Even if Christianity Ends Up True There Would Be No Reason to Believe
Bertrand Russell was asked what he would tell God on judgment day why he did not believe. Russell reportedly said: "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence."
So even if the Christian faith ends up being true there was still no reason thinking people should accept it, because only claims that can be reasonably justified should be embraced. You see, we have to reject a lot of true claims because they have not met their own burden of proof. This is both obvious and non-controversial. Aliens from space might have abducted someone, but without sufficient evidence commensurate with such a claim there is no reason why anyone should believe the person who asserts it. There are surely cases in which someone murdered another person but no one suspects he did the evil deed, because there is just no evidence to lead anyone to think he did. There are many hundreds of claims that we should never believe, even if they are true. That’s the case when it comes to Christianity. Even if it’s true, thinking people cannot believe it because it’s wildly improbable.
So even if the Christian faith ends up being true there was still no reason thinking people should accept it, because only claims that can be reasonably justified should be embraced. You see, we have to reject a lot of true claims because they have not met their own burden of proof. This is both obvious and non-controversial. Aliens from space might have abducted someone, but without sufficient evidence commensurate with such a claim there is no reason why anyone should believe the person who asserts it. There are surely cases in which someone murdered another person but no one suspects he did the evil deed, because there is just no evidence to lead anyone to think he did. There are many hundreds of claims that we should never believe, even if they are true. That’s the case when it comes to Christianity. Even if it’s true, thinking people cannot believe it because it’s wildly improbable.
178 comments:
. . . awesome
I'm amazed how short-sighted the argument is. If your child used such an excuse for misbehaving or outright disobeying you, no one I know would accepts "I didn't have enough evidence about what you said was true." Why would anyone think that such an excuse would work on judgment day? One question I would have asked Russel, or anyone who thinks that this is acceptable, would be what do you think God would say your excuse? The truth is using this excuse in telling God, that he didn't provide enough evidence to convince you. How do you think such an accusation will fly with God? What is wrong with you? There was plenty of evidence to convince other people. Maybe the problem isn't with the evidence but with you. Probability isn't enough to determine what you believe. It shouldn't be. We should believe something because it is true, not because it's probable. There are too many example of true things that don't seem probable.
Marcus,
"How do you think such an accusation will fly with God?"
Which god are you referring to?
If there is a kind, loving, all knowing god in the afterlife, he/she will understand why some of us never believed and be sympathetic towards our unbelief.
If you're referring to the bible god, there is no kind, loving, all knowing god listed in the bible, the bible god is a vengeful, judgmental, jealous, punishing evil monster.
He allowed his own son (or himself, which is it?) to be murdered!
Alvin Plantinga has soundly refuted the notion that Christians are not warranted in holding their beliefs with a high degree of certainty in his excellent "Warrant" series. Specifically, his "Warranted Christian Faith".
In contrast, what isn't warranted is the type of radical atheism favored by the new atheists.
After thinking about it a bit more I want to add that you seem to be assuming that 1. God is obligated to provide a certain amount of revelation and 2. that God has not provided sufficient revelation on which to form epestemically warranted beliefs. I would argue that both of your premises are not only false, but that showing how Christians disagree on the matter is, as I stated above, a logical fallacy.
What is wrong with you?
I wonder if, when they get to heaven, God will attempt to explain the concept of "irony" to these people.
Wes.
If there truly is an afterlife and there is some all important information that we need for the salvation of our souls- then yes! God is obligated to provide enough evidence to convince the rational thinking minds He apparently gave us.
Marcus, im amazed at how short-sighted your response is.
Comparing a parents instructions to their child to the radical claims of the bible, is hardly sound logic?
I do realize that this post sounds somewhat superficial, but come on people.....?....the bible is full of outstanding claims which need outstanding evidence. And the problem for you christians is that your faith is in desperate need of confirmation.
Marcus, you said we should believe something because its true not because of probability.
I agree, but just what exactly establishes the truth of christianity?.....what factor points to the authenticity of your particular belief's?
Besides telling God there was not enough evidence, how about also telling Him-
" God, I was repulsed by your apparent character in the bible and could not believe in a God like you"!
Or-
"God, the bible was so full of contradictions and absurdities, it was in such direct conflict with scientific findings and lacked historical confirmation of its most important features that I couldn't believe!"
Marcus said "If your child used such an excuse for misbehaving or outright disobeying you, no one I know would accepts "I didn't have enough evidence about what you said was true." Why would anyone think that such an excuse would work on judgment day? "
This is stupid. A child in this situation has objective evidence that his or her parents exists.
