (consider that are most brilliant scientific minds do not believe in a personal God) and have probably already done their fair share of soul-searching. In the process, they have CHOSEN to reject Christian ideology – all ideology – simply by virtue of the fact that it’s not supported by any facts.. (Anyone who reads the New Testament with an unbiased eye will immediately see that it’s been reverse-engineered; that is written to fulfill a past prophesy). What works for atheists is cold, hard, concrete science, the fruits of which we all enjoy. Anything else including fanciful tales of vengeful deities, flying angles, and virgin births are nothing but absurd. So basically guys, you don’t need to share any news! None!
What is with you Chrstians and your references to hell? Are you trying to scare atheists straight? Good tactic. Anyway, it just makes atheists lose all respect for religion. I mean seriously. What are you going to do if one of you gets cancer? Pray it away? See a priest or pastor? No, you’re going to rely on science entirely (unless you’re nuts).
Signed – tired of being told you’re trying to save me from hell.
Posted by -30- on September 20, 2007 at 7:28 pm
Awww, John, I’m disappointed. It really does sound like you’re showing us the door (or at the very least, starting to roll your eyes). Very politely, of course. You’ve been a gracious, entertaining host. As a Seeker of Closures, though, you should probably resign yourself to the fact that this particular discussion will never end. It will simply continue elsewhere. As it has for hundreds of years.
Oh, there’s just one thing I’d like to mention. Speaking only for myself… if you and your friends want to stay up nights worrying about me and my salvation, that’s your prerogative. But you should know I’m sleeping soundly all the while. Or trying to. And nothing annoys me more than someone interfering with my sleep. So shhhhhh, please keep it down. Thank you.
Posted by Tim Kurek on September 20, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Debate gets boring after a while because you know there is no way you are going to change their mind and they aren’t going to change theirs… Good blog though!
tim
http://UriahMinistries.wordpress.com
Posted by Ron on September 20, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Yes, this debate can go on forever as someone already mentioned. But in spite of tiredness of this debate I know in my heart of hearts that to give up, to write off these people, would be the greater sin. I know you wnat closure John but I don’t think we’ll find any real closure in this world. Even if all the atheists but one repented and believed with their whole being in God as revealed through Christ, we still wouldn’t have closure because that one person matters infinitely to God.
Damon,
All humanity has a “void to fill” so to speak when it comes to God. Hear me out here. God is not just the source of all being but is the sustainer of all being. You mentioned that atheists are probably more intelligent than theists since top scientists don’t believe in a personal God. Choosing to have faith in God and living your life accordingly is not really a matter of intelligence. A humble peasant who isn’t very intelligent can have truer knowledge of God then the most intelligent Americans, Christian or atheist. It is not a matter of intelligence but of the grace of God. I know that Christianity has been presented as an ideology, like political liberalism or conservatism, but it’s not really about the arguments but the encounter with God. Unless you realize that you need God, you will never truly be yourself. For the sickness unto death is that of not living as a true self before God. You need to know that by following your own path, you are not living in true freedom but in bondage to your own nature; your own limitations. We humans are small and finite. We are not gods although many of us pretend to be. The wages of choosing yourself over God is death, in the fullest meaning of the word.
The ancients can be faulted to looking at Nature and divinizing it because of the awe they experienced when they continually encountered its danger and majesty. Christianity came and denounced such practice. They rightly taught that only God deserves worship. Now, the ‘new atheists’ de-divinize God even. But this does not mean that they don’t divinize anything. They divinize themselves, the ideology of scientism, skepticism, etc. There is an apt latin phrase, “homo incurvatus in se,” which means humanity curved in on itself. I think this accurately describes the state of humanity in the absence of Christ.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 21, 2007 at 2:21 am
Damon my friend,
I must confess that I didn’t have a void to fill because of an empty life. My life was humming along fairly well, thank you. The real issue here is that I was a walking dead man, having been born on ‘death row’, just like every other human on the planet since the first couple (except The Son of God).
Concerning intelligence levels, I could briefly discuss I.Q.s, educational achievement and life experiences, but those are moot points. Please allow me to offer what Scripture has to say in this matter:
Psalm 111:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding. To him belongs eternal praise.
Proverbs 1:7
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.
Proverbs 9:10
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.
Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
NOTE: Psalm 14:1. David affirmed God’s indictment on the human race: they are fools. Verse 1 gives a summary description of the fool (nāḇāl, one who is morally insensitive and impious). A fool believes that there is no God, and leads a corrupt life. These two statements are related. As a practical atheist (i.e., living his life as if there were no God) he is separated from the wisdom revealed in God’s Word. As a result he is corrupt, spoiling whatever he does. 1
1 Walvoord, John F. ; Zuck, Roy B. ; Dallas Theological Seminary: The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL : Victor Books, 1983-c1985, S. 1:802
Posted by ric booth on September 21, 2007 at 4:11 am
Karen,
I love Galileo! He’s one of my boyhood heros. I spent many a weekend grinding my 8″ reflecting telescope mirror in my parents basment… Maybe I’ll finish it when I retire… sigh. Anyways I used your very same example in my latest blog yesterday. So hope you have not actually, really, totally gone out the virtual, non-existant door …
That’s right, I refuse to accept the existance of a door I cannot see. or a wall or fence. An’ all you door/wall/fence lovers, please leave me alone. I’m OK!
Well, maybe not completely ok but I am totally OK with that.
Posted by Kerri B on September 21, 2007 at 5:43 am
So…how ’bout those Red Sox?
Posted by John Shore on September 21, 2007 at 5:52 am
Ah, baseball. I’ll never forget the time when I was 11 years old, at bat during a game of Little League baseball. I got clobbered in the nuts with a pitch. The pain was excruciating. Slowly but surely falling to the ground, doubled over, eyes shut tight against the agony, I remember thinking, “I need to reconsider chess.”
Posted by fason on September 21, 2007 at 6:12 am
matt. 5:9
it’s funny how peacemakers are typically the ones who get squashed in the middle, especially in the debate between atheists and Christians.
blessed be, john.
Posted by Sukky Fagbohun on September 21, 2007 at 6:21 am
Hey John,
You have succeeded this time in erupting a dormant volcano. The larva and poisonous gases must spew. There can never be closure to this topic. It must surely run its course like it has for eon of years, then lay dormant again until another eruption.
I, personally do not deem it fit for a christian to apologize for doing his God ordained duty; however I resent religious, egotistical and tactless Christians who ram the bible down the throats of the unbeliever or atheist. The duty of the Christian is to love not judge or criticize. As Christians we must employ tact, wisdom and compassion
when it comes to winning souls. If I were an atheist, I would not entertain or appreciate, neither will I be civil or polite to someone who constantly tells me I’m on my way to hell. I would however consider the actions of a Christian who exemplifies love, tolerance, and kindness. The bible says that love never fails. I believe that the time is ripe for us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus did not condemn the woman at the well despite the fact that He knew she was a no good prostitute, neither did he ratify the stoning of the woman caught in the very act of adultery. By love he won the hearts of the sinners. He taught them fed them and healed them, and by love He offered the greatest sacrifice by dying on the cross for all our sins. We truly have the good news but it has been sealed in the wrong package. You may read more in my new book ”Flaming Hearts and Frozen feet”.
Posted by Billy B on September 21, 2007 at 6:34 am
In the throes of passion
Isn’t it odd
That many people cry out Oh God, Oh God
Or perhaps they may whisper Oh Darling, Oh Darling
But never will it be heard
Because it would be so absurd
To exclaim, Oh Darwin, Oh Darwin, Oh Darwin
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 6:52 am
Billy, is that your own rhyme or did you find it somewhere else? I like it!
However, to take it far more seriously than it needs to be taken, I don’t think using “god” in your vocabulary means anything in particular.
It certainly means that the concept of god is quite prevalent in our society. I myself say “oh god” and “oh my god” and “goddamn it” all the time…but it doesn’t mean anything. Well, except to the Way of the Master guys. To them it means I’m going to hell. But they also think that bananas are the ultimate proof of god, so I don’t take them too seriously.
I think I’m going to start saying “by Zeus!” Who’s with me?
Posted by Hjordes on September 21, 2007 at 7:11 am
Yes, Sukky… definately bad packaging.
Let’s paint all the Christians yellow, and all the atheists blue, then we can yell at each other because we all look different, then pass laws to stop the yelling.
There will always be jerks. Being hostile to a group because of the jerks in it is so…. high school, or 50’s, or something.
AC-cen-tuate the POSitive, E-LIM-inate the negative, latch ON, to the aFIRmative, don’t mess with mister inbetween….
Posted by Hjordes on September 21, 2007 at 7:14 am
By Zeus, that’s a good one, Chris! I’m with you, by Zeus! I’ll just have to practice typing it. Zeus. Zeus. Zeus. Kinda hard.
omz
oh my zeus
I like it
Posted by Billy B on September 21, 2007 at 7:19 am
Chris,
Mine, momentary cleverness. But feel free to share.
The early Jews wouldn’t mention the name God, they would write it instead. I take the name God serious because He commands me to.
You either have reverence for Him and His name or you don’t. I don’t think it can be taken too seriously.
Every wonder why you use His name as a curse word?
Never hear Buddha, Mohammad or Krishna’s name used as a curse words do you? I believe it is because that you can only blaspheme what is Holy.
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 7:31 am
Wow Billy, way to go serious on me.
My honest opinion about why I say “god” (and the occasional “Jesus”) as a curse word? Because I was raised as a roman catholic in America.
What I mean by that is I live and was born in a society that, generally, doesn’t mind using the word “god” as a curse word and so it is heard quite often. Also, being a catholic, the only names I had for god were god and Jesus. So I use those.
In addition, there were never horrible consequences for me using those words, either in my home or in the society. If I had grown up as liberal a muslim as I was a catholic, I could easily see myself saying “allah damn it!” and “Muhammad!” as curses.
If we can only blaspheme what is holy, we should be worried. Because a common curse in ancient Rome was “By Hercules!”. Should we, therefore, take the Roman pantheon more seriously?
Posted by John Shore on September 21, 2007 at 7:31 am
So, Hjordes, you’ve lost it. I remember, from your comment on my old “Troubador Pants” piece (um….here: http://johnshore.wordpress.com/?s=troubador ) thinking, “It’s probably only a matter of time.” And, alas, it was.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 21, 2007 at 7:32 am
Good question, Chris. I think the answer might be provided partly by Paul’s words in Romans 1:16 – “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.”
Satan, who governs the the current world system since the fall (temporary landlord) will do whatever he can to demean that wonderful name.
Also, Buddha and all the rest of the false religions are not a threat to the one living in rebellion against the God he/she knows exists (general revelation of God in creation – Romans 1 and Psalm 19), no matter how much he/she protests His existance.
Posted by John P -- in Bako on September 21, 2007 at 7:34 am
Hmmm — seems like a lot of highly charged responses –Idea dialog and engagement is a wonderful thing — it is too bad when defensivness blocks relationship and the opportunity for interaction — as a Christian I believe …. it is who I am the very core of my being — others I am in contact with daily see life and the world thru another lens — they are not “stupid” for not believing (although I wish they would believe) but are important and valuable friends with whom I enjoy examineing/processing/talking through a variety of life issues –political/social/as well as religious –sometimes heatedly and with great passion for our own positions –but always with respect and dignity for one another — I have no agenda to “save” them and in fact couldn’t anyway — but I do honor-love and enjoy our interactions and conversations — and if through those interactions an idea/thought is planted which leads to belief/faith — it would be wonderful –
Posted by Billy B on September 21, 2007 at 7:36 am
Chris,
God with me is serious and I was only asking a question.
Posted by Bad on September 21, 2007 at 7:37 am
Here’s the problem. It’s not so much that you believe that this is true. Let’s pretend that it is, in fact true: a real situation.
The problem is that you are ok with it. That, frankly, is morally offensive to the highest degree. It’s like you coming up to me and saying “please, I love you: vote for my candidate for mayor, or else he’ll come to your house after the election and murder you and your family for not supporting him” or, if you like “he owns the gas pipes on yoru block, and until now, he’s kept them from exploding and killing you all: but if you don’t vote for him, he’ll stop looking out for you and you’ll all die.”
Again: is that really love and compassion for us? Or is it something else: wanting us to fall in line so that you don’t feel guilty about what your believe vile master does (and yet, not guilty or brave enough, I guess, to actually question it). I mean, you’re basically the guys who come into my house and threaten that the rest of your gang is going to wreck up the place unless I start paying protection money. That’s not any definition of “love” I’m familiar with.
Now, I don’t believe in hell, so it’s not a big deal to me that you do. But when you ask me to stand in your shoes and see things from your position, that makes things worse not better. I can only convince myself that you are a good person by the fact that I’m unconvinced that your beliefs are actually true.
Because if they were, they would be evil. And I’d have to think less of you for going along with it.
If there is a God, perhaps that’s his ultimate test. Believing what he says and shruging at those sent to hell at the end of it all (well, we warned them, I guess it was their choice!) is the easy way out: NOTHING is as important as not burning in hell, and any selfish calculation could only lead to the choice to not question hellfire.
Only those few who would truly risk even hell to stand against its unjustice are those who really care about others, really love them, who are really moral.
This God isn’t going to send you to hell for taking the easy, cowardly way out and going along with the system he outlines. But he is going to be mighty disappointed in you.
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 7:39 am
Wow Dan. One comment and you bring up Satan. I didn’t know I could inspire that in people.
This may be the wrong place for this conversation, and if so I apologize to John and will happily take it elsewhere, but this one is for you Dan. How is it that we humans are responsible for the ‘fall’?
(Now, obviously from my previous posts I don’t believe in god, satan, or the fall…but for this potential discussion I’ll gladly speak as if they existed and the event happened.)
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 7:44 am
To Dan and Ron (for you Ron – see below)
Quoting the Bible to demonstrate that I’m a fool isn’t winning me over. You can’t quote “evidence” from a source I find totally bogus. Personally, I think the Bible contains many corrupting influences and counter-productive assertions and the sooner it’s uprooted from the public sphere (along with the Koran, Torah, etc.), the better. That said, if you do follow the Bible literally, I question both your morality and sanity. There is so much violence, diviseness, intolerance, and anti-science rhetoric in its bloody chapters that embracing and acting upon it in its entirey, would, by today’s standards, be considered not just immoral, but illegal. Think about it Dan. Christians like you have no problem cherry-picking quotes from the Bible which denounce homosexuality for example (a biological and natural reality prevalent throughout the animal kingdom) while rejecting inconvenient and violent passages such as the ones which prohibit the consumption of pork, sanction the maintenance and treatment of slaves, glorify the destruction of polytheists and sorcerers, convey the proper ways to stone disobedient children to death, and instill fear of a “merciful” God at every angle. You can say these passages are “taken out of context” or “misinterpreted” but they read crystal clear to me. Consider that the the “pious” South cited both Deuteronomy and Corinithians when fighting the abolition of slavery less than 200 years ago. The Church burned and tortured millions of questionable women and “rebellious” Jews to death in the same time period, again inspired by both the Old and New Testament.
