First we must keep in mind the difference between scientific evidence and historical evidence.
Scientific evidence is subject to logic, and is repeatable. It forms the basis of the "hypothesize and test" methodology.
Historical evidence is something from the past. It may be nanoseconds or centuries, but by the time you know about it, it's past. As such, it is subject to witness. Until modern times, that witness was largely human. And the most durable witness was the written word (verbal tradition being subject to drift). Human witness is flavored by the individual. Written documents are fragile, and must be copied from the depths of time to be available to us today.
First let us brainstorm some possible sources of evidence for God and Christianity:
- The Bible
- Miracles
- Creation
- Changed lives
- Religious experiences
In my opinion, number 1 is the most convincing evidence. I read a lot. Mostly science fiction. Science fiction covers a wide array of settings (one of the reasons I like it). You'll find mysteries, romance, and adventure stories. Really good sci-fi will create a subtle and intriguing universe by presupposing one or more changes in society (usually technological). It is then up to the author to apply these changes in a consistent manner. The best books will be fairly successful in this attempt. The best of the best will write several books.
What does this have to do with the Bible?
The Bible also presupposes a change from most people's point of view. The idea that there is a God who created everything, and who has interest in what we do (as opposed to a deist notion of God). The Bible contains history of God's interaction with people, and people succeeding and failing in obeying God. The New Testament is a particularly powerful set of stories detailing the life of the God/man - Jesus Christ. And letters circulated in the early church.
Then consider that the Old Testament was written over the period of hundreds of years, and the New Testament over several decades. The total number of authors is in the dozens. Different cultures and languages. Yet one coherent story.
No single book can compare with the Bible (in terms of units sold, interest, secondary material generated, etc.). The closest thing would be to compare a series of books, ideally a series with multiple authors (since the Bible has many authors). Most series just aren't that good. Tolkien's famous Lord of the Rings trilogy is honored for making fantasy popular. It reads like a linguist creating characters and a plot for people to speak his invented language. Rowling's Harry Potter series has managed to come close to rivaling sales of the Bible. We'll see how popular it is in a generation or two...
Those series have a single author. The only series I am familiar with that have multiple authors are the Star Wars and Star Trek franchises (not counting the romance lines). These series are pretty bad. Fans tolerate them because they are hungry for material. The Star Wars books are particularly bad (except for Zahn), because Lucas cares so little about canon. I remember a particular ordeal where a series of comic books made huge impact on the canon. Zahn then had to try and reconcile some of this silliness into his own books. I'll only mention the Star Trek television programs.
These are teams of people working together to create coherent content in a short period of time. When multiple authors are involved, there is at least some communication; and often a "lead architect" or content gatekeeper.
Yet these people can't create a coherent story.
19 comments:
Ned,
Great post. I think about the complexities and the interaction between the Old Testament and the New Testament and how it all points to Christ and realize that it has to be divinely inspired.
In regards to the other arguments for the existence of God, I've heard it explained that there is no real randomness in the universe. Everything has order. Everything can be explained. Some great intellect created this. (Design Argument)
Also, I've heard the arguments of faith from William James, "The Will to Believe (I really can't remember it fully as it's been 20 years since I've read it) where it basically says that we can believe through faith.
And then there's Pascal's Wager where he came to the concluded that it was more beneficial to believe that there is a God then that there's not--as the final outcome from both decisions was so drastic.
I like to imagine what life would be like with no God. Without God, there's no hope and there's no faith. Without God, there's no love. Love--true love cannot exist without Him. It would have no meaning. God gives love it's definition. Without it, it's me using her or her using me. It's all about what's the best benefit for me. It turns the individual into a god--seeking what's best for the individual and screw the rest.
For better arguments than mine, I'd refer you to Peter Kreeft who was a former Protestant that converted to Catholicism. He has 20 arguments for the existence of God--historical arguments that are not his which encapsulate it pretty well. You should read some of his other articles too. They're worth the read.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
theden,
The design argument? That's been pretty well handled. Pascal's wager? Surely you jest, since that's been pretty well handled too. But, what I really want to ask is why you think that there can be no hope and no love without god or why life would have no meaning without god? Why do you think that we have to toss out our morality (that's at heart what you are saying) if god does not exist. Do atheists behave like depraved people while Xians do not? I think we can safely say that that's not the case, so how do we explain that?
Why would we say, "Screw everyone else" if there is no god? We don't see this kind of behavior from other animals, especially our closest cousins, so why would humans act in a nature that is against our evolutionary nature?
nedbrek,
Do you really mean to contend that the Bible, which is full of contradictions, tells one coherent story? Do you think that the difference between the OT and the NT god is coherent? What about the fact that many gospels were not included, which means that many stories of Jesus are out there that don't tell things the way that the NT authors do? What about the argument by Ehrman that Luke used source material and wrote a story to portray Jesus as a different entity than the previous authors have? That wasn't the actions of one author trying to harmonize with the others, but trying to tell the story of a different Jesus, one that was more divine than human.
Finally, even if some historical pieces of the Bible are true (i.e. that such and such person lived, or that some battle took place) how does this constitute evidence for god? There is no contemporary evidence of Jesus existing, no writing from an eye witness. But, even if there were, how would the mere existence of a person named Jesus somehow provide evidence for god's existence?
What about the Greek myths? Aren't those rather coherent? Does this lend evidence to the existence of Zeus?
GCT,
Before talking about hope and love, I need to know what your understanding/definition of what they are. Let’s start with love. Can you please give me a definition?
Morality is a word that can also mean different things to different people. Like our discussion on right and wrong, it’s subjective. For me, the taking of an innocent child in the womb is immoral where you may not see it that way. Instead of immoral, I like to use words like “intrinsically evil” but I think that’s just my word choice. It doesn’t really change opinions.
Are there atheists who behave better than Christians? Probably. The way I would explain it is through Scripture in Romans 2:14-16 where Paul tells us that the law is written into a person’s hearts and they will be judged by Christ accordingly by how they follow that law.
Now, if they’re true atheists where they have rejected God (such as yourself) then at some point in their life, they MUST return to Christ anytime up to and including the moment of their death. Without turning to Christ, we don’t know of any other way to be saved (not saying that there isn’t another way as God can save anyone He wants.)
As for Christians behaving badly…all people have the tendency to sin and Christians are not exempt from that. Christians must be obedient to the will of Christ and only then do we not sin. Through disobedience we sin (like Adam).
Without God, there is no disobedience as there would be no law. Without God, an atheist would not have the “law written in their hearts” and could not judge accordingly what was good or what was evil.
Man is selfish. Man’s choices can be calculated. Man is bound by his choices to choose that which derives more pleasure for himself. The only free choice that we have is to choose God out of love for Him. EVERYTHING ELSE really is not free will.
If an atheist or a non-believer or maybe even a Christian performs random acts of kindness, then we should understand what motivated the behavior. I would think the motivation would be selfish--centering on feeling good about themselves more than anything else. In essence, as I’ve said before, they function on how to please themselves. i.e. they are their own god.
Ideally, we should be performing acts of kindness not on how we feel but because we love God and are obedient to His will and He calls us to do it. Feeling good about it is secondary.
GCT,
"Do you really mean to contend that the Bible, which is full of contradictions, tells one coherent story?"
You can't just say that without giving examples. Pick your favorite(s).
"Do you think that the difference between the OT and the NT god is coherent?"
If you read all of the NT (instead of cherry picking), it's clear that God the Father is the God of the OT (and the OT mentions Jesus and the Holy Spirit). Jesus talks about the coming judgment and Hell. He says He (Jesus) will judge, based on the authority of the Father.
Re. other gospels. Which ones? The gnostic gospels (Judas and Thomas) are from ~200 CE, about 150 years after the canonical Gospels.
Re. Ehrman. Luke admits in 1:1-4 that he is compiling earlier written and eye witness accounts. Each of the Gospel authors has a unique perspective. That's intentional. They give us different insights, and were written for different audiences.
Matthew was written for Jews. It assumes the readers have a deep knowledge of Messianic prophecy.
Mark was the first written Gospel. It was an attempt to quickly record Peter's account. It emphasizes Jesus as a man of action.
Luke writes for Gentiles. His account includes a lot of excellent historical and geographic information. It presents Jesus as the God-man (as you mention).
John has his own distinct flavor. His book is much more personal. It is full of eye witness touches.
Next. The "evidence" is not that the Bible describes something that happened. It is (as theden noted), the overall structure of the Bible. It's prophetic aspects, the weaving of "the crimson thread" of Jesus through the OT. Embarrassing tales of the apostles. How Paul's letters tie together with the others.
"There is no contemporary evidence of Jesus existing, no writing from an eye witness. But, even if there were, how would the mere existence of a person named Jesus somehow provide evidence for god's existence?"
Well, no evidence, except for the Bible and all the writings of the early church fathers, and the existence of the church at all...
