Dear Atheists,
On behalf of evangelical Christians everywhere, I would hereby like to apologize for ever, in any way, insisting that atheists should become Christian. The reason it’s wrong for us to insist upon that isn’t because we don’t think it an excellent idea for atheists to convert to Christianty. It’s wrong (we now see) because communicating that to atheists cannot help but be righteously offensive to them. And offending people isn’t exactly the shortest path to in any real way communing with them, is it?
We see that now. We’re totally sorry we didn’t see it sooner.
We certainly get angry enough when you atheists tell us why we shouldn’t believe in God, don’t we? So of course it’s unreasonable for us not to expect you to get at least as angry at our insisting that you should believe in God. Duh. Of course that’s how you’d respond to that. What were we thinking?
Please understand that what we were, in fact, thinking, is that we love you. The Big Push behind our insisting that you need to become Christian is that we don’t want you to go to hell. As you know, we believe an eternity in hell is the fate awaiting anyone who dies without first believing in Jesus Christ. We don’t want that to happen to you. We don’t want that to happen to anyone. So we try to save you, see, by … well, being pretty completely obnoxious to you.
Our bad!
Please don’t think of us as shallow, egotistical, intolerant, intrusive, overbearing, smug, judgmental, hypocritical power-mongers. Try instead to think of us as people who genuinely care about you, and are only trying to stop you from suffering in a way that we believe you will suffer 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 sincerely apologize for all the times and ways that we’ve turned what we only ever really meant as an expression of love for you into something that we now understand you couldn’t have possibly received as that.
Furthermore, 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 (believe it or not) we, too, hold of dear and paramount value. We’re actually huge proponents of rational thought—a fact that we know too often gets lost in the media storms occasioned by our, shall we say, less personally constrained brethren. 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 us all sharing the same world, and all.
Additional Reading in Christian Issues...
- From hell to Crazy Town
- They’re here; they’re queer; they’ve plenty to fear: LGBT students form secret club at conservative Christian university [now including updates]
- When evil is serious, it reaches for a Bible and cross
- Guest post: “A Good Week to Hate Christians”
- From gay-hating fundie to righteously angry lesbian. Now what?
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 167 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
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…?
Thanks Tim…but this was no more convincing than when I read it on a Chick Tract.
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.
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……..
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
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
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. . .
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
"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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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 ….
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.
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?
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 ?
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,
"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?
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')
"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.
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.
"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?
No interpretation needed. God instituted capital punishment for certain offense.
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
{ 1 trackback }