When the Bible became the sole source of political authority, the acheivements and progress realized by the free-thinking pagans of the Greco-Roman world abruptly stopped, ushering in the hyper-religious and corresponingly anti-knowledge Dark Ages. Anyone who asked inconvenient questions or challenged the Church’s monopoly on truth was simply put to death. It was only until secularism increasingly took root and religion’s iron grip on society began to crumble that philosophy, science, and art reemerged from the ashes of blind faith. In conjuction, it was only by the sheer brilliance and natural curiosity of free-thinking scientists, secular humanists, philosophers, and intellectuals that we have progressed as far as we have today (and continue do so).
So Ron
I must confess that your piece very well-written and certainly food for thought. I want to stress that there are people who truly do not believe in God (for the reasons mentioned above) and lead happy, healthy, fulfilling lives. So when you say the following phrase:
“You need to know that by following your own path, you are not living in true freedom but in bondage to your own nature; your own limitations.”
it still rings hollow because it was only when humanity freed itself from its “limitations” that modern societes were built – that is a world, in which all people may enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in accoradance with given laws. Free-thinking is by definition – limitless, flexible, and indeed liberating. It’s self-correcting and learns from its mistakes and seeks to improve the future. Aren’t we better off now than we were even 20 years ago, let alone 200? Conversely, religion is rooted in immutable dogma and changes only when free-thinkers provide enough indisputable evidence that challenge its once widely-held assertions. Little by little, it gives way. But the fact that it remains a large obstacle to social change and progress makes atheists and/or secularists view it in a negative light.
That said, I think religious people need a cause or an enemy, which in today’s Christian world seems to be evolution, gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, feminism, and sexual freedom. There are secular arguments which counter Christian philosophy on all the above “issues” – ours however are rooted on research and science whereas yours are rooted in ideology. Can you not see that? I always wonder why religionists can’t focus on love, charity, social inequity and concern for the environment. Furthermore, I always question Christians’ motives for good works. Is it love of humanity or seeking a postmortem reward? Is it emulating Jesus or simply doing what’s required to build good societies? Who knows?
As you can see, I’ve done a lot of my own soul-searching and do not need anyone to “tell me the message of Jesus” or “save me.” I’m sorry to say this but I do believe religion is the root of all evil and nothing will change that.
Posted by John Shore on September 21, 2007 at 7:47 am
Comment #35 (from “John P–in Bako”) Folks, meet John Penrose, one of the best guys I’ve ever met. Solid as a rock, John’s a man who by his nature and work serves to improve the lives of everyone lucky enough to meet him. He founded and runs an organization based in Bakersfield, CA called “Children to Love.” It serves abandoned kids from Romania. You can learn about his outstanding ministry here: http://www.childrentolove.com/
(John: I’ve blogrolled CTL off my front page here. Email me; I’d like to do a piece about CTL here and on Crosswalk. and Christianity.com. You’re a hero.)
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 8:44 am
That’s what’s so interesting. Extremists are almost indistinguishable from parodies of extremists.
Posted by Billy B on September 21, 2007 at 8:48 am
In defense of brother Ray Comfort. How many of use are willing to stand on a box in the public and present the Gospel? Some people blog the gospel some people user other methods. Paul said “It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defence of the gospel. The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 8:54 am
Billy, don’t misunderstand me. I have no problem if Ray wants to preach the gospel or absolutely anything.
But when he starts giving out bad science (i.e. the banana couldn’t have evolved by chance…which is half true, since we genetically modified it…but still) and tries to point to that as proof of his god, I find it laughable.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 21, 2007 at 9:20 am
Chris,
The willfull disobedience of the first humans caused the fall. The rest of humanity was affected by the fall and we are all born ‘on death row’, spiritually dead, with no chance of coming back from the dead save for Jesus Christ, whose perfect life, death, and resurrection made spiritual life possible.
And BTW, I am not asking anyone to believe anything I say, nor am I trying to persuade anyone of anything. I am just sharing what I believe to be true. Maybe I will just shut up. I do find it surprising that so many today would reject the Bible out of hand, and at the same time claim superior intellect.
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 9:30 am
Dan – did you read anything I wrote? There’s a reason some of us claim superior intellect vis-a-vis the Bible.
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 9:34 am
Dan,
Don’t shut up on my account. I find these conversations interesting, and if I come off at all aggressive or mean, please tell me.
And I just want to say that I don’t reject the bible out of hand. I reject the bible after reading it and studying it all my life. I continue to study it.
In relation to the fall, the story always struck me as a huge set-up job. Not to mention the fact that I believe “sins of the father falling on the sons” to be morally repugnant.
There are wonderful stories in the bible, and some of them are incredibly good at teaching morals. Unfortunately there are quite a few immoral stories as well.
I accept the bible for what it appears to be…many books and stories told by men, with all the successes and failings that those men had.
But that’s only my opinion. As in all things, I could be wrong.
Posted by John Shore on September 21, 2007 at 9:41 am
You guys are doing a nice job of keeping this respectful. If you’re going to continue witht his, please do keep that up.
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 10:03 am
I think many Christians think we atheists just grew up in a religious-free home where God-speak was all but punished. That’s never been the case in my own experiences and other God-doubters I know. To further emphasize this point, I grew up strictly Greek Orthodox, a religion which claims to represent the unbroken, unchanged traditions of the apostles, stemming from Christ himself. Not suprisingly, we were taught that Protestantism and other Christian variations were water-down heresies at best.
I just rejected what I was taught. After years of careful analysis, I concluded that there is no God and that religion is a negative force in the world for all the reasons I mentioned in Post #39.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 21, 2007 at 10:15 am
Damon,
Yes I did read your comments. I cnose not to specifically respond other than to say that all of the horribleness you describe is a result of SIN, even sometimes in the name of religion. God still exists and will one day remedy the situation – it’s called judgment. Sinful mankind is responsible for human generated evil. Natural disasters are also a result of the fall of creation – everything is affected.
Chris, I admire your honesty. Concerning the Bible, you might want to read Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that Demands a Verdict. He set out to prove the Bible and religion false (while in college) and ended up converted to Christiany.
The first Adam was representative of the human race and his disobedience affected the rest of mankind. I appreciate your comment regarding “the sins of the father falling on the sons”. The Bible says that every man will be held accountable for his own “sins”, but that all mankind has been adversely affected by the fall. By the sin of one man the human race was plunged into darkness. By the obedience of another, mankind was redeemed. (Romans, Chapter 5 – the words of Paul).
I first read the Bible through in the 1966-1977 time frame purely as a project for an ‘advanced’ English class in HS. The plain reading of it seems to have every one of the 66 books carrying the same theme – the redemption of mankind through a delivere or ‘m
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 10:25 am
Dan,
I’m a bibliophile, so I’ll read anything you throw at me.
I will, however, have to disagree with you on the theme of the bible. I haven’t read it recently, but it seems to me that while some (maybe most) of it is about the redemption of mankind, a lot of it is about following authority unquestioningly. (Is that a word?)
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 10:34 am
Dan:
Define “sin.”
Second, you continue to reference the fall of Adam? Do you think that actually, literally happened 6,000 years ago? If you do, I don’t think I carry on this debate.
Hi Chris
It’s “unquestionably.”
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 10:35 am
Damon,
Thanks…but I did not make up the word.
unquestioningly – in an unquestioning manner; “he followed his leader unquestioningly”
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 21, 2007 at 10:41 am
I think it’s a word. . . lol. Yes, there is a LOT about following authority, I still think the overarching (is that a word?) theme is the fall and redemption of man. Good point about authority. One might say that all of the laws, laws, laws, and more laws of the Old Testament served well the purpose of telling us that there is no way we could be obedient enough to obtain eternal life since God demanded perfection, being Holy and perfect Himself. Therefore, He sent His Son to be perfect in our stead. As a believer, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, I still am not perfect, but God works in me by His Spirit to be willingly obedient instead of unquestioningly obedient, which is against my human nature.
I have to get a copy of the latest version of “Evidence” myself. I also love to read. Much more challenging than the most popular ‘graven image’ of today – the TV. If Beelzebub was the chief idol in far gone days, is Entertainment the chief god today?
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 10:48 am
See, here’s where we split off Dan. Because you believe in the bible, you see the authority as good. I, an unbeliever, have a problem because I don’t think that god exists. Therefore, the only authority it ends up creating is the authority of the human leaders. I take issue with that, at least with the unquestioning part.
For example, the story of Abraham and Isaac. I think of it as the most immoral story in the bible. The fact that Isaac is saved in the end is a good thing. The problem is that Abraham makes the wrong choice. Morally you should not kill your son, regardless of who orders you.
For me, the morality trumps the authority. For you, I assume, there is only morality if it comes from the authority. And that is where we differ.
Posted by Billy B on September 21, 2007 at 10:52 am
There are many Old Testament teachings are difficult/impossible to reasonably explain as being from a God we claim to be all loving. They are a stumbling block in the lives of many atheist. I read it all the time. Someone much wiser and smarter could give a better insight and I’ll leave it to them to do so. I would say this, if the Bible was a conspiracy of writers they could have used a better editor.
Here is my dilemma, if it is one. I am so absolutely convinced of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that I can’t or won’t let what I don’t know or understand to get in the way of Who I do know. Ok, so that may seem like a cop out, but I’m being honest. So what does a person do with that? If I was asked one thing that I’m sure of from all my life’s experiences and all the reading and knowledge I’ve been able to acquire I would say with absolutely certainty, “Jesus is Lord”. I know Him, I see Him in others and He transformed my life.
My questions to atheist are these; Do you ever struggle with your beliefs of no God? Do you ever question evolution? If not, what is the point in debating Christians? Is it a intellectual exercise?
If there is no God and I win the debate that will not bring Him into existence, if you win the debate and there is a God, He won’t just disappear. We are both way beyond the point of either of us winning at tic-tac-toe aren’t we?
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 10:57 am
Billy, in my opinion, the argument only matters if a god exists that is much more interested in whether or not you believed in it and worshiped it than whether or not you’re a good person.
Posted by Bad on September 21, 2007 at 11:00 am
BillyB, most atheists don’t “believe there is no god.” They don’t believe IN a god. Not believing in something doesn’t require constant effort to maintain.
Of course, there are some atheists who are former believers who have all sorts of mental habits of belief they keep returning to, so it’s probably different for everyone.
Evolution is a matter for science, not atheism/theism. Many theists agree with evolution as good science, and it is not necessary to know, care, or believe evolution to not believe in a god.
The main point of discussing things in general with anyone is to explain ones point of view on things. It’s good that there are lots of points of view being represented, no?
Posted by Karen on September 21, 2007 at 11:04 am
Ric:
“Anyways I used your very same example in my latest blog yesterday. So hope you have not actually, really, totally gone out the virtual, non-existant door …”
Ric! There are no “doors” in cyberspace, only “Windows.” Oh, wait a minute, what was that saying that was so popular in church? “Whenever god closes a door, he opens a window … ” (Yes, I really did hear that one a lot!)
Anyway, I hang out at FriendlyAtheist, Conversationattheedge.com and De-Conversion.com if you want to continue discussing.
As for Kathy Griffin, she rocks! Who else is going to point out the absurd selfishness of Hollywood celebrities who win awards and then say that “Jesus did it.” Doesn’t that beg a certain question, i.e. if Jesus is spending so much time helping actors and rappers win awards, why can’t he drop on over to Darfur and help out with that whole war thing? Why can’t he help out kids who are starving and women who are being beaten and poverty-stricken families who are oppressed by cruel tyrants?
The preening vanity of celebs asserting that “god’s on my side” needs to be taken down more than a peg or two, right along with rich athletes claiming “god gave them victory,” as if god’s busy watching football.
Yet Kathy Griffin’s the only one I’ve ever seen brave enough to do it. Yes, she made a rude comment, and I agree it was objectionable. But she made a much larger point that I’m surprised more Christians don’t applaud.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 21, 2007 at 11:21 am
DAMON,
Whether it’s a ‘young’ earth or ‘old’ earth isn’t the point. It’s the Fall of man that’s at issue.
Webster:
Main Entry: 1sin
Pronunciation: ’sin
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English sinne, from Old English synn; akin to Old High German sunta sin and probably to Latin sont-, sons guilty, est is — more at IS
1 a : an offense against religious or moral law b : an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible c : an often serious shortcoming : FAULT
2 a : transgression of the law of God b : a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God
Main Entry: un·ques·tion·ing
Pronunciation: -’kwes-ch&-ni[ng], -’kwesh-
Function: adjective
: not questioning : not expressing or marked by doubt or hesitation
- un·ques·tion·ing·ly /-ni[ng]-lE/ adverb
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 11:37 am
Dan:
I know what religious law is and the law of God. Now define “moral law.” Let me ask you a question that highlights where I’m going with this.
Is sex between 2 men or 2 women a “sin?” If so, why? And again, please don’t cite Leviticus or Romans. As I mentioned, I don’t take the Bible serioulsy or as the final authority on right and wrong.
As a human being, tell me, if you believe the above to be a “sin,” and why it’s a sin if you do.
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 11:46 am
And yes Dan – it DOES matter if it’s a young or old Earth argument. If evolution is true, the creationism story holds no weight…and the dominoes fall one by one. It would beg the question: what else in the Bible is a fabrication?
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 12:15 pm
BillyB – I’ll answer your questions one by one as best as I can.
“My questions to atheist are these; Do you ever struggle with your beliefs of no God?”
Absolutely. At times, there is nothing more lonely than going to bed at night, staring at the ceiling, and concluding that we are a meaningless life form, subject only to the laws of physics and nature. That said, I can’t ignore my rational side. There is no evidence of God and God-belief and religion is a negative force for humanity.
Do you ever question evolution?