There's more written evidence for Jesus than any other historical figure before, say, 1400. Do you doubt Julius Casar or Plato were real people?
"What about the Greek myths? Aren't those rather coherent? Does this lend evidence to the existence of Zeus?"
Ever watch a soap opera? Same thing. I want to say no one believes in Zeus, but I bet there is a small group somewhere... But no serious argument is made for them.
theden,
"Before talking about hope and love, I need to know what your understanding/definition of what they are. Let’s start with love. Can you please give me a definition?"
That's a good point. At dictionary.com we can find many definitions. The first two are probably good enough for this discussion:
"1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend."
There is another definition listed:
"12. the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God."
I would argue against this one as I don't see the Xian god as being benevolent at all.
Anyway, when speaking of the Xian god, "love" is generally (as I understand it) meant that god is omni-benevolent, that god intensely wants us to be saved and to live with him in heaven, etc. Is that your understanding as well?
"Morality is a word that can also mean different things to different people. Like our discussion on right and wrong, it’s subjective. For me, the taking of an innocent child in the womb is immoral where you may not see it that way. Instead of immoral, I like to use words like “intrinsically evil” but I think that’s just my word choice. It doesn’t really change opinions."
We can act as moral agents without god, however, with the common understanding that moral = what creates the most good - sloppy wording, but I think you understand what I'm saying. IOW, I can act towards the good of all without believing in a god or without there being one.
"Are there atheists who behave better than Christians? Probably. The way I would explain it is through Scripture in Romans 2:14-16 where Paul tells us that the law is written into a person’s hearts and they will be judged by Christ accordingly by how they follow that law."
I'd rather not get into a "fight" about whether Xians are more moral than atheists or vice-versa. I think we can both safely say that atheists and Xians are all humans and that some are more moral than others. The point is that the Bible or the Xian god (faith in) don't make anyone a more moral person, there is something else that makes some people more moral than others.
"Without God, there is no disobedience as there would be no law."
I disagree. Laws are written and instituted by men. We can certainly be disobedient to those laws and pay the penalty. We can also be disobedient to the collective culture and society that we live in and face punishment there as well. Humans evolved as social creatures (as are most other primates and mammals). Further, there need not be a god in order to understand why the golden rule is important. If I were to go around killing anything and everything simply because I wanted to or could, what's to keep someone else from doing the same to me? Because I value my life and my pursuit of happiness, I don't seek to take away the rights and lives of others. It's called empathy.
"Without God, an atheist would not have the “law written in their hearts” and could not judge accordingly what was good or what was evil."
Are you claiming that god has written on my heart what is good and evil and that I am acting on it even though I do not believe in god? Has god done the same for apes?
"Man is selfish. Man’s choices can be calculated. Man is bound by his choices to choose that which derives more pleasure for himself. The only free choice that we have is to choose God out of love for Him. EVERYTHING ELSE really is not free will."
I don't understand your statement on free will here. I don't agree that man is inherently selfish. I think that man has selfish tendencies, but man also has many tendencies that run the gamut from good to bad. A large reason why I find Xianity to be immoral is that it seems to teach that man is evil and only capable of evil. I find this teaching to be hateful.
"If an atheist or a non-believer or maybe even a Christian performs random acts of kindness, then we should understand what motivated the behavior. I would think the motivation would be selfish--centering on feeling good about themselves more than anything else. In essence, as I’ve said before, they function on how to please themselves. i.e. they are their own god."
Why should we not derive pleasure from helping others? I don't see this as a bad thing.
"Ideally, we should be performing acts of kindness not on how we feel but because we love God and are obedient to His will and He calls us to do it. Feeling good about it is secondary."
To me, this sounds like you are saying that we should commit acts of kindness because we are told to do so. I don't find this to be any more moral than doing it because we chose to do so, in fact quite the opposite. If I'm only doing it because some metaphysical entity has a gun to my head and requires me to do it in order to go to heaven, then I don't feel that I'm acting morally at all.
nedbrek,
"You can't just say that without giving examples. Pick your favorite(s)."
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible has tons of examples. I think many cases can be made in the gospels. Another is the contradiction of an OT god that is obviously not omni-benevolent to a NT to supposedly is, which is also contradicted in the NT especially in Revelation.
"If you read all of the NT (instead of cherry picking), it's clear that God the Father is the God of the OT (and the OT mentions Jesus and the Holy Spirit). Jesus talks about the coming judgment and Hell. He says He (Jesus) will judge, based on the authority of the Father."
The OT god is cruel, jealous, and petty. Is that how you think the NT describes god? If so, then how can you assert that god is omni-benevolent?
"Re. other gospels. Which ones? The gnostic gospels (Judas and Thomas) are from ~200 CE, about 150 years after the canonical Gospels."
There are actually many gospels and none of them are dated to the time of Jesus. 50 CE for the gospels is not accurate either. The earliest gospel was written closer to 60 CE at best and the rest were written much later. The earliest writings are actually the letters from Paul after underground groups had already formed, and Paul never claims to have met an Earthly Jesus.
"Re. Ehrman. Luke admits in 1:1-4 that he is compiling earlier written and eye witness accounts. Each of the Gospel authors has a unique perspective. That's intentional. They give us different insights, and were written for different audiences."
The point was that Luke wasn't trying to give us different insights per se. He was re-writing the story to the way that he thinks it should be. He wanted to replace the older accounts with one that he thought was more accurate and better.
"Next. The "evidence" is not that the Bible describes something that happened. It is (as theden noted), the overall structure of the Bible. It's prophetic aspects, the weaving of "the crimson thread" of Jesus through the OT. Embarrassing tales of the apostles. How Paul's letters tie together with the others."
Prophetic aspects? For instance? Besides, the overall structure of many tales fits just as well as the Bible. It's mostly a history book, where some unverified person allegedly said and did some unverified thing. Yet, there are still many problems.
"Well, no evidence, except for the Bible and all the writings of the early church fathers, and the existence of the church at all..."
Perhaps you missed where I said "contemporary". There were many writers at that time who would have mentioned such incredible things happening, but no one did. All the writings of the Bible and the early church fathers all came after Jesus, when the legend could have been cemented. And, I fail to see the mere existence of the church as any sort of evidence. By that logic, then you'd have to concede that there is evidence for many religions.
"There's more written evidence for Jesus than any other historical figure before, say, 1400. Do you doubt Julius Casar or Plato were real people?"
We have historical accounts from contemporaries that attest to the existence of those figures. We don't have that for Jesus. If I write something now that says that Jesus existed, does it mean that he did? Of course not. Writing well after the fact - up to 1600? c'mon - is usually classified as hearsay.
Even so. I said that even for the sake of argument, had Jesus existed, it would still not be evidence that your religion is correct or that god exists.
"Ever watch a soap opera? Same thing. I want to say no one believes in Zeus, but I bet there is a small group somewhere... But no serious argument is made for them."
That no one believes in Zeus doesn't mean that Zeus exists anymore than that people believe in god means that god exists. You are making a category mistake here in thinking that your beliefs are somehow validated simply because you hold them and they happen to be similar to the beliefs of others. Just about everyone used to believe the world was flat, yet that didn't make it so. There might not be serious arguments made for Zeus, since Zeus has fallen out of favor as the myth du jour, but that doesn't mean that the evidence for Zeus isn't just as good as the evidence for Jesus. That we recognize that Zeus doesn't exist but most don't recognize their own god is based on no more evidence than Zeus was is a common human trait of ... well there are a few going on. Most don't want to go against the tide, and religious thought has been the norm for so long. Most also are born into it and it is indoctrinated into them to the point that they do not wish to question it. There's also the human fears of death and mortality that come into play, etc. The bottom line is that there is a distinct lack of evidence for Yahweh's existence, just as there is for any other god that is believed in or was previously believed in. I've seen no evidence from you so far, but I'm hopeful that you will be the first to present something to the world.
GCT,
I think those definitions of love from dictionary.com are weak. A “tender/passionate affection” sounds like “like” and not love. It’s the Hallmark model of love and it’s not what love is. Love is not affection. Love is not a “feeling.” When I say I love my wife it doesn’t mean I’m attracted to her. Quite honestly, I think that a huge problem with society is they throw around words like love and don’t have an understanding of what it means—and when I talk about love, I mean the “agape” love not Philios or Eros.
What is love?
God is love. God is pure love and to love someone is to pour yourself out for that person. Why? So you can bring them to God. To love someone is to show them Christ. To love someone is reveal God’s love to them. Why? Because you love them and you love God. Without God, love cannot exist because God is love.
Christ gave Christians a mission. To evangelize the Gospel and to bring other people to God. To sacrifice yourselves in Christ so that others may live. That’s love and that’s what we’re called to do. We’re called to bring our spouses, our children, our brothers and sisters, our parents, our friends and our enemies to God. We’re called to show them Christ in our hearts. Not to judge them. Not to evaluate if they’re “saved” or not. But to deliver the message of Christ to them that they so desperately need to hear.