Try harder.
I really wonder why christiians even bother to post here at all?
They must really think that christianity has good arguments for its authenticity. The fact that it DOESN'T have any sound arguments is the reason many of us just cant believe?
Either that, or they think they can just quote bible scripture and "like a two edged sword" its going to cut through all our rational arguments?
Eitherway I think they're spun!!!!
Shane, shhhhhhhh.
The Christians who post here are fodder. Without them we wouldn't be as effective in showing how stupid their faith is.
Def. fodder:
- people considered as readily available and of little value: cannon fodder.
- raw material: fodder for a comedian's routine.
Shane, they think we are all degenerates who ignore reason just so we can sate our dark lusts in peace.
John.
Sorry...lol...thats true, they do make it what it is.
Ryan.
I agree, every time I run into someone from my former church they think I've been led astray and lied to by the devil.....rather then understand my position is purely based on the fact that "im just not convinced anymore"!
The thing is that nobody (including christians) would expect anyone to believe in claims of fairies-unicorns-dragons-ten headed dogs-etc, without sufficiant evidence to prove it......yet they hypocritically assert that we are sinful for not having faith that the biblical claims are true without providing sufficiant evidence!
So I have to agree that if christianity cannot uphold its own burden of proof, then we have no "reason" to believe it!
No one "has" to believe, that is evident. However, think of the world without God's grace -- mercenary, cruel and oppressive -- survival of the fittest mode (although many are already indoctrinated into accepting and believing that this is 'normal' -especially the ones that are successful at survival mode). Anyone viewed as an antagonist will be, as John said, "fodder". And deciding whom will be elected as an enemy has more to do with offending others' ego and pride--being a victim or victimizer becomes a virtue--a source of empowerment to intimidate others and manipulate. All of these signs can show up in religion, but faith is an expression of Godly love.
There is a passage in scripture that speaks of a time with "no light" - that, to me, is when there is no grace.
At any rate, good luck in your endeavors.
If Christianity is really true, then it means that the atheists who are absolutely convinced that there is no God are deceived and may have their hearts hardened because of their rebellion so that they can't see the evidence. Luckily Hardening is not Permanent as Romans 9-11 and the story of Pharaoh and his servants indicate.
If Christianity is true, then so are it's epistemic claims.
If Christianity is true, and I got forgiven through one of those loopholes (once baptized, always God's or something) then what would eternity be like for me? Praising God constantly? A never-ending orgasm? Floating around in a fog (that's "cloud" to you earthbound beings)?
It's so completely ridiculous to contemplate this being a "reward" that I have to wonder how hard Christians have thought about it. This must be wy they play up the horrors of hell. The carrot is not very appealing so they have to rely on the stick.
If Christianity is true, then people, even as the biblical witness indicates, can be mistaken about including the "loopholes". And if you count on a loophole, you've really missed the message.
Living active faith born out in your life is what gets you in (and constitutes what it means to be in). Not simple belief. That's not biblical. James makes this clear, and even research into ancient idioms (such as Josephus' use of the phrase "believe in me") makes this clear.
Marcus, a God who requires everyone on earth to stroke his ego by worshiping him and accepting his existence without evidence while punishing those who question it is not worth my time nor my worship.
"only claims that can be reasonably justified should be embraced."
Kind of like when atheists say they can just pretend that and accidental life in an accidental universe has meaning and then - ta da! Life has meaning.
As Bertrand Russel once wrote, the best that an atheist can do in this terminal existence, is to “build our lives upon the firm foundation of unyielding despair.” “A Free Man’s Worship” 107.
So which is it? Atheists of Russel's generation who actually tried to adhere to the quote from Loftus, or the new atheists who live as though only things Theological require irrefutable evidence?
http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/08/not-enough-evidence.html
It's clear that we are part of a reality we don't fully understand, and it's also clear that there's a
life-force in the universe--otherwise there wouldn't be any life. But for us, atheists, is not
evidence of a god, gods, or goddess
or that it requires any worshiping
or any form of subservient behavior, or that we are in any way
central to its presupossed "agenda"
or even relevant to it anymore than
any other organism in the universe.