Absolutely not. Which is just one of many reasons why I don’t believe in God. Evolution is fact. Plain and simple. It’s almost mind-boggling to watch creationists debate our most brilliant scientific minds on the origins of species.
If not, what is the point in debating Christians? Is it a intellectual exercise?
Because it becomes my business when Christian-influenced legislation affects my life.
a. Evangelical support of Israel. I believe in Israel’s right to exist – not because of some divine real estate transaction between an alleged chosen people and their deity. But rather, I believe Jews should live in a country of their own in peace – particularly following the Holocaust. That said, this absurb claim that this lang “belongs” to us because “God said so” is literally destroying the peace process. You have to admit that there are some elements in this administration who would rather the Middle East explode into warfare to usher in the Second Coming of Christ over a peace deal. My tax dollars are funding that insanity.
b. Teaching creationism in my public school district to my children is tantamount to mental child abuse. I certainly wouldn’t march into a Sunday school class and teach the little boys and girls that they are just smart, evolved apes.
c. Preventing gays from the same rights as anyone else. What unbelievable bigotry. This debate is almost proof there is no God. The APA, scientific community, and other professional organizations have maintained (since the 1970s) that homosexuality is as natural as eye color, immutable, normal, and children raised by gay parents are just as well-adjusted (if not more so) as those raised by straight couples. Yet, religious bigotry, rooted in a few Biblical verses and some bogus ex-gay claims, are what’s standing in the way of millions of people enjoying the same rights as anyone else (marriage, anti-discrimination, visitation rights etc.). There is literally no justification for this other than pure bigotry. Listening to anti-gay groups (Christian of course) search for excuses to withhold rights to this disadvantaged group is like watching a car carsh involving a mack truck and a motorbike. The more Christians dig their heels into the ground amidst mounting scientific evidence concluding homosexuality’s biological origins, the worse this crash is going to be. And Christians will be remembered 20 years from now as being the primary obstacle of hatred and ignorance (just like with slavery in the South).
d. Islam – I have no love for “the religion of peace.” The Koran is simply littered with violent passages and instructions. I don’t think suicide bombers are misintepreting a thing. They are simply following orders The sooner this book is discarded into history, the better for world peace.
e. Opposition to stem-cell research. Our wonder evangelical president vetoed federal funding for stem cells because it would destory embryos who evidently have invisible souls. Can you imagine? We would rather save an embryo than destroy it to harvest its cells and regenerate the fact of a little girl suffering from disfiguring 3rd degree burns. Increasingly, our brightest minds are leaving this country for laboratories in Singapore, Europe, South Korea, and Japan where the enironment isn’t so anti-science. This is just one example of religion’s contribution to our nation losing its educational competitive edge.
f. Religion’s opposition to contraception and vaccinations from ailments such as HPV which is known to cause cervical cancer. The religious right claims vaccinating young women would cause them to have more sex. See where I’m going here. The act of sex is bad. Let’s not attack the consequences of sex. Let’s attack sex. Let’s not educate young people to view sex responsibly. Let’s attack sex. What is this religious edict other than indirectly sending these young women to an early grave? Vaccinate them. End of story.
By discrediting religion more and more, atheists seek to remedy the wrongs religion does through a rational, scientific approach. I could literally write a book on why it’s time atheists countered religious influence in this country and abroad.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 21, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Moral law requires a moral authority. When God is not recognized as that morel law, it usually ends up with man becoming his own moral law, if he recognizes one at all. Thre are numerous times in the Bible where the phrase ‘every man did what was right in his own eyes’. It appears several times just prior to some sort of judgment by God against what we might termn total anarchy.
Regarding sex, there a lot of purely human/psychological/medical reasons M-M F-F is less than the most desirable – that’s besides the ‘natural’ law that requires the M-F variety for propagation of the species. I don’t have time to really discuss it at the moment. I personally believe that homosexual is against natural law as well as God’s moral law.
There are those that believe in creationism that also believe in either side of the young/old question the fall of Adam is the core issue, not how long ago it was. One does not automatically believe in Darwinian evolution (just a theory anyway) when one believes the earth is older than 6,000 years. The Bible is not crystal clear on the matter, so I chose not to discuss it much. That, like many other discussions, become distractions from the core issues of God’s creation itself, the fall of man, and the redemption of man through Christ.
Posted by Billy B on September 21, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Chris,
You stated, “The problem is that Abraham makes the wrong choice. Morally you should not kill your son, regardless of who orders you.”
He didn’t kill him did he?
Abraham believed God will bring Isaac back to life if he did kill him. Read Genesis 22:1 Then he said to his servants: “Both of you stay here with the donkey, while the boy and I go on over yonder. We will worship and then come back to you.” WE WILL WORSHIP COME BACK TO YOU, NOT WE WILL WORSHIP AND I WILL COME BACK TO YOU.
You see God needed to know that no one was before Him. Issac wasn’t killed, Abraham was faithful and faith was established.
Posted by John F on September 21, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Hey everyone,
It’s nice to see some good dialague here. As a Christian I understand honest doubts from people and I hope I can be gentle and understanding in response (even Thomas the disciple had doubts of Jesus being the Son of God and Jesus had nothing but compassion for him).
I just wanted to mention regarding the whole evolution and intelligent design discussion that there isn’t only 2 sides to the question. For many Christians like myself my faith isn’t hinged on whether evolution as currently understood or if intelligent design is true. I trust that God could have used evolution to create people and nature (see renowned scientist Francis Collins book The Language of God). Collins is head of the Human Genome Project. In terms of creating the world in 7 days question, the Bible says that to God a day is like a 1000 years so to me that means a day could also be like a billion years so that doesn’t present a problem to me. Brian McLaren also has some good books related to Christianity and evolution which explores why, to use a cliche, we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater with regards to evolution and belief in God.
Thanks.
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Billy,
I don’t have time right now, but look up the story of Jephtha.(sp?) Same story, except there’s no last minute take back from god.
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 1:00 pm
“Moral law requires a moral authority. When God is not recognized as that morel law, it usually ends up with man becoming his own moral law, if he recognizes one at all. Thre are numerous times in the Bible where the phrase ‘every man did what was right in his own eyes’. It appears several times just prior to some sort of judgment by God against what we might termn total anarchy.”
Dan – you clearly haven’t REALLY read my former posts. You’re ignoring everything I’ve written. I’m going to repost what I wrote previously. Please read it again below as it answers this exact issue.
When the Bible became the sole source of political authority (AND MORAL AUTHORITY), the acheivements and progress realized by the free-thinking pagans of the Greco-Roman world abruptly stopped, ushering in the hyper-religious and corresponingly anti-knowledge Dark Ages. Anyone who asked inconvenient questions or challenged the Church’s monopoly on truth was simply put to death. It was only until secularism increasingly took root and religion’s iron grip on society began to crumble that philosophy, science, and art reemerged from the ashes of blind faith. In conjuction, it was only by the sheer brilliance and natural curiosity of free-thinking scientists, secular humanists, philosophers, and intellectuals that we have progressed as far as we have today (and continue do so).
Do you not agree with this? We create morality as we go. We used to own slaves, but now we understand that all life has human value and taking away someone’s joys and aspirations by enslaving them is evil. The Bible (or God because he inspired it, right?) has very clear directions on how to maintain slaves. Do you deny this? Do you need me to show you the passages? How is that you can’t see that slavery is morally disgusting to us now because we EVOLVED as human beings and legislated that slavery be illegal. Had we followed the Bible, we would still be owning slaves. Do you deny this?
Regarding sex, there a lot of purely human/psychological/medical reasons M-M F-F is less than the most desirable – that’s besides the ‘natural’ law that requires the M-F variety for propagation of the species. I don’t have time to really discuss it at the moment. I personally believe that homosexual is against natural law as well as God’s moral law.
Less than most desirable? Then why does it exist? Not just in humans, but all over the animal kingdom? So if you have same-sex attractions, you’re screwed, right? Oh well, you have to live as a hermit now. Is that what you’re saying? So, you’re saying sex is only for procreation? Is that your argument? You need to explain why it’s against natural law if we know it naturally occurs in nature. In other words, you can’t just say that homosexuality is wrong because “God says so.” Millions of people’s relationships and rights are at stake here based on pending legislation which is being influenced by people like you who just say “because God says so.” I take it you don’t know anyone gay. It’s truly a pity that you don’t see how unfair this is. You need a better explanation than that to justifiably preclude these people of their rights.
There are those that believe in creationism that also believe in either side of the young/old question the fall of Adam is the core issue, not how long ago it was. One does not automatically believe in Darwinian evolution (just a theory anyway) when one believes the earth is older than 6,000 years. The Bible is not crystal clear on the matter, so I chose not to discuss it much. That, like many other discussions, become distractions from the core issues of God’s creation itself, the fall of man, and the redemption of man through Christ.
It’s not a theory Dan. It’s fact. You’re misusing the word “theory.” You can’t choose what and what not to discuss. Lay all the cards out Dan. Turning a blind eye to religous edicts because they can’t be comfortably discussed is a convenient way of saying “I rely on blind faith and leave the real debate to the experts.” You can’t claim that your religion has a monopoly on truth and not defend it. Like I said, our government responds to people like you. They may legislate tomorrow that my kids need to learn creationism in school. They need good answers. You haven’t provided one. All you’re saying is that I’m distracting from the real issues. I thought the Bible represented ALL the real issues, Dan? We can’t cherry-pick what we want to believe from it, can we? It’s either all the inspired Word of God or it’s not.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 21, 2007 at 1:08 pm
That there has been evolution within specific species is scientific fact. That theree ever was evolution between species – from goo to you by way of the zoo – has never been proven. And personally, all religion aside, I would prefer for my ego’s sake to choose to believe I was designed by some sort of intelligence than choosing to believe I came from a monkey. Why did some monkeys stay monkeys anyway?
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 1:17 pm
This is not just a debate about evolution, Dan. Yes I do believe the zoo-goo-you “theory.” (Nice quote from youtube by the way). I shed a coat a hair while developing in the womb, I have a useless tailbone, appendix, and tonsils, not to mention sharp canines. If God were a true deisgner, he was pretty bad at it.
You’ve chosen to ignore some pretty major things I pointed out. In general, your “beliefs” are affecting the way others live. You cannot impact peoples’ lives this much without a stronger argument than “God says so.” Please reread my former post and respond to my questions/comments (if you have time of course – it is Friday) as I respond to all of yours.
Posted by Billy B on September 21, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Evolving to what? Evolving for why? Is it accidental evolution of is there intelligence behind it, and if so has that intelligence evolved? What would the fully evolved person be? Are we evolving to a point to we all agree? How will that happen? Do I choose to evolve or will it be forced on me against my will?
Inquiring Evolving Minds Want to Know!
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Evolving to what? Evolving for why? Is it accidental evolution of is there intelligence behind it, and if so has that intelligence evolved? What would the fully evolved person be? Are we evolving to a point to we all agree? How will that happen? Do I choose to evolve or will it be forced on me against my will?
You’re asking questions no one knows. From what I understand, we’re losing our wisdom teeth (they’re pretty useless now – thus requiring extraction) and our cranial capacity has grown since Neandrathalic times.
Posted by Billy B on September 21, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Damon,
I agree with you, no one knows and yet it is accepted on faith.
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Wrong Billy B. Your questions were on the future of evolution not what we already know about historical evolution through fossil records. No one can predict the future.
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I answer the following questions with the note that I am a layman, not a scientist.
“Evolving to what?”
No idea. Every generation is an ‘evolution’, if I can use that term in that way. We can make vague predictions about how we might evolve, but there’s really no way to know.
“Evolving for why?”
No reason. Evolution, at least on this planet, seems to be the natural process that life, once it exists, goes through.
“Is it accidental evolution of is there intelligence behind it, and if so has that intelligence evolved?”
Neither. Or both. Evolution is a combination of mutation and natural selection. Traits appear through the random combinations of the gene pool. Traits are passed on based on natural selection…if the trait does nothing or helps you survive, it is more likely to be passed on to the next generation. So it’s not completely random or designed. There’s a process to it.
“What would the fully evolved person be? Are we evolving to a point to we all agree? How will that happen?”
No such thing as fully evolved. Evolution will never stop. At least, it has never shown any indication of stopping. If it does, I imagine it might be us who somehow find a way to do it.
“Do I choose to evolve or will it be forced on me against my will?”
You don’t evolve. The species evolves. And no, you don’t have a choice. Every generation evolves from the previous one.
Any more questions?
Posted by Billy B on September 21, 2007 at 2:00 pm
No idea, no reason, neither or both.
That clears that up. Are you sure?
What causes natural selection? What makes it natural and why does it select? What about un-natural selection? How does it know what to select. Has it every selected incorrectly, like false selection?
Evolution will never stop?
It may but we may all be dead and not know right?
Every generation? I don’t see any indications of that. Where the examples? My grandparents had five fingers on each hand and I do too. Is it a mind evolution?
Could it be possible that evolution is only in person’s head?
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 2:03 pm
“I trust that God could have used evolution to create people and nature”
John F – that just begs the question: Why couldn’t God just get it right the first time? It brings me back to point in post 39.
“Conversely, religion is rooted in immutable dogma and changes only when free-thinkers provide enough indisputable evidence that challenge its once widely-held assertions. Little by little, it gives way.”
See what happens? Evidence forces religions to readjust or reinterpret their assertions to accomdate human discovery and its direct challenge to religion’s claim on truth. Either creationism happened as it is written in the Bible, or it didn’t. If you start interpreting that, you might as well claim the whole thing is allegorical.
Posted by Bertrand on September 21, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I think the point is this one.
We atheists tell Christians they are wrong.
Christians tell us atheists that we are wrong and that we ‘ll get punished.
But nowadays Christianity has lost it’s power to punish people.
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Billy B – Evolution has been happening over billions of years (that is if you accept contemporary research, fossil records, and a share a belief with the scientific community in carbon dating).
There are countless examples of fossilized evolutionary development – feathered dinosaurs, lunged fish, bipedal apes, etc. etc.
Natural selection is among the most logical scientific assertions: Pass down the traits/genes that increase the next generation’s chances of survival – makes absolute sense to me. Now imagine those constant developments over billions of years.