God died. He died for you. He died for me. He wants all of us to partake in His glory. He wants us to be one with Him through His Son. He wants it so badly that He died for us. That’s not affection. That’s pain and suffering at our expense. That’s love.
The worldly definition of love is weak and leads to weakness in relationships. “I thought I loved her but things got stale and someone else came around and she’s better looking!” Yeah right!
“We can act as moral agents without god, however, with the common understanding that moral = what creates the most good”
How do you know what is good and what is evil? I can’t do it without God.
“We can certainly be disobedient to those laws and pay the penalty. We can also be disobedient to the collective culture and society that we live in and face punishment there as well.”
The only reason a person is obedient to the laws of man is to avoid paying “the penalty.” Man does not want to face punishment so that encourages obedience. This is not what I’m talking about. Disobedience to God separates us from Him. Not because He punishes us but like the Prodigal Son, we move out. We walk away to a far off land. He doesn’t have to punish us. Sin enslaves us. We become slaves and soon we wallow in the filth of our sins.
“ If I were to go around killing anything and everything simply because I wanted to or could, what's to keep someone else from doing the same to me?”
This is exactly what I’m trying to explain. Man won’t kill another man not because of empathy but because of selfishness. Man derives more pleasure from not killing. Man realizes that if he kills another man, he may be killed himself. Therefore, man chooses that which is most beneficial to himself…not killing other men. Why? Because man is trying to avoid his own death. Selfish.
“Are you claiming that god has written on my heart what is good and evil and that I am acting on it even though I do not believe in god? Has god done the same for apes?”
Absolutely!!! All other animals conform perfectly to God’s will. They cannot sin because they were not given free will. A lion stalks a gazelle. Why? Because that’s the way God designed a lion. Animals are instinctual. God gave them that instinct and they act accordingly. Animals cannot make a decision that goes against their design. A fish cannot live outside of water to protest against God for making him that way. The fish would die. If an animal goes against the plan of God, they will die…but they can’t. Man is different. Man can choose to go against God’s design. If they do, they die. It’s part of God’s plan that you breathe. God has willed and given you the grace to breathe. In theory, you can choose not to breathe. If you do, you’ll die.
“A large reason why I find Xianity to be immoral is that it seems to teach that man is evil and only capable of evil.”
I don’t think you did a thorough study of Christianity. I think you learned a form of Christianity from a denomination that was not fully grounded in the Truth and you found holes in their logic that you can drive a truck through. As you know, I’m Catholic and for the first 27 years of my life, I tried to find the flaws in the Catholic Theology. I studied it looking for errors and then finally came to the conclusion that the Catholic understanding of Christ and Christianity is bulletproof. Catholic theology is very complete and very beautiful. I’m not talking about Purgatory or indulgences or veneration to saints or Mary. That’s small stuff—and yes, I can argue that too but really don’t want to. I’m talking about this stuff. It’s beautiful and very well thought out.
Man is not “only capable of evil.” Man is God’s greatest creature. Man—all men and women regardless of their faith—is beautiful. Why? Because God created man and he did it perfectly. He was created in His image and likeness. Man is inclined to sin as a result of Adam’s sin. It’s Adam’s sin that makes man selfish. However, God has given man a choice. Choose God or choose himself.
“To me, this sounds like you are saying that we should commit acts of kindness because we are told to do so. I don't find this to be any more moral than doing it because we chose to do so, in fact quite the opposite. If I'm only doing it because some metaphysical entity has a gun to my head and requires me to do it in order to go to heaven, then I don't feel that I'm acting morally at all.”
Your metaphysical gun to the head still shows selfishness. We don’t choose God because He has a gun to our head—which He doesn’t. We choose God because we love Him. Not out of fear of damnation or for assurance of salvation. Your mentality is similar to a child who is motivated out of fear that his parents will beat him. That’s not it. If that's what you were taught then that's clearly bad theology. A child should be motivated because he loves his parents. Not out of fear of a beating or for some kind of reward. It’s purely out of love.
"What is love?
God is love. God is pure love and to love someone is to pour yourself out for that person. Why? So you can bring them to God. To love someone is to show them Christ. To love someone is reveal God’s love to them. Why? Because you love them and you love God. Without God, love cannot exist because God is love."
What support do you have for this? I fail to see how a god that kills people and sends them to hell can be love personified. Regardless, I can agree to the definition that love is "to pour yourself out for that person [the object of your love]." I do not see how god does this. Nor do I see how if I love someone that I necessarily bring them to god or Christ or how I reveal god's alleged love. I do not love an entity that I do not believe exists (it's actually rather impossible) so you seem to be devaluing my ability to feel love for another. Are you really saying that non-Xians can not feel love?
"Christ gave Christians a mission. To evangelize the Gospel and to bring other people to God. To sacrifice yourselves in Christ so that others may live. That’s love and that’s what we’re called to do."
I'm not sure how that is love. Please explain how evangelizing is love. How do you sacrifice yourself in Christ, considering that your evangelizing is how you gain your eternal reward in heaven (at least part of it, right?) That seems not like a sacrifice, but like a chore done for a reward.
"We’re called to bring our spouses, our children, our brothers and sisters, our parents, our friends and our enemies to God. We’re called to show them Christ in our hearts. Not to judge them. Not to evaluate if they’re “saved” or not. But to deliver the message of Christ to them that they so desperately need to hear."
How does one love those who "so desperately need to hear?" I love my gf not because I desperately think that she needs to change, but because of who she is regardless of her supposed flaws.
"God died."
How did a perfect, omni-max god die? That is contradictory.
"He died for you. He died for me. He wants all of us to partake in His glory. He wants us to be one with Him through His Son. He wants it so badly that He died for us. That’s not affection. That’s pain and suffering at our expense. That’s love."
What pain and suffering could an omni-max god experience? How did his dying do anything for me? He died so that he could convince himself to forgive us? That does not make any sense. Why did he have to die? What did his death do for you, me, or anyone else? Why couldn't god simply forgive us for our supposed trespasses (that I should point out he causes us to do) instead of some elaborate scheme that ultimately leads to the same result?
"The worldly definition of love is weak and leads to weakness in relationships. “I thought I loved her but things got stale and someone else came around and she’s better looking!” Yeah right!"
There is nothing wrong with the definition of "love", but more with our understanding of the concept. Saying that "god is love" does not make our understanding of it any better.
"How do you know what is good and what is evil? I can’t do it without God."
Really? How does god help you in that regard? Do you really need god in order to determine that murder is evil? Can you not simply determine that you would not want one to murder you, so it would be wrong to murder another?
"The only reason a person is obedient to the laws of man is to avoid paying “the penalty.” Man does not want to face punishment so that encourages obedience."
This is a blanket statement that I'm sure you can not back up. Do you think that no one is honest except because they think god is watching? Of course not. You have, in essence, just called all non-Xians a bunch of liars and dishonest people. How dare you.
"This is not what I’m talking about. Disobedience to God separates us from Him. Not because He punishes us but like the Prodigal Son, we move out. We walk away to a far off land. He doesn’t have to punish us. Sin enslaves us. We become slaves and soon we wallow in the filth of our sins."
Truth is that he made us that way. We were moved out before we were ever born. How is that fair, just, or indicative of love? We were born in a state of rebellion, were we not? You never chose to rebel, but there you were anyway. And, god will punish you for that, yet it was god that put you in that state. That is not love, that is sadism.
"This is exactly what I’m trying to explain. Man won’t kill another man not because of empathy but because of selfishness. Man derives more pleasure from not killing. Man realizes that if he kills another man, he may be killed himself. Therefore, man chooses that which is most beneficial to himself…not killing other men. Why? Because man is trying to avoid his own death. Selfish."
Trying to avoid death is selfish? What? Not killing others because you understand the world around you and do not wish harm to yourself is the basis for the golden rule. There are those of us, however, who disbelieve and give to charity. I guess that is for selfish reasons too? Perhaps it is. I feel good when I give. Perhaps I should stop so that I won't feel good about it?
"Absolutely!!! All other animals conform perfectly to God’s will. They cannot sin because they were not given free will. A lion stalks a gazelle. Why? Because that’s the way God designed a lion. Animals are instinctual. God gave them that instinct and they act accordingly. Animals cannot make a decision that goes against their design. A fish cannot live outside of water to protest against God for making him that way. The fish would die. If an animal goes against the plan of God, they will die…but they can’t. Man is different. Man can choose to go against God’s design. If they do, they die. It’s part of God’s plan that you breathe. God has willed and given you the grace to breathe. In theory, you can choose not to breathe. If you do, you’ll die."