When in the past I've asked my father--a baptist minister--to define "God" for me, all he's been able to do is to helplessly quote passages and verses from very old assorted writings (we don't know who wrote them) strung together
at the request of a Roman emperor who had his own agenda. And the way
that the "God" is defined is something of a supernatural nature
and thus impervious to scientific investigation or any form of reason
based on observation. "Faith" to me
is an incoherent concept wrapped up
in mysticism: "We don't have any empirical proof to present to you, just close your eyes and all those things are true by simply believing
that they are." And even if there
might be a god--however we could define him/her/it--I vehemently reject the dreadful biblical effigy
as being that god. For me to accept
and even love the biblical god would be akin to suffering from
Stockholm Syndrome. The truth--whatever that may be--lies in what we don't know and not in what we wish to "believe."
What would be really insteresting would be to put Marcus, Wes, Rob and Beautiful Feet in a room and see how long it would take for them to define the others as inauthentic Christians.
Marcus would be screaming grace alone (for the bible tells me so) while Beautiful Feet would call Marcus an idol worshipper and Rob would be shouting for proper action whereupon Marcus would declare, "grace not acts" and Wes would be playing with himself and his "properly basic belief" in the corner.
The Christians here don't even practice the same religion they accuse us of denying.
If Hinduism is really true, then it means that the Christians who are absolutely convinced that there is no karma are deceived and may have their hearts hardened because of their rebellion so that they can't see the evidence.
If Scientology is really true, then it means that Christians who are absolutely convinced that there are no thetans are deceived and may have their hearts hardened because of their rebellion so that they can't see the evidence.
If Islam is really true, then it means that Christians who are absolutely convinced that the quran is not divinely inspired are deceived and may have their hearts hardened because of their rebellion so that they can't see the evidence
I would have to agree with Mr. Russell. These are two of several questions I would ask God. Why do you expect men and women to believe in your son when you provided no evidence for his existence? Why do we not have a written account from the Sanhedrin(Jewish Council)about the trial of Jesus as it happened? BTW, I see that Marcus never intended to obey Matthew 7:6.
Thesauros,
You don't find any meaning in living to benefit all or to leave the world a better place in your own way? There is no joy for you simply in having the opportunity to live a happy life?
"You see, we have to reject a lot of true claims because they have not met their own burden of proof."
I agree.
"Aliens from space might have abducted someone, but without sufficient evidence commensurate with such a claim there is no reason why anyone should believe the person who asserts it."
Again, I agree.
"There are many hundreds of claims that we should never believe, even if they are true. That’s the case when it comes to Christianity. Even if it’s true, thinking people cannot believe it because it’s wildly improbable."
John, what do you make of the notion that *if* Christianity were true, then the belief that Christianity is true, even if it's not amenable to justification (as justification is traditionally understood), is likely to be warranted (as Plantinga uses the term)? That is, it seems to me that there's an obvious asymmetry in this regard when we compare Christianity with things like alien abductions: if Christianity is true, then god wants to make me aware of that truth, and would certainly have the means to do so, whereas nothing like this obtains in cases such as alien abductions, murders, etc..
+1000 for Chuck, that was some funny stuff. It's true that there is no objective basis to interpret what the Bible is saying so nobody is on the same page, even on essential issues.
From what I read in the gospels the disciples themselves did not believe the resurrection happened UNTIL they got first-hand evidence by talking, poking, and prodding Jesus. Even if every jot and tittle of the story is absolutely true, is it unreasonable for me to be skeptical when I do not get anywhere near as good quality of evidence that the disciples supposedly received?
If there is a God that has any mercy at all to him, I believe that He would overlook my lack of belief based on the flimsy evidence that exists.
Eric, I have thought about this but in the end it makes no difference. While there is indeed that asymmetry you mentioned with other things we can justifiably deny, to say that if Christianity were true and that God wants us to accept it's truth means nothing at all if there isn't any justification showing it's truth. And when it comes to religions, even the differing sects within Christianity, they can all say the same thing, that if their sect were true then it is likely warranted in Plantiga's sense.
Am I missing anything?
Eric you said,
"John, what do you make of the notion that *if* Christianity were true, then the belief that Christianity is true, even if it's not amenable to justification (as justification is traditionally understood), is likely to be warranted (as Plantinga uses the term)? That is, it seems to me that there's an obvious asymmetry in this regard when we compare Christianity with things like alien abductions: if Christianity is true, then god wants to make me aware of that truth, and would certainly have the means to do so, whereas nothing like this obtains in cases such as alien abductions, murders, etc.."
While this seems reasonable and I'm sure Professor Plantinga would be pleased you cite him, his Calvinism would lead him to also believe that your Roman Catholocism is not legitimate.
Do the practical realities of divergent Christianities and the theological claims they make ever cause Christians to pause and think, "We can't ALL be right."