Posted by Ross on September 21, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Just watched the Ray Comfort “atheists worst nightmare clip” on YouTube. Aside from the exagerated title, I don’t think the innuendo is so crazy funny or obvious, but that’s just me. But John, I don’t understand the apparent glee in demeaning a believer who is basically advocating for God and his wonderful creation. Shouldn’t we be be reticent torching somebody who in all likelyhood is serving the Lord with all his heart? I don’t mean to be holier than though as I’ve laughed at Christians myself (although I can’t honestly say I had the peace of God in doing so) for things they did that I thought were funny. I guess this just didn’t seem to me to be egregiously comical. I just have a problem with believers shooting each other because their methods happen to be different. I gotta believe that this greeves the Lord as well.
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 2:19 pm
“Are you sure?”
As sure as I am of anything. And by that I mean, if sufficient evidence comes along to prove it wrong, I’ll side with the evidence.
“What causes natural selection? What makes it natural and why does it select?”
It just seems to be a natural process. Natural because everything that is alive does it. Perhaps a better answer might be, life causes natural selection.
“What about un-natural selection? How does it know what to select. Has it every selected incorrectly, like false selection?”
Un-natural selection is what we do when we breed animals. In as much as what we as humans do isn’t ‘natural’, that form of selection isn’t natural. We breed dogs for size, fur, ear length, etc.
There’s no such thing as selecting incorrectly. It’s just natural selection…if it helps the animal stay alive, or at least doesn’t lead to the animals death, it can be passed on.
Example…you could possibly look at sickle-cell anemia as being a bad selection. Those with the disease are resistant to malaria, which is good. But it can kill you, which is bad. In a world before medicine, it was better to have sickle-cell because it would protect you from malaria long enough to have the next generation. But in a world where we can fight malaria, sickle-cell is the worse disease.
“Evolution will never stop?
It may but we may all be dead and not know right?”
Pretty much. The evidence points to it not stopping.
“Every generation? I don’t see any indications of that. Where the examples? My grandparents had five fingers on each hand and I do too. Is it a mind evolution?”
Evolution happens slowly over a long period of time. But you can see it happen, which goes back to my dog analogy. If we breed specifically for certain traits, we can see evolution much easier.
Ever notice how tall parents are more likely to have tall children? It doesn’t always happen, but the chances are that the child of tall parents will have the genes with the potential to be taller.
And yes, the mind evolves. That’s how we evolved from apes into ’smart’ apes.
“Could it be possible that evolution is only in person’s head?”
In who’s head? Mine? Every scientist who accepts the theory of evolution as the most likely course life on this planet has taken?
Certainly possible. But very very unlikely. Why? Because there’s evidence.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 21, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Chris,
I glad you mentioned the story of Abraham. I understand fully why you think it the most immoral story in the Bible. You are looking at it not believeing in God. As a believer, I see more than the command of God to Abraham to kill his son, the son of promise. I can only imagine what Abraham went through. To Abraham’s credit, and ours (Isasac was in the bloodline through which the Messiah came, as promised), he saw God as have the authority to command Him. God also knew the strength of Abraham’s faith, that Abraham would obey and that He, God would provide a substitute. God, being God, knew the end before the beginning, so to speak.
In like manner, God has every right to to allow everyone of us to die in our sinful state. We have no hope outside of the substitutionary death of Jesus, just as Isaac had no hope other than the substitute God provided.
That story is one of the most beautiful pictures we have in the Old Testament of the fulfillment of God’s promise of redemption we see in the New Testament!
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 21, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Bertrand,
Christianity, as a religion, has lost the state granted power to punish. God, on the other hand, WILL judge ALL sin and unrighteousness (by His definition), and render due punishment, in His time.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 21, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Damon,
I didn’t get it from YouTube. It was actually the title of a book written by Harold Hiss, the inventor of ground starting engines for aircraft in WWII. It is catchy, I’ll admit…..
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 21, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I finds it interesting that there seems to be the entire scientific community lines up with the theory of evolution as expressed by Darwin when at the same time I keep hearing of eminent members of that scientific community becoming believers in intelligent design, due in part to evolving (there’s that word again!) technology revealing more and more reason to discarding the Darwinian cross-species type. There has always been evolition within species.
BTW, Damon, Not only did I read your arguments, I have heard every one of them many times previously. Although I am not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything, I detect a certain amount of consternation on your part due to me not coming to the same conslusions as you. Could it be that you are not as certain as you say you are? Just a thought.
Posted by John F on September 21, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Greetings Damon,
Thanks for the questions. First of all I would like to say that the Bible was not meant to be a scientific textbook even though from my reading of it, it does not contradict science (too often fallible people including myself misinterpret the Bible from our understanding of the world at the time). I believe God did get it right even if it was by evolution even though it is difficult to understand because unfortunately I wasn’t around then:). I think that human beings and nature are wonderfully made. Let me ask you a similar line of question, if as scientists have said that even if the earth’s atmosphere was a bit different and the earth’s axis were a bit different there would be no life on earth (I’m no scientist so I don’t know all the ins and outs) how do you explain what force is keeping this seemingly perfect balance? Unfortunately your reasoning that the creation story has to be literal or it didn’t happen is based on fundamentalism thinking. Even back to the 100 AD’s Justin Martyr among others argued that the days of creation must refer to much longer time spans: “For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, ‘The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,’ is connected with this subject.” (Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 81)”l. Another example is Augustine who had an allegorical view of creation. Therefore allegorical thinking that God could have created through evolution and not strictly in 7 days is hardly readjusting our assertions. Also I would add is that the Bible isn’t literal throughout, there are many allegorical writings as well (the Bible is full of rich metaphors). You have to understand the context in which it was written to understand if was meant to be literal or allegorical. In terms of religious dogma I too dislike any kind of dogma religious or otherwise and try and stay away from it. I understand that what you are reacting to is fundamentalism Christian thinking. Peace.
John
Posted by -30- on September 21, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Billy B, I think it was one of your comments that made me want to say I’m not here to see anyone win or lose. I’m not expecting to see the great GOTCHA from either side. I’m just enjoying the intelligent, polite discussion. Nobody slamming doors, yelling, stomping out of the room. In my experience, the mere mention of God or religion is usually met with either a stony silence or instant in-your-face confrontation. Write on, everybody.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 21, 2007 at 3:06 pm
I think you hit the nail on the head, John. Perhaps someone did try and cram God down his throat at so;me point and he is still bearing the scars.
Posted by Bertrand on September 21, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Well Dan I guess you feel comfortable being on “His” side then.
I also guess (maybe I’m wrong) that you regret that loss of power for Christianity.
The thing is that since I don’t believe in the existence of your God the idea of getting punished for this doesn’t affect me. You can tell me that I will burn in hell and that my bones will be broken by demons every single day , sorry i really don’t care.
I admire the patience of Damon and Bad in trying to actually explain to you and some others here evolutionary biology. I will not get into this procedure cause sincerely I think it’s waisted time.
Instead i would lie to ask some questions.
1) How can you believe in this paradox of a all loving God who sends you to hell if you not believe in him ? Or if you choose to take you own life. Why should all aborigines be sent to hell just because they are aborigines ? (Today maybe some of them are Christians but 500 years ago they were not)
2) What about jews ? Do they go to hell for not accepting Christ as God although Christians have adopted yahve as their personal God ?
More to come later …
Posted by Damon on September 21, 2007 at 3:15 pm
In like manner, God has every right to to allow everyone of us to die in our sinful state. We have no hope outside of the substitutionary death of Jesus, just as Isaac had no hope other than the substitute God provided.
This story is one of many proofs that the New Testament was reverse-engineered.
That story is one of the most beautiful pictures we have in the Old Testament of the fulfillment of God’s promise of redemption we see in the New Testament!
This story is morally repugnant.
John F – there are billions of planets in our universe. So statistically, it would make sense that one of them has the conditions to sustain life.
Again – you are all missing the point of what I’m saying. Just as the religious reinterpret the creation story to accommodate human discovery, they might as well leave everything else open for debate. That said, based on what concrete Biblically-inspired arguments can Christians rely upon to address the issues I brought up in Post 70-71?
Posted by mm on September 21, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Ross-
I think its dangerous to suggest that simply because someone claims to be, or appears to be, working on behalf of god, doesn’t mean that they aren’t misguided, or bat-****insane.
Plenty of people throughout history claimed to be doing god’s work. Terrorist claim to be doing god’s work. Adolf Hitler claimed to be doing god’s work.
I’m not saying Kirk Cameron= Adolph Hitler or Osama Bin Laden, my point is that simply because someone appears to be a messenger, doesn’t mean they are.
Religion should not be a replacement for Skepticism. We are Skeptical for a reason. Skepticism is proof of an intellect, not the repudiation thereof.
Which is why there are people who choose not to believe in a god. Maybe in your eyes their logic is flawed, that is fine. You have every right to disagree. My opnion is that to be honest- maybe there is a god and maybe there isn’t. Personally, its not a concern of mine. If god is real and he has a purpose for me, he will reveal that to me in time. If God isn’t real, then it really won’t effect me all that much.
And I DESPISE atheists who claim that those who embrace faith are unintelligent or delusional. Sometimes they are. But 99.9% are not. Theres no more dumb/delusional people of faith, then their are dumb/delusional atheists.
Mostly, I have chosen not to believe in a “God” because my concern is what i can affect, ie; the human realm, the realm of earth, in this life, in this time. Man poses a great danger to himself. And i believe that we can only overcome the great obstacles that we face (Hate, Poverty, Environmental Decay, etc…) through coming together as a species.
Now i understand how One Life: One Faith, could achieve such a thing. But that will never, ever happen. We have to find other common ground.
So i say, to those that are Spirtual/Atheistic who understand how to come together in harmony- YAY!! We need to, and fast
To those who would rather fight, gnash teeth, degrade etc… well why don’t you all just sit home, watch tv, buy stuff, and be quiet, because the rational, empathetic, caring, people of this world, have work to do.
We all NEED to stop trying to impose our will one another. This is what John is trying to say. Those of faith and Atheists alike need to listen to this message, because it is an important one.
Posted by -30- on September 21, 2007 at 3:51 pm
mm, I think the common ground is that we are all human beings and we all live on the same planet. Beyond that… uh… hmm…
Posted by Bertrand on September 21, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I wonder is there any liberal Christian here who does not think that Jesus was a divine creature but rather a gifted exceptional
person like buddha ?
Posted by Chris Morse on September 21, 2007 at 7:22 pm
“…when at the same time I keep hearing of eminent members of that scientific community becoming believers in intelligent design”
I would invite you to name these eminent members. I am curious.
Posted by Andy Christensen on September 21, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Bad,
In post 37 you said (I think) basically that God, as portrayed in the Bible, is unjust, cruel and immoral, and that if we believe the Bible, we should be opposed to such a God; the fact we are not is offensive to you. I think that was your main point; correct me if I’m wrong.
God is loving, righteous, merciful and just. He created us to be like Him. He allowed us to choose to go our own way, which we did. This brought sin into creation, along with a death sentence. We did it to ourselves. But God has given us another chance through Jesus.
God is a loving and creative being; the universe was a perfect expression of his love and creativity. “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.” (Ge 1:31a) He created us to be loving and creative as well. But we rebelled (sinned). God gave us a choice to follow him or rebel, for the same reason he has done everything else, because He loves us. If parents love their children they allow them to make choices which may have bad consequences.
Perhaps the church has not done a very good job in recent times of teaching how great the consequences were of our rebellion. Sin has corrupted all of creation. If you drop a little green ink into a bucket of yellow paint, the whole bucket is no longer yellow. And since the first humans sinned, all their offspring were affected (Ro 5:12). All of our hearts have been corrupted by sin. “The LORD looks down from heaven on the sons of men to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.” (Psalm 14:2-3)
Our world is not as it should be because of sin. Nature is not what it should be. Our individual lives are not as they should be; we are not what God intended and wanted for us — to be perfectly loving and creative beings, like Him. It is not that we don’t seek God at all; we can sense that there is good and evil and the minds He gave us tell us the universe had to have a first cause. We know what is right; what we should do: Be honest, giving, good stewards of the environment; peacemakers. We know it would be better if we did those things. We want to do those things. We have the brains to do it. For 5,000 years of civilization we have known all this. Every generation has thought they were about to do these things, that utopia was just around the corner. And if nothing was preventing us, this would have been plenty of time for us to apply our minds and figure out how to do what we know we should do and overcome any obstacle of genetics or emotion we might have.
But something is holding us back, and that is sin. Our hearts are corrupted by it. That is where the problem lies. We use our minds to figure out the best way to reach a desired goal, but our hearts are the part of us we use to decide what our goals will be. Our minds tell us we should do what is right. But our hearts always overrule and we keep sinning.
Not only does sin keep us from having the lives and the world we could have, it will eventually, if not dealt with, kill us (Ge 3:19). When our natural bodies wear out, we will be eternally separated from God, because God cannot permanently tolerate evil in His creation. Being perfect and completely good, He must eventually drive evil from His presence. He has promised to eventually deal with evil completely and forever. He has tolerated it until now because He loves us. “The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” (2 Pe 3:9).
God sent Jesus so we could have our sins forgiven. “This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.” (1 Jn 4:9-10)
For 5,000 years we have been trying to do right through our own effort, trying to overcome an obstacle that only an act of God can solve. If we continue like this we will continue to miss out on the life God has for us, and we’ll eventually be cut off from life itself.
When the first humans chose to rebel against God, the stakes were far higher than they probably realized. We are not responsible for their sin, but we are corrupted by sin and are responsible for how we respond to the initiative God has taken in providing a Way for us to be saved. He did not hit ‘delete’ and just start over; He stuck with us, He allowed us to experience the consequences of our sin so we would realize our need for salvation, and He worked his plan for our salvation by sacrificing his only Son. He has put himself through all this because he is a loving and creative God.
Believers are not in a position to convert anyone; only God can do that. I can’t speak for others but love and compassion motivates me to share the good news of the Kingdom of God and the forgiveness of sins.
Posted by Dan on September 22, 2007 at 4:17 am
Bertrand,
Yes, I am comortable being on God’s side – probably more comfortable than the human mind can comprehend. It’s termed a “Peace that surpasses understanding’. Hopefully I have not come across as self-satisfied, pompous, arrogant, or any of the other ofetntimes well-deserved descriptives of some professing the same faith. As to your questions:
1. God sends no person to hell. The disobedience of the first Adam accomplished that little feat. God rescues the perishing. If He only rescued one person or even none at all, He is still fair and just.
2. Concerning Jews (and any other ethnicity, actually), Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the father except through me.” Somehow – I refuse to be dogmatic on how it all happens (the Bible does not provide all the details) – everyone goes through Christ, even Old Testament believers in God who had only a promise of a Messiah to believe in. That Promise was the One sent by God to die for them also.