Well, this is rather convenient, is it not? By claiming (with no evidence) that even if I do something that is good, then it's only because of god, you can cover your bases for the plain fact that atheists are also moral people, just as much as Xians. The problem with this is that humans also have instincts, we simply have highly developed brains as well. The reason we breathe is not because god wills it, but because we require oxygen for life as part of our evolved respiratory system. Actually, if you try to hold your breath until you die, you will pass out and your body will start to breathe on its own. So, perhaps god didn't give us the free will to disobey either? Either way, we are animals just as much as the lion or the fish. Your comments on them are just as applicable to us, yet we humans tend to have high opinions of ourselves being created in the image of some perfect being and all.
"Man is not “only capable of evil.” Man is God’s greatest creature. Man—all men and women regardless of their faith—is beautiful. Why? Because God created man and he did it perfectly. He was created in His image and likeness. Man is inclined to sin as a result of Adam’s sin. It’s Adam’s sin that makes man selfish. However, God has given man a choice. Choose God or choose himself."
I have studied Xianity, thank you. I would like to point out that most Xians defend the doctrine of hell because 'we deserve to be there'. This is a far cry from a human that is "beautiful". In fact, we are going to hell unless we are saved. Why would we be slated to go to hell by default, however, if we were not evil? This is inescapable in the Xian doctrine. Saying that man is good, beautiful, or anything else is a semantic trick that is simply not true if you simultaneously hold that god will throw people in hell and that god is good/just.
"Your metaphysical gun to the head still shows selfishness."
That's the whole point. If I am only doing good because I am scared that god will throw me into hell, then I'm not really acting morally.
"We don’t choose God because He has a gun to our head—which He doesn’t."
What else would you call it? If you do not do what god wants, you go to hell.
"We choose God because we love Him. Not out of fear of damnation or for assurance of salvation."
I'm not talking about choosing god, I'm talking about being moral and doing good things. Your statements reflected that you would want to do good things because god has commanded you to, not because you felt a moral obligation to do right. This, as I pointed out, does not seem a moral position, because it leaves you in the position of doing things simply because you are told.
"Your mentality is similar to a child who is motivated out of fear that his parents will beat him."
No, that is not my mentality, that is the mentality that you seem to be advocating. You can say that you do it to love god, but that's just more word games. If you are only doing something to avoid hell or because god said to, then you are not acting morally.
"That’s not it. If that's what you were taught then that's clearly bad theology. A child should be motivated because he loves his parents. Not out of fear of a beating or for some kind of reward. It’s purely out of love."
I'm not saying that is what I was taught, I'm saying that is what you seemed to be expressing, and I'm not convinced that you still aren't. Certainly god, in the Bible, places a high premium on doing what he says without question. If this is to be the basis for our morality, then our morality is on shaky ground, because following orders to simply follow orders does not demonstrate morality. Even if we are following orders because we love god/our parents, this does not demonstrate moral thinking. It may be moral to love one's parents or love a god, but this is not the same as doing what is right and certainly not for the sake of doing right. If your child helps another child out with something, is it moral if the child only did it because you told them to do it?
GCT,
Reading your reply to me shows that you're not getting it and I can't explain it any better. I'm not going to answer most of your questions because quite frankly, I really don't think they're worth answering.
My definition of love comes out of Scripture. Not from a specific verse but from the ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT. It's what Christ did and said that points me to that Truth.
If you don't like my definition of love then give me a better one. Something that's more than mere affection out of dictionary.com.
You keep using words like morality when you haven't defined it. What's moral? How can you throw words around like morality and love when you can't even give me a valid definition?
Your understanding of Christianity is incorrect. You tell me "Most Christians..." where I know you're wrong as most Christians (at least the largest in number) are Catholic and Catholics don't believe what you're writing.
Christianity is not about being saved. Christianity is about loving God. The greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength. It's not to dwell on Salvation or to judge whether a person will go to Hell. That's not it. It's to love God and be obedient to Him in all things. To love your neighbor and to love your enemy. To come to Him when things are tough. To come to Him when things are going well. To come to Him EVERY DAY to thank Him and be with Him. It's to unite yourself to Him so that it's no longer me or you or Ned. It's Jesus Christ working through us. It's no longer my will but God's will as my will is conformed to His. If you do this, you will be saved but that's not the point. The point is to love God.
You say you love your girlfriend. I have no doubt. God gave you her. Your love for her points you to God. Whether you like that or not it does. Your love for her is a reflection of God's love for you. Your relationship with her is where you consider her wants and needs before your own. Your relationship with your GF should not be where one puts a gun to another's head. Your relationship should not be where one is using the other for personal gain. That's shallow and that's weak. That's not love.
You feel that you are freer without God. I'm telling you that your decisions are bound by your instincts. Yes, man is instinctual as designed by God. You breathe not from some random chance but because God breathes life into you--with every breath you take. Why? Because He loves you. He loves you more than you can possibly love Him back. He loves you more than anyone else on this planet. You can keep rejecting Him and He keeps calling for you. He wants you to be in relationship with Him. Whether you like it or not, you owe God everything because He gave you everything. All He wants is for you to choose Him freely. Not for salvation or fear of damnation but out of love for Him.
theden,
"My definition of love comes out of Scripture. Not from a specific verse but from the ENTIRE NEW TESTAMENT. It's what Christ did and said that points me to that Truth."
And what is that definition? That god is love? Do you understand that that doesn't really define anything? Some unknown, undefinable entity that may or may not exist is love? And, what assurance do you have that Christ did or said any of those things? What evidence is there for that? How can you claim that it is the truth, let alone the "Truth?"
"If you don't like my definition of love then give me a better one. Something that's more than mere affection out of dictionary.com."
I still fail to see why a profound emotional feeling for someone else is not enough for you. The definition was NOT simply mere affection as you put it, but profound and passionate. I've yet to see you put forth a definition of your own, however, that we can use. I can't accept your definition, because you've defined it as an otherworldly entity that we have no evidence of or real knowledge of, and is purported to be a mass murderer. If that is your idea of love and can not be defined in any other way, then I suppose we will have to be a loggerheads.
"You keep using words like morality when you haven't defined it. What's moral? How can you throw words around like morality and love when you can't even give me a valid definition?"
I have given you a valid definition for both. I grabbed the definition of love from the dictionary (it doesn't get more valid than that) and I defined morality as that which creates the most good. Perhaps you missed it? It was in the same comment as the one where I pulled out the definition of love. It's there. You might not want to accept that definition, but you should tell me why instead of simply claiming that I haven't defined anything.
"Your understanding of Christianity is incorrect. You tell me "Most Christians..." where I know you're wrong as most Christians (at least the largest in number) are Catholic and Catholics don't believe what you're writing."
For instance? If it's a case where you hold contradictory beliefs, like in the case of men being good but inherently sinful and needing salvation, then it's not my fault that those concepts are inherently contradictory. You'll have to pick which one you actually believe or defend how they are not contradictory.
"Christianity is not about being saved. Christianity is about loving God. The greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength. It's not to dwell on Salvation or to judge whether a person will go to Hell. That's not it. It's to love God and be obedient to Him in all things. To love your neighbor and to love your enemy. To come to Him when things are tough. To come to Him when things are going well. To come to Him EVERY DAY to thank Him and be with Him. It's to unite yourself to Him so that it's no longer me or you or Ned. It's Jesus Christ working through us. It's no longer my will but God's will as my will is conformed to His. If you do this, you will be saved but that's not the point. The point is to love God."
OK, I have no problem with that, but it doesn't change the fact that god demands obedience, not love. He might call it love and you might believe him when he says it, but it isn't. Else, he would not ask people to sacrifice their own children to test them (for just one instance).
"You say you love your girlfriend. I have no doubt. God gave you her."
Evidence please that god gave her to me. Nothing "gave" her to me. We met and developed a friendship which grew into a mutual trust and passionate affection.
"Your love for her points you to God. Whether you like that or not it does. Your love for her is a reflection of God's love for you."
Please explain. Both of us are atheists. How does my love for her and vice versa somehow reflect god's "love" for me?
"Your relationship with her is where you consider her wants and needs before your own."
And how is this the same as god's supposed love? god's love isn't god putting my needs in front of his. It's god demanding that I be obedient.
"Your relationship with your GF should not be where one puts a gun to another's head. Your relationship should not be where one is using the other for personal gain. That's shallow and that's weak. That's not love."
Exactly, so why does god put a gun to our heads and say that we will go to hell if we do not love him? That's exactly what is happening. We agree that love shouldn't be about putting guns to people's heads - in fact, I'd say that it can not be love if that's the case - so the question remains why god does that?
"You feel that you are freer without God."
Did I say that or are you guessing at my state of mind? I would say that you are only partly right. Without god, I'm still bound by my moral obligations (actually, I'm less free in some sense, because I can't have the delusion that god told me to do something evil and feel OK with it). I am freer in the sense that I don't have to attribute all that is good about me to some entity while internalizing all that I wish were better about myself. It leads to better mental health.