Chris,
I will leave the research up to you, since you sound like a person who might actually take an objective look at the discussion rather than base arguments on theory paraded as fact and inherent biases produced by professing non-belief in God.
You see, God is at issue here, not evolution, His existance is not the issue, but rebellion against Him is at the very core. Every professing athiest who has ever drawn a breath, is now living, or is yet to be born will recognize God for exactly who He is before spending an eternity separated from the very creator. Yes, the number of scientists who promote evolution far outnumber those who believe in intelligent design. Good science is not the issue – God is still central to the discussion. Belief in intelligent design necessitates belief in, and accountability to a more powerful being.
Many will never believe in God, perhaps there will be a currently professing athiest in this forum, in whom God is right now speaking by His Holy Spirit, who will ’see the light’ on his/her personal road to Damascus. No human being on planet earth has come to God by his/her own own totally free will decision. That’s not my opinion, but Jesus’ declaration in John 6:44 (No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.”) Such is the true condition of our ‘human’ nature ant its bondage to sin – He must ‘draw’ us. It is interesting to note that the very same Greek word is translated as ‘drag’ where the NT talks about the Apostle Paul being ‘dragged away to prison’.
This was to be only a short post but I just wanted to share my heart. Perhaps there is someone reading this whom the Father is ‘drawing’ to the Son. If there is, this is for you. For those of you who have told us ‘Christians’ to quit trying to convince you, don’t worry – it’s not for you (at least not yet). I don’t apolgize. I would say ‘I rest my case.’ but it’s not my case. And by the I love you all!
Posted by -30- on September 22, 2007 at 8:10 am
Bertrand, you said, “I wonder is there any liberal Christian here who does not think that Jesus was a divine creature but rather a gifted exceptional person like buddha ?”
I tried for the longest time to think of myself as just a very liberal Christian of some kind. Told myself, okay, I think probably there’s a supreme being of some kind, but I think Jesus was just a really cool guy, not the son of God or anything like that. That put me somewhere in the Unitarian-Universalist camp. But a lot of people think Unitarians are not Christians because “Christian” by definition, means believing Jesus is the son of God. No Christ, no Christian, period. I thought about getting into buddhism at some point, but never did. Finally I had to admit that no school of thought involving the supernatural is going to work for me. It was a very relucatant admission, made only to myself, because being an atheist is just not acceptable where I come from (well, it might be, but frankly, I’m afraid to find out).
Posted by Damon on September 22, 2007 at 8:12 am
That’s not my opinion, but Jesus’ declaration in John 6:44
What kind of response is “that’s not my opinion, but Jesus’ declaration?” Isn’t it amazing? They KEEP quoting from the Bible, even though they conveniently consider portions of it to be allegorical. How did you go from literal creationism to intelligent design?
We can’t cherry-pick what we want to believe from the Bible Dan. It’s either all the inspired Word of God or it’s not.
Again, I’m left with the same bitter pill in my mouth after reading the last 2 posts. Evidence is cited from the bloody chapters of the Bible to once again remind/warn me that I need to believe (can I just say it without believing it?) in Jesus/God or I’m going to hell (as if I haven’t studied this all before). Ironically, these Christians also profess to love me simultaneously (that is of course until I get sent off to hell for non-belief, despite my reputation as an outstanding global citizen, while the true believers get to watch my torments up from heaven with God, uttering “I told you so.” )
I’m really starting to believe the following about human nature:
“One of the very many connections between religious belief and the sinister, spoiled, selfish childhood of our species is the repressed desire to see everything smashed up and ruined and brought to naught. This tantrum-need is coupled with two other sorts of “guilty joy,” or, as the Germans say, schadenfreude. First, one’s own death is cancelled – or perhaps repaid or compensated – by the obliteration of others. Second, it can always be egotistically hoped that one will be personally spared, gathered contentedly to the bosom of the mass exterminator, and from a safe place observe the suffering of those less fortunate. Tertullian, one of the many church fathers who found it difficult to give a persuasive account of paradise, was perhaps clever in going for the lowest common denominator and promising that one of the most intense pleasures of the afterlife would be the endless contemplation of the tortures of the damned. He spoke more truly than he knew in evoking the man-made character of faith.”
Posted by Dan on September 22, 2007 at 9:42 am
Damon,
I quote scripture because my opinion doesn’t really matter. What mattersis what God has spoken through the inspired written word. No Christian in heaven will ever adopt an “I told you so” attitude, for that is sin and in that Kingdom, there will be total freedom from even the presence of sin, not just the power of sin that lurks behind such hateful attitudes.
I went to intelligent design because there are professing non-believers in God who also believe in some sort of intelligent desogn. It seems many have concluded that there is just to much order and complexity in just our universe for it to have been by an initial big bang and well, the rest of that story. It isn’t just the Christians, to whom you refer as “they” (hasty generalization and not very tolerant). I would have expected more from one who claims superior intelligence to the poor unenlightened Christians.
Sir, I respect your right to believe anything you choose to believe and have not attempted to persuade, prosyletize, or otherwise demean your beliefs. Your hostility and disdain seep through your verbiage. Any further discussion on my part would undoubtedly be met with the same, therefore I will wish you well and pray that whatever hatred drives you would somehow be soothed by God’s love and that He would open your spirit to His truth.
John Shore,
It is to you I apologize for dishonoring your blog space.
Posted by Dan on September 22, 2007 at 9:55 am
Damon, I fear the bitter pill is from the pharmacy of your own poisened and sour spirit. I am truly sorry you feel you need to disparage Christians and just lump us all together with the hasty generalization revealed by your use of “they” and “them”. I expected more from someone professing an intelligence level so much higher than the unenlightened millions of believers (not ‘them’ again!)
I quote scripture to keep personal opinion out of it and stick to the truth I believe. I moved to intelligent design becasue there are many who, while not believing in ‘God’, have concluded that there is just too much order in our universe for it to have been some sort of cosmic accident followed by any sort of mere evolution.
Since our little discussion is at an end, I will wish you well.
John Shore, I apologize for using up yuour blog space.
Posted by Damon on September 22, 2007 at 11:07 am
Dan – how very Christian of you to refer to my soul as “poisoned” and “sour.” If you want to exchange insults, I have plenty.
“I quote scripture to keep personal opinion out of it and stick to the truth I believe.”
What a joke. It’s by your own free-will to render “scripture” the “truth.” Proof again that Christians can’t think for themselves. There’s a reason you won’t find “true believers” at the Cancer Research Institute. It’s a pity that brain-dead fools, infected by their own stupidity and blind faith, have voting power.
Posted by John Shore on September 22, 2007 at 11:11 am
No problem. I think you guys all did a great job here. Everybody’s tone has been respectful; everybody’s done a really good job of articulating their thoughts and feeings. Really, it’s kind of an HONOR to have this level of discussion going on here. But, yeah, I totally understand anyone sort of backing out at this point.
It’s been great, though.
Let’s do a Commentators’ Reunion sometime. Be fun. Have punch. Spiked for the non-Christians, unspiked for the Christians.
Oh, wait. That IS one thing we all have in common: Booze Love.
Cool.
One of the first Christian jokes I ever heard as a Christian was when this older couple from the Presbyterian church I started going to after my conversion took my wife and I to dinner. They ordered wine, and I said something about how kind of surprised I had been to learn how comfortable Christians were with drinking.
“Well, you know the old saying,” she said. “Whenever four Presbyterians get together, there’s a fifth.” I thought by “fifth,” she meant the Holy Spirit. NOT! Totally funny.
Posted by John Shore on September 22, 2007 at 11:13 am
Um. Post #99 came in AS I was writing post #100 above.
Sigh…
Posted by Bertrand on September 22, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I just want to say to -30- I was raised in a Greek orthodox enviroment (like damon) and these people not only cinsider atheists to be wrong but also catholics and protestands. I hated the dogmatism and the superstitions of this religion so I turned to be an atheist. And although i get sometimes harsh reactions I don’t mind because I know who has the better arguments in a debate. So I just wanted to ask where you come from and to say that maybe you should consider being the one that “breaks the ice” by actually telling those people why you don’t believe…
Godd luck I guess you will need it.
Posted by Bad on September 22, 2007 at 2:39 pm
“Dan Cartwright – September 21, 2007
Moral law requires a moral authority.”
That’s simply absurd. Either rape is wrong or it isn’t. If it’s only conditionally wrong based on whether or not God exists or says this or that, then there is no real morality: “good” is just a synonym for “doing what God says” but that has no moral weight of its own. Nor would it make any sense to call God good” it would be a meaninglessly circular definition at that point.
Morality and moral laws aren’t like legislation. It’s a false analogy to think of them that way.
Posted by -30- on September 22, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Bertrand, I was raised Presbyterian in Oklahoma City. Very Bible Belt.
Posted by Dan on September 22, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Any law has something behind it that makes it a law. If something is a crime based on law that says it is a crime someone/some institution has declared that thing a crime. It is the same with moral law – it requires an authority, a moral authority. Why is it absurd to say that if ther are moral laws there are probably moral authorities. God can be considered a moral authority. If I don’t believe in God but still believe something is moral or immoral on what authorith do I base my ‘moral’ consideration?
Posted by Bertrand on September 22, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Dan I do not believe in God. I also do not kill people. I think murder is wrong for numerous reasons. First I wouldn’t anyone to come and kill me
or any of my family or friends. Second it is better for society if people don’t just kill eachother bat settle their differences in a civilized way. But even if someone killed a member of my family I would not wish him death. A lifetime in prison is a more appropriate sentence. So as you see I do not need god to have moral considerations. But I find it very weird that many christians are pro death sentence. Doesn’t that contradict to the whole message of your religion.
Further if we accept god as the only true moral instance then why not adopt the islamic sharia ? it’s god law isn’t it ?
Posted by Dan on September 22, 2007 at 4:10 pm
You think murder is wrong. Where did you learn that? You are talking about moral law. If you came to the conclusion by yourself, you are your own moral authority on that one. If someone else instilled that tidbit in your mind, that someone else is the moral authotity behind it. What moral standard do you suggest we use to determine criminal and civil legislated law? If everyone sets his/her own standard we will have a huge problem. What secular body should be our moral authority if we deny God the opportunity? The ACLU? Congress? The courts? Or do we just deny any moral authority and do away with a system of laws to govern society? Why not, since modern man is so enlightened. Why do some people behave in a civilized manner and others do not? Who sets the moral standard? Everyone behaves according to some standard.
Posted by Damon on September 22, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Dan – when did you learn slavery was wrong? I’m sure you’re aware, as a Biblical scholar, that God deems slavery a justifiable institution.
Posted by Bertrand on September 22, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Dan
“What secular body should be our moral authority if we deny God the opportunity? ” , here in middle europe where I live it’s the parliament and the courts yes. Do you find this problematic somehow ? I feel well living in a secular state.
“Who sets the moral standard?” , you seem unable to grasp the fact that humans are able to differentiate between right and wrong. I f I indeed need some “authorities” opinion on an ethical matter then I ‘ll read Aristotle , Plato , Kant or some other philosopher or ask proffessor of ethics or a lawyer. But I am confident that I can decide for myself that murder or rape or stealing is moraly wrong.
Can’t you ? Do you need the bible to tell you ?
“Why do some people behave in a civilized manner and others do not? ”
That has to do with them being unable to control their agressive urges coming from the unconcious.
Ok that’s enough fr today I m off to bed now.
Posted by Andy Christensen on September 22, 2007 at 8:23 pm
According to the Genesis account our rebellion resulted in us having the knowledge of good and evil. We are all aware of it. Our sinful desires for money, power, status, etc pull us away from what is good, but we are aware of it.
God is the source of life. We can love because he is the source of love. He is good and his way of thinking, being, speaking and acting defines goodness. You can call it a circular statement but I believe it is a necessary assumption, otherwise we end up saying that goodness is not real in an absolute, abstract sense but only in a contingent, practical sense. So what, you may ask? So, the government/party/faction/individual with the most followers/firepower/might would get to decide what good is, which I cannot accept.
God alone is perfectly good; we have a knowledge of good and evil which is distorted by our sinful desires. Without a spiritual rebirth we know what we should do and are never quite able to do it. With God all things are possible.
Posted by Damon on September 22, 2007 at 8:27 pm
So, the government/party/faction/individual with the most followers/firepower/might would get to decide what good is, which I cannot accept.
So you’d rather the Bible were the final authority on moral issues? You’ve read the Bible right?
Posted by Andy Christensen on September 22, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Is slavery wrong? Very good question. I happen to think not. Or authoritarian (non-democratic) government? They had both in New Testament times. I haven’t done an intense study of this, but there doesn’t seem to be an obvious injunction against either. I think the latter is wrong for us Americans and for those people who want democracy; for those who have no great desire for it and have no experience with it, it may be better in a contingent, practical sense for them to stay with authoritarianism, for the time being at least.
Perhaps one could argue that economic realities in the Mediterranean world 2000 years ago meant it was better in a practical sense (not an absolute sense) for there to be slavery. Certainly the slavery that was inflicted upon people in recent centuries was not better, in any sense, for those people.
There is a difference between absolute good and what is good for a particular people at a particular time. In regard to the latter, what is most important to God is whether our motives and actions bring credit or discredit to him. “Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.” (Eph 6:7-8)
Posted by Andy Christensen on September 22, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Sorry, I meant to say, I happen to think slavery is not ok; that it is wrong!
Yes, I think the Bible should be the final authority on moral issues, and I have read it.
Posted by Dan on September 23, 2007 at 4:14 am
There is a very objective study/discussion of slavery and the Bible here:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/slavery.html
It begins:
If there is anything in the Bible that makes modern people nervous, it is its treatment of slavery. Slavery is humanely regulated in the legal portions of the Old Testament, and in the epistles of the New Testament slaveholders are exhorted to show kindness to slaves, but nowhere in the Bible is there anything which can be interpreted as a disapproval of the institution as such. People of our generation, Christians included, tend to have a very hard time with this, because it seems to amount to a tacit approval of the institution, and we balk at the idea that God did not consider the institution itself to be immoral.
Hoprfully thst will whet literary appetites.
The larger issue at hand is using the fact that it exhisted as an excuse to declare God evil and deny his existance. One can use any number of things that exist in our current world as one’s favorite excuse to deny God, from man generated evils to natural disasters. The ALL are a result of SIN that entered God’s creation when the first humans willfully disobeyed their creator. God has permitted the manifest results of original sin to be on display since the FALL but one day all things will be made new and restored to its created state, at least according to scripture.
The point I make now is that all of the excuses we use to try and deny God and all the methods we use to try and take His Name from the public square are, in the end totally vain and useless. There is an inner knowledge that God exists in all of us. Perhaps that is where our innate ability to choose good over evil comes from. It had to start somewhere! I suspect that if the Ten Commandments had a human author we would not mind them over the courthouse door, nor a matter of discussion.
Here’s another question:
Why would the same school that prohibits our students to discuss God and Christianity have in it’s curriculum the requirement for elementary school children to perform skits revolving around the pillars of the Muslim faith under the topic of history? Why are the tenets of Christianity not allowed in all fairness? What are we afraid of?
I’ll leave it at that. Everything else has been said before. The Bible also tells us that the things of God are spiritually discerned and mere human comprehension can’t get close to understanding. The Bible also says that the wisdom of men is foolishness to God. We hate that, don’t we? It also states, in serveral places, that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. That’s another one that slaps us in the face when we rise up in our human arrogance against the Lord of the universe.
Posted by Bad on September 23, 2007 at 6:20 am
“There is an inner knowledge that God exists in all of us.”
So you say. But then, anyone pushing for their dogma can claim the same. And you know, deep in your heart, that I’m right, don’t you?
“I suspect that if the Ten Commandments had a human author we would not mind them over the courthouse door, nor a matter of discussion.”
Maybe if the Ten Commandments didn’t contain commands and rules that are blatantly unconstitutional or declare that one god is true, they wouldn’t be so controversial in places of government, which are supposed to be impartial to all and not have any special authority over anyone’s religious beliefs or lack of them. As it is, those who try to get them hung are basically acting like junkyard dogs, trying to mark their territory.
Posted by Bad on September 23, 2007 at 6:27 am
“Any law has something behind it that makes it a law.”
That is true for legislatively created laws. But the analogy is false when it comes to what we all mean by moral law.
“If something is a crime based on law that says it is a crime someone/some institution has declared that thing a crime.”
Yes, but someone declaring something a crime cannot make that thing immoral. It either is or it isn’t. That’s why morality is different from “legal” law.
“It is the same with moral law – it requires an authority, a moral authority.”
How? Can you explain how, say, rape is “made” immoral? What is the process by which this is done? Do you know? How can you claim this is even a sensible or unintelligible idea if you cannot explain such a basic thing?
“Why is it absurd to say that if ther are moral laws there are probably moral authorities.”
Because that’s simply equivocating between two different senses of the word law, and trying to apply the logic of one to the other. It’s as silly as saying that because a person’s body is pear shaped, that they must be a fruit.
“God can be considered a moral authority. If I don’t believe in God but still believe something is moral or immoral on what authorith do I base my ‘moral’ consideration?”
Again, the whole concept doesn’t make sense. You could sensibly believe that God is an authority in the sense of being an expert on what is or isn’t moral (though this still isn’t much help, because the problem of whether or not God is trustworthy or you have the right God or whether there is any God is just as daunting). But authority in that sense isn’t what you’ve argued, and regardless, that authority still rests wholly on there being some explanation as to why something is immoral that doesn’t just rest on the say-so of someone, even God.
Posted by Bad on September 23, 2007 at 6:41 am
Andy Christensen, you’ve got it basically right at the beginning.
I know you can tell a long story about why you think literally anything God does to anyone is justified, but none of that really helps your case, not even if I believed a word of it or thought it made sense.
You are still willing to let people face what you believe to be eternal suffering or annihilation based purely on whether God at his whim decides to convince people to believe something or not… without speaking up against that state of affairs. In fact, you even seem to think it’s a good thing. That’s horrifying in the worst way. It’s like if my neighbor smilingly told me that their son had murdered my son and they did nothing to stop it because boys will be boys. It’s stunning: it’s like looking into the face of evil.
Like I said, heaven is the ultimate bribe, and hell the ultimate punishment: no SELFISH calculation would EVER pick hell over heaven.
Only someone motivated by love or moral duty would possibly ever stand up to God and say that what is being done is wrong. That’s why I just don’t think that when someone who believes what you believe claims to “love” other people, the word doesn’t really mean anything close to what I’m familiar with as being love: not the love that would motivate a parent to die to save their children. Not the love that would motivate someone to give up everything they have to save someone else.
The word “love” in your context sounds far more like the two big muscular guys walking into someone’s store an telling the owner that it would be a real pity if anything were to happen to all their nice stuff, and that maybe they should think about purchasing some protection from the boss.
Posted by Andy Christensen on September 23, 2007 at 8:45 am
Bad,
We have gotten so used to this mixed up world that we think it is ok.
We are used to good and evil coexisting. It was not always this way and will not always be this way.
But if we take, as our starting assumption, that this world is ok as it is and we are ok as we are, then God, if he exists, should leave us alone, and maybe do a little more to help us out. There is no reason why he should do otherwise. And for him to bring destruction on us would be a grave injustice to say the least.
But if we take, as starting assumptions, that we are not ok as we are, and that God is perfectly good, everything changes. Then, the end state must be that God, being good, quarantines evil — everything good is on one side of the divide, and everything evil is on the other side, cut off from everything good, separated from God.
How did our world get to be the way it is? We chose it. Why did God let us chose it? Because He is not interested in having a bunch of androids who are unable to do anything wrong or anything other than what is programed into them. Why doesn’t He just zap us and make us ‘be good’? Same reason.
We are not the store owner being victimized by a thug demanding protection from his criminal violence. We are the criminal standing before the judge who says, “If you say you are truly sorry for what you did — and don’t think you can fool me because I happen to be able to read your mind — I will acquit you and also put you in a rehabilitation program guaranteed to change you for the better. If not you will go to jail.”
You mentioned the love that would motivate a parent to die to save their children. God came to Earth as a man and was physically killed so we could be acquitted.
But He will not impose it on us. It is our choice. Jesus said, “Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me.” (Rev 3:19-20)
Posted by Damon on September 23, 2007 at 10:29 am
Hey Dan and Andy – believers in the ultimate moral authority of the Bible. Here’s just a tidbit of what you seemingly approve of.
Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
Kill Witches
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
Kill Homosexuals
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
Kill Fortunetellers
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Death for Hitting Dad
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Death for Cursing Parents
1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
Death for Adultery
If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)
Death for Fornication
A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
Death to Followers of Other Religions
Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
Kill Nonbelievers
They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)
Kill False Prophets
If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, “You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord.” When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)
Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. “The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
Kill Followers of Other Religions.
1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
2) Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
Death for Blasphemy
One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD’s name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother’s name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD’s will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, “Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD’s name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD’s name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)
Kill False Prophets
1) Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, ‘Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,’ do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)
2) But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.’ You may wonder, ‘How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?’ If the prophet predicts something in the LORD’s name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)
Infidels and Gays Should Die
So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God’s death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT)
Kill Anyone who Approaches the Tabernacle
For the LORD had said to Moses, ‘Exempt the tribe of Levi from the census; do not include them when you count the rest of the Israelites. You must put the Levites in charge of the Tabernacle of the Covenant, along with its furnishings and equipment. They must carry the Tabernacle and its equipment as you travel, and they must care for it and camp around it. Whenever the Tabernacle is moved, the Levites will take it down and set it up again. Anyone else who goes too near the Tabernacle will be executed.’ (Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)
Kill People for Working on the Sabbath
The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: ‘Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.’ (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
Let’s see if you can’t interpret that?
Posted by Dan on September 23, 2007 at 4:44 pm
http://www.the-highway.com/law2a_Wenham.html
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/cap-pun.html
http://www.twopaths.com/faq_CapitalPunishment.htm
http://www.thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/99798.qna/category/th/page/questions/site/iiim
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1974
http://www.geocities.com/a_christian_conservative/index.html
http://web.telia.com/~u15509119/ny_sida_6.htm
http://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html
http://www.biblestudyguide.org/articles/capital-punishment.htm
http://erlc.com/article/capital-punishment-overview-article-on-capital-punishment
http://egracebiblechurch.org/capunish.htm
http://206.135.15.32/answers/acapital.html
Posted by Dan on September 23, 2007 at 4:47 pm
No interpretation needed. God instituted capital punishment for certain offense.
Posted by Andy Christensen on September 23, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Yes, when God brought the nation of Israel out of Egypt he gave them very strict regulations; there was a death penalty for a lot of things related to disrespecting God or the priests, or wrong actions in relationships with others, as you noted. Two things: 1) we all deserve to die anyway for our sin, 2) these things were for the Israelites, not everyone. God had a strategic purpose in forming the Israelite nation and placing them where he did. [God speaking to Moses] “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” (Exodus 19:5-6). If Israel did EVERYTHING God said, God would give them total security and prosperity and make them a nation that would draw the rest of the world to Him. They had to be perfect, at least ritually, to play this role and have this life.
Of course, it didn’t work out. One of the lessons I think God teaches us through the experience of the Israelites is that we can’t be perfectly good through our own effort. If any people could have done it, it would have been Israel; they had everything going for them.
God had a strategic purpose for Israel, and he has a strategic purpose for the church today; similar in some ways, different in others. We are to spread the good news about Jesus. He said, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28.19-20) If Christians were supposed to uphold the Levitical law, that would have required the rapidly growing numbers of people becoming Christians after the death of Christ to go around killing vast numbers of people, which would have violated Jesus’s commands and defeated His purpose for us. Jesus commanded us to turn the other cheek (Mt 5:39). And he said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Matthew 5:44-45) Paul said, “To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:21-22)
Those things you mentioned did not stop being wrong, but we are not to put people to death for them. God does not change in His essential nature, but He changes the way He interacts with us depending on how we respond to his initiative.
The passage you noted from Romans 1 does not call on us to kill anyone. Paul was prefacing the good news in his letter to the believers in Rome by backing up his assertion in verses 18-20 that we have all gone astray by providing two concrete examples of sin: idolotry (21-25) and sexual immorality (26-32). If we go on to Ch. 2 we see this: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” (Romans 2:1)
Our example for our attitude and actions is Jesus. There is an episode in His ministry that touches on this subject. “And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?” But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and they went to another village.” (Luke 9:52-56) Jesus came not to destroy people’s lives, but to save them.
Posted by Dan on September 24, 2007 at 2:05 am
“Those things you mentioned did not stop being wrong, but we are not to put people to death for them. God does not change in His essential nature, but He changes the way He interacts with us depending on how we respond to his initiative.”
Good point. God is perfectly just. ALL sin deserves the death penalty, however God is merciful. Rom 6:23. You can trade in the death penalty for eternal life.
Deal or no deal?
Posted by Dan on September 24, 2007 at 3:40 am
There is the agonizing question of how can we have a God of love who is also a God of wrath against ALL sin and unrighteousness. We can understand how a human father can punish his child. Then again, there are places where you cannot lay a hand on an unruly and disobedient child. Perhaps God knew that if stiff punishments were not meted put, his children (the Israelites) would return to the pre-flood state marked by so much sin that God destroyed much of His creation.
Much of today’s western society is based on a dangerously false assumption of human nature – that we are all born good and all that is needed is to baby, coddle, pump up self-esteem and everything will be allright. That erroneous philosophy drives the appeasers of terrorists who seem to think they can be negotiated with and will change their goals. It didn’t work with Hitler, did it? The Bible, the book athiests despise, clearly says that we are NOT born good and in fact, need divine help to even choose God (John 6:44 – again).
Sadly, there are many who would remain in denial if designer burkas are sold in Nieman and Marcus here and in the KDV on the Kurfurstendam in Berlin.
Posted by Michael L. Duke on September 24, 2007 at 4:48 am
I think it all boils down to one thing for the non-believers. I ain’t going to give up my “control” of my intellect, lifestyle, or anything that makes me want to think about the “afterlife”. And I must say, rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ because we “can’t prove He exists” when every athiest I’ve ever seen in my 56 years of living always says, “Oh God, God_____” etc. I never hear an athiest say, Oh, Aristotle, Pernicus, Osama Bin Laden or whatever when they get torked. Its always, God this or God that. And we christians are suppose to just say, “Right on brother.” By the way, why say biblical phrases when God doesn’t exist in your minds? Narrow, I think ye may be Brutus…
Posted by Damon on September 24, 2007 at 7:07 am
“That erroneous philosophy drives the appeasers of terrorists who seem to think they can be negotiated with and will change their goals. It didn’t work with Hitler, did it? The Bible, the book athiests despise, clearly says that we are NOT born good and in fact, need divine help to even choose God (John 6:44 – again).”
More excuses to justify the commandments of a bloodthirsty and power-obsessed deity.
Yes – people are born good. Religion corrupts them.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 24, 2007 at 7:20 am
Michael, I have sad news for you. God is in total control of His universe, including you. It is only by His common grace that He allows you to exist in your arrogance.
Damon, I see you have chosen to believe a lie. I will leave you both with a section ofr scripture from the book of Romans I know you don’t want to hear, but you need to know where you are headed.
16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.” 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen.
That is my final word on the subject, lest I continue to engage in “vain disputations” (KJV for ‘useless arguments’)
Posted by Chris Morse on September 24, 2007 at 7:23 am
“And I must say, rejecting the gospel of Jesus Christ because we “can’t prove He exists” when every athiest I’ve ever seen in my 56 years of living always says, “Oh God, God_____” etc. I never hear an athiest say, Oh, Aristotle, Pernicus, Osama Bin Laden or whatever when they get torked. Its always, God this or God that. And we christians are suppose to just say, “Right on brother.” By the way, why say biblical phrases when God doesn’t exist in your minds?”
We covered this before, Michael. Nice and very polite, by the way, implying that atheists would shout “Osama Bin Laden”. You shouldn’t forget that he’s a religious believer.
But anyway…saying the words “god” and “jesus” only tells us that those words are a part of our society and have entered the vocabulary.
When I say “Oh god” I am no more expressing a belief in god than I am asking god to damn something when I say “god damn”. If I went around saying “Oh Zeus” it wouldn’t mean I believed in Zeus or that he existed, would it?
Visit the Middle-East. There won’t be any references to god, at least not yours. Does that make your god any less likely to exist? Does it make their’s more likely?
Posted by Chris Morse on September 24, 2007 at 7:25 am
Dan, I’m not sure if anyone has told you this, but it’s worth a shot. You may get better responses from people if you speak what you think, rather than just quoting verses.