"I'm telling you that your decisions are bound by your instincts. Yes, man is instinctual as designed by God."
No, it's as we evolved. Yes, our instincts are prevalent and sometimes it is difficult to overcome them if you want to. Those are the result of evolution, however, not of god.
"You breathe not from some random chance but because God breathes life into you--with every breath you take."
No, we breathe because we evolved lungs that take advantage of the fact that the Earth has oxygen. It created a niche that allowed shallow water fish to eat more, which led to them moving more and more out of the water until they had fully formed lungs, which were then inherited by us through millions (billions?) of years.
"Why? Because He loves you. He loves you more than you can possibly love Him back. He loves you more than anyone else on this planet. You can keep rejecting Him and He keeps calling for you. He wants you to be in relationship with Him."
You're really saying here that god shows his love by keeping us alive. This is a dangerous argument, however. For those (Xians) who believe in heaven, this is more like a curse I suspect, because god is keeping you from being with him by breathing for you. You should want god to stop doing that so that you can die and go to heaven. Funny, I don't think I know any Xians who want to die so they can go to heaven (although some Muslims certainly are willing and we generally regard those people as deluded).
Further, if he wants a relationship with me, it's a trivial matter for him to have one. He knows what he needs to do in order to have me believe in him, yet he does not do it. Therefore, I can only conclude that god doesn't actually want a relationship with me.
"Whether you like it or not, you owe God everything because He gave you everything."
What did god give me? Life? My parents gave me life, unless you mean that I owe him everything because he created the universe that allows life? In that case there are still problems. That god created this universe and life means that god has a moral obligation towards what he created, and god simply does not meet that moral obligation (he kills us, makes us suffer, etc). If god was unable to fulfill his moral obligations to us, then he should not have created the universe at all (why did a perfect being feel the need to create anything anyway?)
"All He wants is for you to choose Him freely. Not for salvation or fear of damnation but out of love for Him."
Why then does god send us to hell? If he is so keen for us to love him, then why does he damn anyone? This is not an act of love but of revenge. Why does he threaten us with hell if we are to love him and freely choose him? If the choice is to be made freely, then why the negative consequences for choosing badly?
Also, why does god remain a mystery? If he wants us to have a free choice, then he should present us with the available evidence that we need to make an informed choice (the only choice that is truly free). god has NOT revealed himself to me, not in a way I would recognize at least. Since he knows what I would need, then he must be intentionally hiding himself from me. Since that is the case, I am not provided with the most accurate information, so I'm being forced to make a choice based on no evidence at all. Is this a free choice when I choose not to irrationally accept the path of no evidence? What other things should I rationally accept that god would like for me to accept? Perhaps I should also choose other gods since they are equally as plausible as the Xian god? Do you see where I'm going with this?
GCT,
I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere with this because of our differences in our views of love and morality. Affection (either slight or intense) is not encompassing enough . Love is to put someone else’s needs above your own out of love for the other. You love your girlfriend. You do things for her because you love her. If your motivation is different than love—if you do things for her because you want sex, or because she’s beautiful, or rich, or you’re afraid she’ll break up with you then that motivation is weak. The foundation is weak and the relationship is doomed to failure.
With God, He shows us this love in Christ when Christ accepted His Father’s will and obediently died on a cross against His personal will. God wants us to accept His will obediently and follow Christ. Additionally, He wants us to be obedient and love our neighbors as He loves us--which means that we are obedient to God’s will. We love Him—since He is love then all we need to do is have a relationship with Him and we experience His love. Then we love others—by showing them His love for us.
By sacrificing your needs for your girlfriend’s, you are “imitating Christ” for her without even knowing it. That’s the love you show her and you can’t get around it. That’s what it is. It doesn’t matter if you don’t understand it. You referenced our advanced respiration. Man did not understand respiration where sugar and oxygen yields energy, water and carbon dioxide until probably the last 200 years. That doesn’t mean that man didn’t experience it before they understood it. Love brings life. Love is patient. Love is kind. Love never fails. It’s more than mere affection. It is God.
The reason I believe Christ existed is because I have read Scripture. I have read how the Old Testament points to the Gospel and the New Testament points to the Gospel and how the Gospel points us to Christ and as I learn more about Christ and how it’s all tied together the more I realize that the author of Scripture had to be divine because it’s been written perfectly. Additionally, you see the witness of the early martyrs. All but one of the apostles died ghastly deaths at the hands of men. If the Apostles made it up, would they die for a hoax? Thousands of people died at the hands of Romans. Did they die for a myth or a legend? No. They died for Christ. The message they learned is the same message that I’m telling you now. It’s something that I would die for because I understand it and love God. To believe that it’s myth is to say that all these people died in vain. These people converted the pagan Roman empire to Christianity. And they did it without firing a shot or killing people. They died so that others may live.
There’s a time in my life where I was like you, GCT. I challenged God. I wanted to not believe in Him and the more I learned, the more I realized that I was so wrong. In all, it took a “bolt of lightning” experience to fully turn it around but it happened and I cannot turn away from Him. My little brain cannot make sense of it all without accepting that yes, there is a God.
Regarding morality, you talk about goodness. What is good? How do you define that? I don’t think you can which is why I have problems talking about what is moral.
“OK, I have no problem with that, but it doesn't change the fact that god demands obedience, not love. He might call it love and you might believe him when he says it, but it isn't. Else, he would not ask people to sacrifice their own children to test them (for just one instance).”
Yes, God does demand obedience. His greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord your God…” Which means out of obedience, we love Him and we obey out of love for Him. Nothing should come between me and God. If I love something greater than Him, then I need to change my priorities or remove it. The test that Abraham had was showing us that no matter how much Abraham loved his beloved son, he would sacrifice his son out of love for God…showing that nothing came between him and God.
That story points us to an event almost two millennium later, where on a hill within view of that original sacrifice point of Abraham and Isaac, God showed us that no matter how much He loved His beloved Son, He would sacrifice His Son out of love for us…removing all that came between us and Him.
“Evidence please that god gave her to me. Nothing "gave" her to me. We met and developed a friendship which grew into a mutual trust and passionate affection.”
I have no evidence that God gave you to her. That comes from faith. That comes from the belief (proof?) that there is no randomness in the universe and that everything is ordered. If all is ordered, why would randomness start with you meeting your girlfriend?
“so why does god put a gun to our heads and say that we will go to hell if we do not love him?”
God doesn’t do that. That would be like you saying that “if you cheat on your girlfriend, she will leave you!” So, is your girlfriend putting a gun to your head saying that you can’t cheat on her? How dare she bind you like that! That’s a silly argument. You don’t cheat on your girlfriend because you love her. Why is that so hard to accept with God?
“No, we breathe because we evolved lungs that take advantage of the fact that the Earth has oxygen. It created a niche that allowed shallow water fish to eat more, which led to them moving more and more out of the water until they had fully formed lungs, which were then inherited by us through millions (billions?) of years.”
The evidence for evolution through natural selection is hardly overwhelming. Possible? Yes. But only as possible as the existence of God. And proof of evolution hardly means that God doesn’t exist. The difference between man and ape cannot be explained through evolution. The intellect of man is far greater than any animal. In nature, we do not see the evolution of the human intellect. We do not see the differences in the brain that make man that much greater than animals. Only man can contemplate. Only man can discern God. Only man can love and only man can hate. How can you say that God did not have His hand in evolution? Perhaps God steered evolution to create man. Is that possible? YES!
“You're really saying here that god shows his love by keeping us alive”
What I’m saying is that if God didn’t love you, you’d be dead. Not only would you be dead, but you would never have even existed. God created you to love Him. That’s your purpose. To love Him and love others as He loves them.
To be obedient to God is not necessarily to just get to heaven. That opens up the question: What is heaven? Being obedient to God brings you eternal happiness; HOWEVER, it doesn’t start when you die. It starts when you start turning to God. It starts when you start saying, “Yes!” to God. Heaven doesn’t start when you die. Heaven starts when you turn yourself to God. Heaven is immediate. However, being alive in our imperfect bodies, there is always that chance that sometime in my life, I may turn away from God. I may sever my relationship with Him. That’s something that I don’t know. I need to not worry about that and just rely on God. If that happens, I must repent and come back to Him.
“What did god give me? Life? My parents gave me life, unless you mean that I owe him everything because he created the universe that allows life?”
God has given you everything. He gave you life, he gave you your intellect, he gave you whatever talent you have and he gave you your desires. You say it’s your parents that gave you life. I say that your parents’ love for each other created you. Their love creates new life the same way that God’s love creates new life. Again, love points to God because God is love. God created man so many years ago and because of His love for us, we participate in His creation by creating new beings through love. Unfortunately, due to the Fall of Man, the joy of our creation is experienced initially through pain in childbirth; however—and I think your parents would attest to this—the love experienced after the initial childbirth generated by you far outweighed the initial pains of birth. That even though you were a pain at birth and I’m sure that you were probably a pain—at times—during your upbringing, they wouldn’t trade away any of it. Why? Because they love you.