Just a thought,
Posted by Bertrand on September 24, 2007 at 7:36 am
Andy
“Those things you mentioned did not stop being wrong, but we are not to put people to death for them.”
Well thank you for being so merciful with us (I ‘m a nonbeliever so I deserve death according to the bible). You know besides biological evolution there is also moral and cultural evolution. And people like you seem to be equally afraid of both because it means letting go of ancient, conservative, cruel, inhuman ideas and adopting new ones for the sake of a better society. It’s your right to stick with obsolete biblic morality
but really do you think you can convince others that this is the right way ?
dan, your whole parent child argumentation points to the right direction, man invented god using himself as a model. Parents who beat their children to death also claim that they do it “out of love” do you believe them ?
Let’s suppose that the “original sin” hypothesis is true. Suppose a baby dies suddenly after it’s birth because of an infection. It has not been baptized hence it is still a “sinner” (this has happened thousands of times). Well that poor baby will be tortured in hell for all eternity just because God was so kind to create viruses.
dan, what is your strategy when dealing with terrorists who keep hostages ? send rambo in ? You are apparently forgetting that most western goverments have policy not to negotiate with terrorists (ex. germany and afganistan kidnappers)
Michael, I am an atheists and I have thought very much about death and what hapens at that momment. I will know for sure only when the moment comes but unlike you I will not be dissapointed if i do not see God or Satan or whatever.
Also your argument that god must exist because most people say Oh God is indeed very convincing. But there must also exist some (minor) deity called “f***” and one called “Son of a *****” and many many others.
We atheists usually use biblical verses to show you how wrong it is.
Narrow ?
Posted by Damon on September 24, 2007 at 7:47 am
What these Biblical literalists are ignoring is that people read these versus and apply them forcibly. Witches, gays, Jews, and other non-believers were burned at the stake, slavery was rampant, wars flourished, and the world remained cloaked in ignorance at one time. “Interpretation” implies that killing an atheist is Biblically justifiable (even today). Wouldn’t you agree? And if continue to say that the Old Testament is no longer applicable, why do you still believe in Creationism or cite the Old Testament at all?
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 24, 2007 at 9:55 am
Good point Chris, but If I stick to what I think it probably wouldn’t generate ‘better’ responses, whatever that means – epecially when the object of a couple of self professed athiests is not intelligent discourse but to prove ‘their point’. In any event, what I think is wrapped up in the references provided. Also it’s the ‘word of God that is more powerful than a two-edged sword, even to the dividing asunder soul and spirit’, not my opinion.
Those that have no desire to see outside of their preconcieved notions will remain forever blind. I don’t take anything personal either, although there is sufficient reason to do so. Hatred toward God always manifests itself toward those who believe that He is.
Posted by Bertrand on September 24, 2007 at 10:18 am
Dan ,
“Those that have no desire to see outside of their preconcieved notions will remain forever blind”
… a very acurate decription of yourself indeed.
“Hatred toward God always manifests itself toward those who believe that He is.”
…um how can I hate something that in my opinion doesn’t exist ?
Mr.Shore I kind of miss the olive branch ….
Posted by Chris Morse on September 24, 2007 at 11:04 am
I would just to point out that I, like Bertrand, don’t hate god. I just don’t think a god exists.
Now, I will admit I dislike some christians. And some muslims. And some jews…etc, etc… I also dislike some atheists. But I don’t hate god. I reserve any of the little hate that there is in me for things that I believe exist.
Forgive me for not being specific Dan. What I meant was, you will receive better responses if your intent is to learn from and understand atheists. Some will respond negatively no matter what, but most of us will be much more willing to speak and discuss things with you when we’re not being preached at.
I also say this because I don’t find the writing in the bible to be all that powerful. Some of it certainly is beautiful, but not a lot. Maybe I’m biased in my non-belief, but I’ve always preferred Shakespeare to the bible.
But anyway…if your intent is to understand us, you’re not going the right way about it. If your intent is to convert us (or facilitate god converting us)…which it seems like you may be trying to do…it doesn’t seem terribly convincing either.
Just saying.
Posted by Bad on September 24, 2007 at 11:18 am
Andy.
I’m not making particular assumptions about people being good or even worthy. But no one, not a single soul, is worthy of eternal torment or annihilation merely because they do not believe one particular story over another. That’s barbarous no matter what elaborate tale you tell about how we humans are really offensive, despite the fact that most people are, in my experience, pretty decent in any case: not one is “deserving” of torments. If your God demands perfection from beings such as human beings, who have the capacities and abilities that God supposedly created them with, then God is simply insane, which is frightening.
I wouldn’t even send Hitler to hell, or allow Hitler to suffer even if he wanted it. Doing so is not moral, not perfect, and not acceptable. When you say that God is both morally perfect, and has things set up this way, you either speak a contradiction or “moral” is just an empty menaingless word to you that means only “whatever barbarous thing my boss desires is what I’ll go along with”
“We chose it. Why did God let us chose it? Because He is not interested in having a bunch of androids who are unable to do anything wrong or anything other than what is programed into them. Why doesn’t He just zap us and make us ‘be good’? Same reason.”
This is really a completely different issue, but I guess I should point out that I find it to be just as nonsensical. The two concepts you are pushing here don’t make any sense together: we can’t both be able to choose AND all bad in such a way that we can’t simply have been created to choose good in the first place: these just aren’t compatible ideas: they refute each other. The whole concept of free will is a vacuous excuse that makes no philosophical sense (for one thing, it’s completely incompatible with moral responsibility: how can someone be responsible for their actions if their actions have no cause specific to the sort of person they are?).
Besides, what’s going to happen after death, in heaven? Will we all be robots THERE? Or will we be sinful in heaven? If there is some “rehabilitation” process that fixes an inherent flaw, whose fault is it that that flaw exists in the first place? And is God a robot, since he is by nature always good? If God is both omnipresent and yet cannot tolerate the prescence of sinful imperfect beings, that’s got to be a bit of a major and constant dilemna for him, no? And if he can tolerate us as we are now, what’s the big deal in the first place? The number of huge gaping problems, self-contraditions, and incompatibilities with this story is almost incredible.
“You mentioned the love that would motivate a parent to die to save their children. God came to Earth as a man and was physically killed so we could be acquitted. ”
Again, I can’t see how you can believe that makes any sense whatsoever. God turned himself into a man, had himself killed, and now he feels more forgiving than he did before? Why, I know when I’m feeling outraged by evil, a good suicide always cheers me right up, but I don’t quite see the logic for God. Human blood sacrifice is, in fact, a pagan concept, not a Jewish one, and in Judiasm, which Christianity supposedly comes out of, there is no need for a human sacrifice in any case: forgiveness is already available. And in any case, sin sacrifices are the most trivial in Judaism, not the most important.
“But He will not impose it on us. It is our choice.”
As I noted, no person who actually knew for sure that it was a choice would possibly ever choose eternal torment over eternal bliss. The ONLY coherent reason why someone would not do the things that it is claimed lead to heaven over hell are because they do not have a good reason to believe that actually situation exists, or they don’t understand what it entails. In short, NO ONE knowingly chooses it. Ever. If it exists, it’s a means of punishing people for ignorance, not moral failings. That’s even more grotesque.
Like I said, all of this makes so much more sense if it is a test of true moral love. Those who believe in God, and yet truly care about others instead of their own selfish interests will refuse to go along with the theological situation you describe: they will face hell in order to stand up for what’s right. Those who will not will be revealed as moral cowards: the sort of people who refused to hide the Hutu from the genocidal Tutsi.
Luckily, as I said, I don’t believe any of this in the first place.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 24, 2007 at 11:50 am
So BAD, how did you decide what’s moral and what is not? What is your moral standard? Yourself because you are so enlightened and intelligent? You are a more evolved human than us unenlightened Christians?
Of course you can’t understand us, since we are talking about spiritual matters and you are handicapped by only having the wisdom of the world that is foolisness to God, who chose the oolish things of the world to confound the wise.
“If your God demands perfection from beings such as human beings, who have the capacities and abilities that God supposedly created them with, then God is simply insane, which is frightening.”
. . . God sent His son to live a perfect life and take our punishment.
BTW did you know that the resurrection of Christ is one of the most attested to and documented facts of history?
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 24, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Chris,
I am not sure what you mean by ‘understand you’ I understand well your arguments for your unbelief. I respect your right to believe whatever you wish. ‘m sorry you think I am preaching to you. I do not consider sharing quotes from data sources ‘preaching’. However since you can’t hear my ‘tone of voice’ it’s easy to see why you might think that. It we were talking face to face I am sertain you would not feel that way, unless the very words quoted from scripture caused you to feel that way. that has been known to happen. Quote Buddha without a fuss. Quote Muhammad without a fuss. Quote God and get some flack – big time. Why do you suppose that is?
Posted by Damon on September 24, 2007 at 12:26 pm
So BAD, how did you decide what’s moral and what is not? What is your moral standard? Yourself because you are so enlightened and intelligent? You are a more evolved human than us unenlightened Christians?
How do you decide what’s moral?
You have to ask yourself some fairly obvious questions. Why are the least religious countries also the wealthiest, healthiest, happiest, and best educated? Do Swedes need God to treat each other with civility and respect? Are France and Norway’s high birth rates, pro-family legislation, and extensive maternity leave irreconcilable with its corresponding pro-gay family policies? Why is crime and divorce statiscially lower in more liberal and progressive Blue State America than in the pious South? Does Tokyo need Jesus to post some of the lowest crime rates in the urban world? Why is there no Harvard in Kansas or Alabama? Conversely, the hyper-religious Muslim world suffers from the worst rates of violence, poverty, intolerance, and technological backwardness. Is this a coincidence? Is it not possible that their hostile treatment of women, coupled with a rigid belief system which suggest that all life-related questions are answered in the Koran and an obsession with the after-life, prevent their societies from harnessing their creative abilities and talent?
What about scientists Dan? 93% of scientists do not believe in a personal God. Are they immoral? Are they part of this vast anti-religion conspiracy when they publicly voice their support of evolution, a biological basis for homosexualtity, the benefits of stem cell research, and the need to vaccinate women against HPV? Do they have an agenda? If so, what would that be? Are they biased or subscribe to a particular ideology? As far as I’m concerned, scientists are simply curious about the nature of the world, make observations, formulate hypotheses, and test their veracity. Do you agree? They could care less what religion claims. They are in the pursuit of truth, not defending fairytales like Creationism, Noah’s Ark, or the Tower of Babel. Those same scientists who cure diseases, alleviate famines, and make daily discoveries certainly do not fit the profile of immoral heathens who are out to “get religion.” Can you imagine what our world would look like today without that human curiousity which so many Bible-believing Christians call Satanic temptation? And plus, if science had conversely proven anything in the Bible, you can bet that Christians would be applauding the scientific community and embracing their conculsions with almost hysterical enthusiasm.
You don’t need religion to teach you about morality.
Posted by Damon on September 24, 2007 at 12:31 pm
“I am not sure what you mean by ‘understand you’ I understand well your arguments for your unbelief. I respect your right to believe whatever you wish. ‘m sorry you think I am preaching to you. I do not consider sharing quotes from data sources ‘preaching’. However since you can’t hear my ‘tone of voice’ it’s easy to see why you might think that. It we were talking face to face I am sertain you would not feel that way, unless the very words quoted from scripture caused you to feel that way. that has been known to happen. Quote Buddha without a fuss. Quote Muhammad without a fuss. Quote God and get some flack – big time. Why do you suppose that is?”
Dan – you can’t possibly respect someone’s belief system if you believe they are going to hell for them, can you? Also, I don’t think you’re understanding something. Atheists do not believe in the supernatural – that includes Mohammed or Shiva or Zues or Thor of any “deity.” No one. If you quote the Koran to support your position on say, the origins of humanity or the right way to treat prisoners of war, I’ll laugh at you. I certainly don’t respect your beliefs at all – I believe they are responsible for a lot of evils and wrongdoings in the world. I also wouldn’t expect you to respect mine.
Posted by evanescent on September 24, 2007 at 12:45 pm
I appreciate the sentiment of this article and the author, but there is an insipid condescending attitude underlying it all.
The difference between holding a cure or being able to genuinely save someone’s life is that you can point to what you have and point to what the threatened person needs and reason with them.
The irony with all this is that religion has nothing worthwhile to say.
If theists really want to reach out to atheists, it’s really really really simple! Present evidence of god! Do what NO theologian has done in the history of the world and provide an argument for god. Or ask god to, just once, speak up and tell us he exists in no uncertain terms.
Theists trying to get atheists to understand and believe is like trying to convince us that Zeus or the Easter Bunny exist. If you really have the evidence to justify the arrogance to claim that atheists need saving, present it!
Peace to all.
Posted by Chris Morse on September 24, 2007 at 1:52 pm
“Quote Buddha without a fuss. Quote Muhammad without a fuss. Quote God and get some flack – big time. Why do you suppose that is?”
Because we live in a country in which many (probably not most) of those who believe in the Christian god want to force everyone to follow their beliefs, whether they want to or not. If we lived in a country where the Buddhists were the majority and many of their number wanted to force their beliefs on us, you would get the same response to Buddhist quotes and scriptures.
Define what you mean by fuss. Also, quote some Muhammad to me, and I’m pretty sure I won’t agree with that any more than I agree with the bible.
“BTW did you know that the resurrection of Christ is one of the most attested to and documented facts of history?”
I know you were talking to me, but I couldn’t let this float by. The existence of Jesus might be well attested and documented. His resurrection was not. His believers state he did, but that doesn’t mean he did.
Were there doctor’s present? Did they test to see if he was actually, completely dead? Do we really know if the man who they spoke to after Jesus’ death was really Jesus? They say it was, but they are hardly unbiased, are they?
Just some thoughts.
Posted by Dan on September 24, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Have you taken an honest objective to any scholarly work concerning the proof of the resurrection? There is a lot out there. I guess you could call this a challenge.
Posted by Chris Morse on September 24, 2007 at 3:43 pm
I have. Not in over a year, so I’m sure I can always go back.
The question I asked myself when I looked at the claims of the resurrection was, “If this happened today and people made the same claims that they are making here, would I believe them?”
The answer would inevitable be no. Because this happened two thousand years ago, all we have is writing on paper written by believers, and painfully little of it written around the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived.
You could argue the same is true of other historical figures, and you’d probably be right. Which is why I believe Jesus probably existed. But I don’t think he was resurrected.
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 25, 2007 at 9:06 am
Chris,
In you are interested in researching it more, one of the best explanations/discussions I’ve found is at:
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm
He presents the possibilities and detailed discussions around each. He makes a pretty case. . .
Posted by Damon on September 25, 2007 at 9:47 am
Dan,
Peter Kreeft’s assessment hinges on the valid historicity of the Bible. Perhaps you should read a book called “Jesus for the Non-religious” which looks at a wide spectrum of historical sources to understand Jesus’ life and death. Here is a very brief assessment of what it says:
http://www.spiritualityandpractice.com/books/books.php?id=16822
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 25, 2007 at 11:54 am
Damon,
I’ll check it out. . .
Not just the historicity of the Bible (and only partly its historicity), but he also speaks of other notable writers/historians/sources as well: Barnabas, Clement, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Puadratus, Justin Martyre, among others. He relies on Roman history/practices/ customs and debunks popular objections to the resurrection being tru with pure logic.
BTW, This particular piece by Kreeft
Posted by Dan Cartwright on September 25, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Sorry about that, I forgot to delete that last bit of my last post. I’ve also previosuly done research about John Spong, the author of the book you mention. He trashes just about everything Christianity is based on, while having the audacity to name himself one. He does have nerve though – comparing himself to Martin Luther……..
Posted by Tim Kurek on September 25, 2007 at 9:08 pm
A science professor begins his school year with a lecture to the students, “Let me explain the problem science has with religion.” The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand.
“You’re a Christian, aren’t you, son?”
“Yes sir,” the student says.
“So you believe in God?”
“Absolutely.”
“Is God good?”
“Sure! God’s good.”
“Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?”
“Yes.”
“Are you good or evil?”
“The Bible says I’m evil.”
The professor grins knowingly. “Aha! The Bible!” He considers for a moment. “Here’s one for you. Let’s say there’s a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?”
“Yes sir, I would.”
“So you’re good…!”
“I wouldn’t say that.”
“But why not say that? You’d help a sick and maimed person if you could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn’t.”
The student does not answer, so the professor continues. “He doesn’t, does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?”
The student remains silent.
“No, you can’t, can you?” the professor says. He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.
“Let’s start again, young fella. Is God good?”
“Er…yes,” the student says.
“Is Satan good?”
The student doesn’t hesitate on this one. “No.”
“Then where does Satan come from?”
The student falters. “From God”
“That’s right. God made Satan, didn’t he? Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?”
“Yes, sir.”
“Evil’s everywhere, isn’t it? And God did make everything, correct?”
“Yes.”
“So who created evil?” The professor continued, “If God created everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil.”
Again, the student has no answer. “Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?”
The student squirms on his feet. “Yes.”
“So who created them?”
The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his question. “Who created them?” There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized. “Tell me,” he continues onto another student. “Do you believe in Jesus Christ, son?”
The student’s voice betrays him and cracks. “Yes, professor, I do.”
The old man stops pacing. “Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?”
“No sir. I’ve never seen Him.”
“Then tell us if you’ve ever heard your Jesus?”
“No, sir, I have not.”
“Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus? Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for that matter?”
“No, sir, I’m afraid I haven’t.”
“Yet you still believe in him?”
“Yes.”
“According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn’t exist. What do you say to that, son?”
“Nothing,” the student replies. “I only have my faith.”
“Yes, faith,” the professor repeats. “And that is the problem science has with God. There is no evidence, only faith.”
The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of His own. “Professor, is there such thing as heat?”
“Yes,” the professor replies. “There’s heat.”
“And is there such a thing as cold?”
“Yes, son, there’s cold too.”
“No sir, there isn’t.”
The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain. “You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don’t have anything called ‘cold’. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can’t go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458 degrees.”
“Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.”
Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom, sounding like a hammer.
“What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?”
“Yes,” the professor replies without hesitation. “What is night if it isn’t darkness?”
“You’re wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it’s called darkness, isn’t it? That’s the meaning we use to define the word.”
“In reality, darkness isn’t. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn’t you?”
The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will be a good semester. “So what point are you making, young man?”
“Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.”
The professor’s face cannot hide his surprise this time. “Flawed? Can you explain how?”
“You are working on the premise of duality,” the student explains. “You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought.”
“It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.”
“Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?”
“If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do.”
“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.
“Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?”
The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion has subsided.
“To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, let me give you an example of what I mean.”
The student looks around the room. “Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor’s brain?” The class breaks out into laughter.
“Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor’s brain, felt the professor’s brain, touched or smelt the professor’s brain? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.”
“So if science says you have no brain, how can we trust your lectures, sir?”
Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his face unreadable.
Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. “I guess you’ll have to take them on faith.”
“Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with life,” the student continues. “Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?”
Now uncertain, the professor responds, “Of course, there is. We see it everyday. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.”
To this the student replied, “Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.”
The professor sat down.
Posted by Morse on September 26, 2007 at 5:10 am
Thanks Tim…but this was no more convincing than when I read it on a Chick Tract.
Posted by John Shore on September 26, 2007 at 5:33 am
What’s a “Chick Tract”?
Posted by Morse on September 26, 2007 at 6:13 am
From wikipedia: “Chick tracts are short comic-style tracts created by American publisher Jack Chick. Chick tracts are often controversial for their enthusiastic endorsement of fundamentalist Christianity and condemnation of other religions, including Catholicism.”
I don’t know if Tim’s post was a direct quote from a Chick tract, but there is one an awful lot like it…with an evil science professor losing a debate with a pure Christian student.
Posted by Tim Kurek on September 26, 2007 at 7:18 am
Funny that none of you actually respond to the post itself as much as you just criticize it from a distance. Yes it is simple, almost like a chick tract, but it has several good points that none of you can dispute.
http://UriahMinistries.wordpress.com
tim kurek
Posted by Bad on September 26, 2007 at 7:21 am
As much as you would like to shirk it, you cannot escape the duty to judge: we all have to figure out what is moral and what isn’t: yourself included. It isn’t a matter of arrogance, it is an unavoidable reality of being a thinking being. You are no different at all: the only difference is that you simply refuse to acknowledge what you are doing: you neglect to acknowledge the step you must make when you judge whatever you believe is God to be good, and thus to trust that belief in that particular God.
Any clever, self-sealing ideology, could claim the same: you don’t see that I’m right because you can’t. Bwahahaha!
Really now, though: is that tactic and accusation anything more than lame? If you had a good argument in the first place, you wouldn’t have to resort to comforting yourself with the fact that you are right because you have some sort of special mystical insight that others do not.
Posted by Bad on September 26, 2007 at 7:24 am
Tim: no, it’s doesn’t have any particularly good points. The story is a an exercise in building a straw man and then knocking it down again.
I could make up a similar story in which I feature a character named “Timk Urek,” whom I portray as an arrogant fool whose silly claims are shot down by a bunch of sincere believers. Would that convince you of anything?
It’s pretty easy to claim victory when you can make up both sides of the conversation.
Posted by bert rand on September 26, 2007 at 7:34 am
Tim ,
I actually posted a comment where I explained why the arguments of that “brave” student are wrong wrong and maybe “not even wrong”.
I posted it several hours ago but it seems that it is either caought in some spam filter or that I am somehow being sencored here ….
maybe john can find it and put it in place.
Posted by Morse on September 26, 2007 at 7:41 am
Well Tim, because I’m at work I only have limited time to respond, and so this comment gets it:
“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
“Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a preacher?”
Have you ever seen an atom split? No? Then how do you know it happens? If you’ve never seen it, it must be scientific. So all those nuclear warheads are nothing to worry about, correct?
That being said, you CAN see evolution happen. When we breed dogs, or scientists watch the generational change in fruit flies, or you receive a flu shot every year because the virus has evolved to adapt to our immune system.
Beyond that, we know evolution happens because that is what the evidence points to. If new evidence presents itself, we will go in that direction. If you come up with a better explanation for the existing evidence, we will also go with that.
If evolution is ever shown to be completely wrong, it will be scientists who do so.
Posted by Morse on September 26, 2007 at 7:46 am
(Correction of my last post: “If you’ve never seen it, it must NOT be scientific.)
Posted by bert rand on September 26, 2007 at 7:57 am
Ok I can’t wait for the lost comment to ressurect from the dead so I write a new one.
Tim , “it has several good points that none of you can dispute.” , wanna bet ?
First of all the main logical argument of the student is that here exist no relative or complementry ideas just absolute ones. So there is no evil because evil is just the absense of God because God is Good. Well this may look convincing but it’s actually a tautology. Counter example : Peace and war. You can say that war is the absense of peace but would you really claim that war does not exist ?
To backup up this argument he uses examples from physics and there he really messes up.
1) Heat is the amount of energy exchange between 2 bodies caused by temperature differences. It is not an absolut quantity that a single body has. But it is well defined and measurable. Cold is a common word and not a physical quantity. But when comparing 2 bodies of different temperature you can always ssay which is hotter and which is colder. He also confuses heat with temperature saying that it can’t be negative. Actually it can.
2)” It (he means science) uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one”
Wrong, wrong ,wrong. First of all we can measure electromagnetic fields and yes we have understood them pretty well just google “maxwells equations” and “quantum electrodynamics”.
Also recall that ordinary light is also an electromagnetic field.
3)“Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?”
Typicall creationist argument we have debated a lot about this one here. The answer is : large time scales
4)”So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, with all due respect, sir.”
my favorite from the whole story, that’s not even wrong . I guess the professor should be glad that no psychopath atheist was in the room who would break his head just to show that he has a brain.
Tim maybe if you wanna make a point here you ll use your own arguments or a better story
Posted by Damon on September 26, 2007 at 9:32 am
Indeed a very unconvincing story. The fact remains – there is no proof of God and there never will be. There is tons of proof for evolution (we witness it in our lifetime: Galapagos bird experiment, Industry Revolution monarch butterflies in the UK, mutating viruses, a human tailbone, appendix, male nipples, flightless birds, whales hind leg bones, lunged fished fossils, feathered dinosaurs, etc. etc.) If we’re able to witness it within our own measely lifespan, imagine what it looks like over billions of years. Evolution is fact – scientists (except those employed by the biased, pro-Christian Discovery Institute) are in agreement. Evolution, more than any other fact of life, severly weakens the argument for a living, personal God. Which is why so many Christians don’t want to learn about it , reject it, and rely on “faith.” If you rely on faith alone, don’t pass off Intelligent Design as good science, since its based on mere “faith.” Furthermore, if you can rely on that same “faith” to explain the origins of man, then certainly you can rely on the same “faith” to cure you from diseases instead of science.
Posted by John Shore on September 26, 2007 at 9:36 am
Is there any chance I could get you guys to move this exchange … well, anywhere else? Like, to one of your blogs, maybe? Or, if you don’t have a blog, maybe you could START one, and continue there? I’d appreciate that. Thanks.
Posted by Bad on September 26, 2007 at 9:44 am
Evolution is fact – scientists (except those employed by the biased, pro-Christian Discovery Institute) are in agreement.
Well, to be fair to religion, those employed by the “biased, pro-Christian” Catholic Church also agree that evolution is good science, as do many religious people.
Posted by Bad on September 26, 2007 at 9:45 am
Sorry John, didn’t see your request before posting. I’d be happy to stop if that’s what you want. I should also point out that wordpress allows you to close comments on a particular post if you don’t want people yammering it up to each other more than you please.
Posted by John Shore on September 26, 2007 at 9:45 am
Um … I’m sorry: Was I not clear? I’d like this comment thread to please cease now.
Posted by Damon on September 26, 2007 at 9:46 am
That is true – doesn’t it make you wonder why Rome believes that God failed to perfect “his creation” the first time and required a little nudge from Mother Nature (evolution)? Some designer!
Posted by John Shore on September 26, 2007 at 9:47 am
No sweat. Thanks. You know, I couldn’t figure out how to DO that with WordPress. For the life of me, all I could find is a place where they told you you COULD do that–and then no information as to how. I searched throughout my options until I my eyes were pulsating. Weird. I guess I’ll go look again…?
Posted by samanthamj on September 26, 2007 at 9:57 am
John –
You go in like you are going to edit the page… someplace, there should be a sidebar or options for things other than the main content to edit. In my case, it’s a sidebar on the right. There should be a tab that says “Discussions”, open it… and uncheck “allow comments”.
VOILA!
~smj
Posted by John Shore on September 26, 2007 at 10:08 am
Yeah, but there’s no way I can see to only stop comments on a single posting. Everything I see (and have done) tells me that if you try and stop comments on one post, you stop them on all.
Posted by John Shore on September 26, 2007 at 10:09 am
Oh, wait: I see. Go in as if I were editing the page. Lemme open that up, and see what I find…
Posted by John Shore on September 26, 2007 at 10:11 am
YEAH, BABY!! Awesome. That totally worked. Samantha, I owe you Actual Cash. Sweet! Okay, so I’ll leave this comment-enabled for a bit more, and then that’s IT! AX TIME!!
Thanks for advice on this. Who knows how much more time I would have wasted slogging through the WordPress forums and so on.
Posted by Morse on September 26, 2007 at 10:15 am
Before you do close up, anyone and everyone is welcome to go to my humble blog and argue about evolution.
Sorry if we’ve overstayed our welcome John.
Posted by John Shore on September 26, 2007 at 10:17 am
No, no: It was fun. It’s just that… well, you can tell it’s now officially Going Nowhere, and its participants are down to two or three. It’s like a party that’s just … over. But it was a fantastic party! I loved it!
Posted by Sabina on September 26, 2007 at 1:19 pm
I loved it too eventhough I didn’t comment. Best blog dialog I’ve seen. Thanks
Posted by John Shore on September 26, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Perfect way to end it. Thanks Sabina–and to you all.
Posted by #1 Christian Website Hacked By Atheist! « Suddenly Christian on December 30, 2007 at 11:15 pm
[...] But look! Even I myself have written a fair number of pretty pro-atheist postings, such as, “Atheists! Incoming Olive Branch!” And Crosswalk featured that posting–and others I wrote in that same vein. Please [...]
Posted by An Open Letter to Crosswalk.com’s Atheist Hacker « Suddenly Christian on December 31, 2007 at 7:14 am
[...] But look! Even I myself have written a fair number of pretty pro-atheist postings, such as, “Atheists! Incoming Olive Branch!” And Crosswalk featured that posting, and several others of mine like it. That’s nice [...]