Now, if you reject your parents’ love and turn away from them, do they still love you? Of course! They can’t stop from loving you as you are their son. If a child rejects their parents’ love, then that doesn’t bring hate from the parents. It brings sadness and longing. As a result of this, will your parents leave you an inheritance. They may or may not. That’s up to them. Through it all, they would still love you. This does not mean they are putting a gun to your head. “Love me or no inheritance!” You love them because they are your parents and not because they may have a sizable estate. AGAIN, your love for your parents reflects (or rather should reflect) your love for God. It reveals His love for you and ideally your love for them. If it doesn’t then maybe that says something about you or your parents.
Love is always a free choice. You love your girlfriend freely. You love your parents freely. You don’t love them because of some potential inheritance. You don’t love them so that they’ll buy you a new car. You don't love them so that they'll sleep with you. You love them because. And when you have children, you love them more than you can possibly imagine. . You ask why God created a universe. I say it’s the same reason why your parents had you—for they truly did not have to have you. It was purely out of love.
theden,
"I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere with this because of our differences in our views of love and morality. Affection (either slight or intense) is not encompassing enough . Love is to put someone else’s needs above your own out of love for the other. You love your girlfriend. You do things for her because you love her. If your motivation is different than love—if you do things for her because you want sex, or because she’s beautiful, or rich, or you’re afraid she’ll break up with you then that motivation is weak. The foundation is weak and the relationship is doomed to failure."
I don't disagree with any of that, so I'm not sure where the impasse is for "love". And, I'm wondering what problem you have with my definition of morality.
"With God, He shows us this love in Christ when Christ accepted His Father’s will and obediently died on a cross against His personal will. God wants us to accept His will obediently and follow Christ. Additionally, He wants us to be obedient and love our neighbors as He loves us--which means that we are obedient to God’s will. We love Him—since He is love then all we need to do is have a relationship with Him and we experience His love. Then we love others—by showing them His love for us."
How can god love us if he is willing to send us to hell for eternity? The story about Christ sounds nice until you realize what was really going on. god was going through some contorted motion to allow himself to forgive us. If he truly loved us, then he would not have needed to sacrifice anything or anyone to do so.
"By sacrificing your needs for your girlfriend’s, you are “imitating Christ” for her without even knowing it. That’s the love you show her and you can’t get around it. That’s what it is. It doesn’t matter if you don’t understand it. You referenced our advanced respiration. Man did not understand respiration where sugar and oxygen yields energy, water and carbon dioxide until probably the last 200 years. That doesn’t mean that man didn’t experience it before they understood it. Love brings life. Love is patient. Love is kind. Love never fails. It’s more than mere affection. It is God."
But, what did god actually sacrifice? What can a perfect being sacrifice? It's a contradiction in terms.
"The reason I believe Christ existed is because I have read Scripture. I have read how the Old Testament points to the Gospel and the New Testament points to the Gospel and how the Gospel points us to Christ and as I learn more about Christ and how it’s all tied together the more I realize that the author of Scripture had to be divine because it’s been written perfectly. Additionally, you see the witness of the early martyrs. All but one of the apostles died ghastly deaths at the hands of men. If the Apostles made it up, would they die for a hoax? Thousands of people died at the hands of Romans. Did they die for a myth or a legend? No. They died for Christ. The message they learned is the same message that I’m telling you now. It’s something that I would die for because I understand it and love God. To believe that it’s myth is to say that all these people died in vain. These people converted the pagan Roman empire to Christianity. And they did it without firing a shot or killing people. They died so that others may live."
So, Xianity is true because the scripture says so? No offense, but allow me to be less that overwhelmed. Further, how do you know that the apostles died horrible deaths? Most accounts don't even mention what became of them. Further, you are making a category error here in assuming that because they believed in it, then it must be real. This is not the case however. Many people are willing to die for their beliefs, so even if the apostles did die for their beliefs, it doesn't make it true. I could say that Islam is correct, else all those suicide bombers are dying in vain, right? Why would they die for a lie?
"There’s a time in my life where I was like you, GCT. I challenged God. I wanted to not believe in Him and the more I learned, the more I realized that I was so wrong. In all, it took a “bolt of lightning” experience to fully turn it around but it happened and I cannot turn away from Him. My little brain cannot make sense of it all without accepting that yes, there is a God."
With all due respect, it doesn't sound like you were like me at all. I'm not struggling to disbelieve, I do disbelieve. I have no reason to believe and no inner turmoil about it.
"Regarding morality, you talk about goodness. What is good? How do you define that? I don’t think you can which is why I have problems talking about what is moral."
What is good is what increases happiness, personal security, one's rights, etc. This isn't a difficult concept. If we define "good" by what god says, then we have to accept that genocide is a good thing at times, or slavery, or the subjugation of women, etc.
"Yes, God does demand obedience. His greatest commandment is to “Love the Lord your God…” Which means out of obedience, we love Him and we obey out of love for Him. Nothing should come between me and God. If I love something greater than Him, then I need to change my priorities or remove it. The test that Abraham had was showing us that no matter how much Abraham loved his beloved son, he would sacrifice his son out of love for God…showing that nothing came between him and God.
That story points us to an event almost two millennium later, where on a hill within view of that original sacrifice point of Abraham and Isaac, God showed us that no matter how much He loved His beloved Son, He would sacrifice His Son out of love for us…removing all that came between us and Him."
So, you find no problem with god testing your love by asking you to kill your child? This is barbaric, and doesn't display love. Nor does commanding obedience. Do you really think that commanding obedience is the best way to acquire someone's love? If not, then why would god choose such a flawed way of attaining our love?
"I have no evidence that God gave you to her. That comes from faith. That comes from the belief (proof?) that there is no randomness in the universe and that everything is ordered. If all is ordered, why would randomness start with you meeting your girlfriend?"
If you believe there is no randomness, that's one thing, but it seems rather weird to believe things that have no evidence. What other things should one believe sans evidence? Should I believe in your god? How about someone else's god, or Russell's teapot, or invisible, pink unicorns? That's the problem, where does it end? In the absence of evidence, what distinguishes your beliefs from any number of other beliefs that contain the same amount of evidence?
"God doesn’t do that. That would be like you saying that “if you cheat on your girlfriend, she will leave you!” So, is your girlfriend putting a gun to your head saying that you can’t cheat on her? How dare she bind you like that! That’s a silly argument. You don’t cheat on your girlfriend because you love her. Why is that so hard to accept with God?"
No, it's like me saying that she will kill me if I don't love her. god sends people to hell, does he not? god supposedly loves those people, does he not? god says that people must love him or he will punish them by sending them to hell. How is that any different from holding a gun to my head and saying, "If you don't love me, then you will go to hell?"
"The evidence for evolution through natural selection is hardly overwhelming."
OK, full stop. You disbelieve in evolution? You do realize that there is over 160 years of evidence accumulated in favor of evolution, with hundreds of supporting papers coming out each month, right? And, that all these are based on empirical data, right?
"Possible? Yes. But only as possible as the existence of God."
Again, full stop. You are saying that something that has reams of physical evidence is only as possible as something that has no evidence.
"And proof of evolution hardly means that God doesn’t exist."
And I never said it did.
"The difference between man and ape cannot be explained through evolution."
Ah, yes it can. There's a chromosomal merger that took place that has been identified that led to us having one less chromosome pair.
"The intellect of man is far greater than any animal."
And, we get beat by chimps in remembering numbers on a computer screen by location. There's a recent experiment where they flashed numbers on a screen (1-9) and then blanked them out and had the chimps touch the numbers in order. They outperformed the humans.
"In nature, we do not see the evolution of the human intellect. We do not see the differences in the brain that make man that much greater than animals. Only man can contemplate."
This is incorrect. We do see the evolution of the brain through the transitional hominids. We also know that other animals can contemplate, although to a limited extent compared to us.
"Only man can discern God."
That may be true, but in my book that doesn't necessarily make us any better, since we also kill quite regularly over this ability.
"Only man can love and only man can hate."
False. Apes (and possibly other animals like elephants) certainly can love and probably hate as well. We know that apes hold wakes when a member of the group dies, for instance.
"How can you say that God did not have His hand in evolution? Perhaps God steered evolution to create man. Is that possible? YES!"
A) I thought you were arguing against evolution, now you sound like a theistic evolutionist. Are you?
B) I'm not saying that god had no part in it. What I'm saying is that there is no evidence that god played any part in it.
"What I’m saying is that if God didn’t love you, you’d be dead. Not only would you be dead, but you would never have even existed. God created you to love Him. That’s your purpose. To love Him and love others as He loves them."
Then, why cast anyone into hell? If god supposedly loves me, then how can he stomach torturing me for eternity after I die, with no chance of further reconciliation? This is not an act of love. Further, if god loves me so much, why keep me here in a substandard place instead of taking me into heaven post haste? This doesn't make sense to me.
"To be obedient to God is not necessarily to just get to heaven. That opens up the question: What is heaven? Being obedient to God brings you eternal happiness; HOWEVER, it doesn’t start when you die. It starts when you start turning to God. It starts when you start saying, “Yes!” to God. Heaven doesn’t start when you die. Heaven starts when you turn yourself to God. Heaven is immediate. However, being alive in our imperfect bodies, there is always that chance that sometime in my life, I may turn away from God. I may sever my relationship with Him. That’s something that I don’t know. I need to not worry about that and just rely on God. If that happens, I must repent and come back to Him."
Are you really trying to tell me that you are eternally happy? That you never get sad? This claim sounds rather unbelievable. Or, perhaps you are saying that any time you are sad, it is because you have briefly turned away from god? This doesn't demonstrate love from god, however. If god loved us, then he would not cause us to be sad for doing something that he disapproves of. That is punitive, and I can't imagine that a perfect being that supposedly is omni-benevolent and loves us would do punitive things like that.
"God has given you everything. He gave you life, he gave you your intellect, he gave you whatever talent you have and he gave you your desires."
Then, he also gave me my skepticism and my disbelief in him. Therefore, if he punishes me with hell for it, it is only because I am living the way he made me. That is love?
"You say it’s your parents that gave you life. I say that your parents’ love for each other created you. Their love creates new life the same way that God’s love creates new life."
god had sex with my mom?
"Again, love points to God because God is love. God created man so many years ago and because of His love for us, we participate in His creation by creating new beings through love. Unfortunately, due to the Fall of Man, the joy of our creation is experienced initially through pain in childbirth; however—and I think your parents would attest to this—the love experienced after the initial childbirth generated by you far outweighed the initial pains of birth. That even though you were a pain at birth and I’m sure that you were probably a pain—at times—during your upbringing, they wouldn’t trade away any of it. Why? Because they love you.
Now, if you reject your parents’ love and turn away from them, do they still love you? Of course! They can’t stop from loving you as you are their son. If a child rejects their parents’ love, then that doesn’t bring hate from the parents. It brings sadness and longing. As a result of this, will your parents leave you an inheritance. They may or may not. That’s up to them. Through it all, they would still love you. This does not mean they are putting a gun to your head. “Love me or no inheritance!” You love them because they are your parents and not because they may have a sizable estate. AGAIN, your love for your parents reflects (or rather should reflect) your love for God. It reveals His love for you and ideally your love for them. If it doesn’t then maybe that says something about you or your parents."
Again, your inheritance analogy to god's love is flawed. If I do not love my parents, then I do not gain their inheritance, but I similarly don't get tortured! god, however, will torture me, and for eternity. How can you be willing to torture someone you love? How can I not feel like there's a gun at my head if I think that I will be tortured for not loving god?
"Love is always a free choice. You love your girlfriend freely. You love your parents freely. You don’t love them because of some potential inheritance."
Too right. So, why doesn't god understand this? Why does god think that he should threaten us with eternal torture for not loving him?
"You don’t love them so that they’ll buy you a new car. You don't love them so that they'll sleep with you. You love them because. And when you have children, you love them more than you can possibly imagine. . You ask why God created a universe. I say it’s the same reason why your parents had you—for they truly did not have to have you. It was purely out of love."
Did god lack love then? If so, then god is not perfect. If god is perfect, then he had no need for us when he created the universe. There is no way around this conundrum.
GCT,
I'm curious...since you believe God does not exist...what would the world be like if there was a God?
How would things be different?
theden,
"I'm curious...since you believe God does not exist...what would the world be like if there was a God?
How would things be different?"
If there were truly an omni-max god, or one that is realizable? For the first, I don't think we would even be here. The perfect god would have had no need for us, so we would never have been created.
But, let's say for the sake of argument that god did create us. Well, if god truly loved us, we would all be in heaven from the start. We would not ever live on this planet, and there would be no such thing as hell. There would be no suffering, etc.
Let's say that god is not omni-benevolent, which allows for us to be here on Earth. Well, then it depends. If we strip away many of the attributes the Xian god supposedly has, it's possible we could live in a world exactly like the one we are in now. The god of that world, however, would not be the idealized god of the Xian myth.
I guess it's hard to really answer this question, because depending on what attributes you give god, anything is possible, right? An all powerful god could have created us so that we could live on the sun, or anything else he wanted. I guess I need more input from you as to what god we are talking about.
GCT:
Re Skeptic's Annotated Bible:
"Another is the contradiction of an OT god that is obviously not omni-benevolent to a NT to supposedly is, which is also contradicted in the NT especially in Revelation."
God is omni-just as well. A just judge will punish the guilty. That is consistant between Old and New. Jesus talked a lot about judgment (and the need for repentence). People tend to overlook that.
Next. Matthew and Mark (and Revelation, which implies to me all of the NT) were completed before 70 CE (destruction of Jerusalem). Otherwise, they would be sure to take credit for the fulfillment of the destruction prophecies. The first book is 1 Thessalonians, certainly before 52 CE. There's not much point to arguing in the range of a few dozen years. These are eye witness accounts within their life spans (and before the Church acquired any political power).
"Paul never claims to have met an Earthly Jesus". That's a good point. Paul claims to have met the resurrected Jesus. If Jesus had not been resurrected, any of Paul's opponents could of debunked everything he said by producing Jesus' body.
"There are actually many gospels and none of them are dated to the time of Jesus."
I've read the Gospel of Barnabas, not very impressive. Not sure what the dating on that is. Do you have some particular example?
"He [Luke] wanted to replace the older accounts with one that he thought was more accurate and better."
I'm not sure where you get that from. The early Church kept all four Gospels. There was no replacement going on.
"Prophetic aspects?" Messianic prophecy. There were many messiahs between 150 BCE and 100 CE. This was due to the prophecy of 69 weeks in Daniel. Only one messiah is remembered from that time (and no
other is possible due to the destruction of ancestry records in Jerusalem in 70 CE).
Also, the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem.
"Perhaps you missed where I said 'contemporary'. There were many writers at that time who would have mentioned such incredible things happening, but no one did. All the writings of the Bible and the
early church fathers all came after Jesus, when the legend could have been cemented."
So, within one lifespan is not contemporary? John lived until after 100 CE. Tacitus notes that the fire in Rome was blamed on Christians, which gives evidence to early persecution. Other aspects of Jesus' life were embarassing for those in power, so it's evident why they might keep mum.
"By that logic, then you'd have to concede that there is evidence for many religions."
Other religions were backed with political power or ignored. Early Christianity alternated between being ignored and actively persecuted.
"Writing well after the fact - up to 1600?" I meant there are more ancient copies of the Bible than any other writing before the invention of the printing press... Also, many non-biblical texts are young copies (far separated from the original text).
"I said that even for the sake of argument, had Jesus existed, it would still not be evidence that your religion is correct or that god exists."
If Jesus existed, and said anything like what the Bible says He said, you are on the horns of the trilemma (Lord, liar, lunatic).
nedbrek,
"Re Skeptic's Annotated Bible:
"Another is the contradiction of an OT god that is obviously not omni-benevolent to a NT to supposedly is, which is also contradicted in the NT especially in Revelation."
God is omni-just as well. A just judge will punish the guilty. That is consistant between Old and New. Jesus talked a lot about judgment (and the need for repentence). People tend to overlook that."
Your objection doesn't answer the point raised by the SAB. There is an obvious contradiction between the OT and the NT god and the Xian teaching of omni-benevolence.
Further, as I've pointed out numerous times, god is not omni-just. If that were so, then why do dead newborns or stillborns or aborted fetuses or miscarried fetuses go to heaven? That is not justice because they aren't put through the same trials that we are. IOW, god is acting unfairly (unjustly) towards us. Further, once we get to hell, we are left there for eternity, which is not justice either, for we are supposedly making a choice to be there, but it is based on incomplete information that god withholds from us. That is unjust. Also, justice requires punishments that fit the crimes. Finite beings can only commit finite crimes. Therefore, infinite punishment is infinitely unjust. Those are just three examples of god's un-just behavior.
"Next. Matthew and Mark (and Revelation, which implies to me all of the NT) were completed before 70 CE (destruction of Jerusalem). Otherwise, they would be sure to take credit for the fulfillment of the destruction prophecies. The first book is 1 Thessalonians, certainly before 52 CE. There's not much point to arguing in the range of a few dozen years. These are eye witness accounts within their life spans (and before the Church acquired any political power)."
52 CE is the first book according to you, which would be about 22-23 years after Jesus supposedly died, and no one in that book claims to be an eye-witness. Paul wrote that book, I believe, and he never claims to have met an Earthly Jesus. The gospels all come later and your date of 70 CE is pretty well discarded as being too optimistic. Face it, the gospel writers were not eye-witnesses.
""Paul never claims to have met an Earthly Jesus". That's a good point. Paul claims to have met the resurrected Jesus. If Jesus had not been resurrected, any of Paul's opponents could of debunked everything he said by producing Jesus' body."
Ah, William Lane Craig's argument. There are many reasons why one would not or could not produce Jesus's body. If Jesus never actually existed, it would be impossible, yet that would also mean that Paul was wrong. If someone stole the bones, which would have been likely, then it would also have been difficult to produce the bones. It's also possible that no one cared enough about a fringe cult, or that someone did produce the bones and was disbelieved, etc. None of this provides any evidence for Xianity.
"I've read the Gospel of Barnabas, not very impressive. Not sure what the dating on that is. Do you have some particular example?"
Barnabas, Judas, etc. I think I read somewhere that there were up to 25 or 30 gospels, yet that was culled down to 4. Of course, I'm not surprised you don't find Barnabas impressive, because you have the tendency to disregard anything that doesn't fit your a priori notions.
"I'm not sure where you get that from. The early Church kept all four Gospels. There was no replacement going on."
This has nothing to do with the early church, but with Luke himself. He wished to rewrite the story of Jesus to fit the mold that he though a god on Earth should fit. The early church didn't understand this, they simply had 20+ accounts and decided they liked the 4 they selected.
"Messianic prophecy. There were many messiahs between 150 BCE and 100 CE. This was due to the prophecy of 69 weeks in Daniel."
I've yet to see a prophecy be fulfilled that isn't either very vague, or fulfilled after the fact. IOW, Jesus had to fulfill prophecy number 10, so we'll write in that he did X to fulfill it. Further, I'm not even sure that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies that he supposedly fulfilled. Wasn't there a prophecy that he would come from the line of Joseph's family? Yet, he was supposedly not born of Joseph, meaning that he did not fulfill that one.
"Only one messiah is remembered from that time (and no
other is possible due to the destruction of ancestry records in Jerusalem in 70 CE)."
To be more precise, you should say that only one messianic figure (real or imagined) is still held as having been messianic from that time.
"Also, the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem."
It's very easy to prophecy that after it's been destroyed.
"So, within one lifespan is not contemporary?"
Not unless one can show that those writers were around for that time period. No one wrote of the fantastic happenings that were going on all around Jesus until much, much later, and none of those writings were eye-witness accounts, nor were they timely.
"John lived until after 100 CE."
How do you know that? Do you realize how old he would have to be, in a time when a lifespan like that was very rare?
"Tacitus notes that the fire in Rome was blamed on Christians, which gives evidence to early persecution."
This proves what exactly? It certainly doesn't prove persecution, nor does it prove any of your other fantastic claims.
"Other aspects of Jesus' life were embarassing for those in power, so it's evident why they might keep mum."
Ah, so it's a conspiracy? Please.
"Other religions were backed with political power or ignored. Early Christianity alternated between being ignored and actively persecuted."
Mormonism fits the exact same bill as Xianity. I guess you have to concede that Mitt Romney is following the true belief, or at least there is evidence for it. Of course, there is no causal connection between the truth of a belief and how well it is received, but whatever. Oh, and don't forget Islam, which had the same problems as Xianity. Oh, and Judaism had the same problems, as did many other religions. Your assertion that all other religions enjoyed political power or ignored is simply absurd.
"I meant there are more ancient copies of the Bible than any other writing before the invention of the printing press... Also, many non-biblical texts are young copies (far separated from the original text)."
And this proves what exactly? That people wrote many copies of the Bible makes it popular, not true. Plus, all those copies had errors and mistranslations, etc. It makes it that much more difficult to retrieve the original, as Ehrman pointed out in the book that you pooh-poohed.
"If Jesus existed, and said anything like what the Bible says He said, you are on the horns of the trilemma (Lord, liar, lunatic)."
If Jesus existed, there's no reason to believe that he said any of the things in the Bible. Even if he did, how is that evidence for god? I could just as easily state that Mohammed is evidence for Allah.
GCT, sorry again for the delay:
"If that were so [God were just], then why do dead newborns or stillborns or aborted fetuses or miscarried fetuses go to heaven?"
It wouldn't be just to punish people who haven't committed any crime.
"If someone stole the bones"
Who would of stolen the bones, the apostles?
"someone did produce the bones and was disbelieved"
Why would they disbelieve? That pretty overwhelming evidence to ignore.
Re. Barnabas: there's nothing disruptive in it. It's reads like a rather dry version of Romans or Hebrews. Most of the other claimed Gospels were written hundreds of years later and were not accepted by anybody in the church. Unless you have an specific reference otherwise?
"It's very easy to prophecy that after it's been destroyed."
How exactly would that happen? Are you suggesting there were no copies of Mark before 70. Then after the destruction, somebody says, "Hey! Look! I've got a book from before 70 that says this would happen!" How would they not be laughed out the door?
"Do you realize how old he [John] would have to be, in a time when a lifespan like that was very rare?"
If John were a teenager when Jesus was active, John would of been 80 or 90 at 100. That is not impossible. The "average life span" was 30 because half of the people died before age 5 (and a lot of women died in child birth before age 40). If you lived to adulthood, you could be 70 or 80 easily (see Psalms 90:10). Think about it this way, before 1900, medicine was about the same as 2000 years ago (no antibacterials, no effective surgery, etc.). Plenty of people from 1890 lived 80 or 90 years.
"Ah, so it's a conspiracy? Please."
No, but the party in power is not going to say, "God appeared and said everything we do is wrong".
"Other religions were backed with political power or ignored."
Mormonism was ignored (until Mormons started killing people). And the early Mormons exercised considerable power (within their sphere).
The Koran is a documentary of the political history of Islam. Initially weak, and ignored or criticized, later fighting for dominance, and finally ruling.
Judaism was largely ignored by most of the world (except when the theocracy was invading them, or they were invading Israel). Hinduism is/was supported by the political castes in India. Buddhism has a monarchy in Tibet. Etc.
"Plus, all those copies had errors and mistranslations"
And, as Ehrman said, you can extract the proper text by comparing the copies. There is a whole science around it.
nedbrek,
"It wouldn't be just to punish people who haven't committed any crime."
And, if you read the rest of the paragraph that I wrote that you are responding to, you'd note that I already mentioned why this is unjust. It is unjust to us (you, me, and everyone else that survives beyond childbirth) because we are being tested in a way that those fetuses are not. They get a free ride to heaven while we do not. This is not just. Why do you not address things like this? I make solid arguments and you simply ignore and act like you've addressed my points.
"Who would of stolen the bones, the apostles?...Why would they disbelieve? That pretty overwhelming evidence to ignore."
Anyone could have stolen the bones and placed them in another grave. You would also probably disbelieve someone telling you that they had Jesus's bones. Either way, once again you are dodging the issue at hand. The issue is that there are tons of possible answers to Craig's question, so his conclusions are suspect. Further, what he concludes doesn't make the Bible true or god real.
"Re. Barnabas: there's nothing disruptive in it. It's reads like a rather dry version of Romans or Hebrews. Most of the other claimed Gospels were written hundreds of years later and were not accepted by anybody in the church. Unless you have an specific reference otherwise?"
Exactly, they were not accepted by the church...why? The church had how many tracts to choose from and they selected a certain number. Why? None of them were written from eye witnesses, and the church probably couldn't have known which were better than others in terms of date. They chose them because they had a specific theodicy in mind and chose based on fulfilling that idea. Yet, they still chose stories that compete with one another because they didn't understand the author's intentions.
"How exactly would that happen? Are you suggesting there were no copies of Mark before 70."
Exactly. It was written after. It's very easy to write a prophecy that comes true after the event has already happened.
"If John were a teenager when Jesus was active, John would of been 80 or 90 at 100."
Except John was supposedly born in 6 AD. You're really reaching here.
"No, but the party in power is not going to say, "God appeared and said everything we do is wrong"."
Oh please. If Jesus really had this magical power, then people would have wanted it and would have tried to align with him. It's human nature.
"Mormonism was ignored (until Mormons started killing people)...."
And this all supports my position that Xianity is NOT anything special. It's not any different in essence from these other religions.
"And, as Ehrman said, you can extract the proper text by comparing the copies. There is a whole science around it."
Again, you dodge the central point, which is that the popularity of the Bible does not make it true. Your appeal to popularity was duly noted and you should recognize that it is not a viable argument. Further, having more than one copy makes textual criticism harder, not easier. Having many, many copies sometimes makes this easier, but not always. If you had read the book more carefully, you would understand that.
Post a Comment