Having been raised a Roman Catholic and practiced 5 point Calvinism I am certain the theologies are at odds with each other.
The God you worship Eric is not the same one Plantinga is warranted to believe exists based on the theological assertions your very different faith traditions commend.
The Christians here don't even practice the same religion they accuse us of denying.
Balderdash. I spent years debating Calvinists whom I think believe one of the worst theological mistakes, and yet with many of them, I have been able to discuss things reasonably. And I have always gladly admitted that this sort of matter doesn't determine their Christian identity.
Ironically, so many of the prooftexts in the predestination debate don't have so much to do with individualistic predestination as they do covenant identity. Ironically, ones understanding of those texts doesn't determine whether they have that identity or not.
Chuck, I don't think you've given much more than a superficial thought to the matter of covenant identity inspite of the fact that you rail about it when it isn't even a topic. Christians disagree. Real Christians disagree. Paul had a disagreement with Peter. But this does not determine covenant identity.
"Am I missing anything?"
John, no, I think I am! I think we've had this discussion before. If I remember correctly, you reject the notion that some beliefs are warranted sans traditional justification, e.g. the typical examples such as belief in other minds, the reality of the past, etc. Am I recalling that accurately? (It gets hard to remember exactly who said what after all this time!) If so, then the asymmetry, which you acknowledge is present, doesn't do much, it seems to me, to help my case. For without a robust notion of warrant, we're left with unjustified true beliefs that, as you've said, shouldn't be believed. We could of course discuss whether such a notion of warrant is tenable, but that's up to you.
Re: other religious beliefs being warranted in the same way, I'd say I agree, but I think Plantinga's point here is that this forces the de facto question on us.
I just want to make it clear that I don't agree with the notion that Christian belief cannot be justified, but was merely assuming that's the case to being up the issues of warrant and of the asymmetry I referred to earlier.
"Do the practical realities of divergent Christianities and the theological claims they make ever cause Christians to pause and think, "We can't ALL be right.""
Chuck, of course. But I also don't believe that I can find anywhere in the words of Jesus the requirement that everyone pass a theology exam of his devising before he'll accept us as his followers. ;) One of the things I love about Catholicism is that while it doesn't at all waffle on its truth claims, it recognizes that non-Catholics -- including non-Christians -- can be saved. (And this isn't anything new, either.) For all I know, Chuck, guys like you and John, as atheists, are closer to god than I am. I think this helps us (informed Catholics) maintain a nice balance: we can assert the truth without being self righteous about it. Now we don't always do it that way, but that's the ideal.
From what I read in the gospels the disciples themselves did not believe the resurrection happened UNTIL they got first-hand evidence by talking, poking, and prodding Jesus.
Thomas said he wouldn't believe unless he put his finger in the wound (eeww!), and Jesus was happy to oblige him (and now he's a saint) - however, when we ask for what Thomas got, we're told it isn't necessary, because we already have all of the "evidence" we need, and we've chosen to "harden our hearts" (or, if they're Calvinists, God has hardened them for us).
I'd like to make cognitive dissonance illegal, but we could never build enough jails or treatment centers.
Rob,
I attend an Evangelical Free Church with my wife every Sunday (the Church I was once a member whose inerrancy and Calvinism drove me away from Christianity) so I am well aware of what is promoted there.
I also have 14 years of Catholic Education (12 years college prep and 2 years grad school) and am researching a play on post Vatican II Catholic theology. My parents are cradle Roman Catholics and attend weekly Mass. One of my childhood best friends is an active in the Catholic Underground in Los Angeles.
Your Christianity is not the Christianity of the Evangelical Free Church I attend every Sunday and neither is it the Roman Catholic variety. The Roman Catholic variety would condemn the church I attend on Sunday as being outside the grace of the Eucharist and the Elders of the church I attend on Sunday would declare heretical the substance dualism asserted in the transubstantiant "accidents" of the communion elements.
You can assert all you want how friendly all christianities are. Your competing theologies demand more honesty.
Eric,
You said, "Chuck, of course. But I also don't believe that I can find anywhere in the words of Jesus the requirement that everyone pass a theology exam of his devising before he'll accept us as his followers. ;) One of the things I love about Catholicism is that while it doesn't at all waffle on its truth claims, it recognizes that non-Catholics -- including non-Christians -- can be saved. (And this isn't anything new, either.) For all I know, Chuck, guys like you and John, as atheists, are closer to god than I am. I think this helps us (informed Catholics) maintain a nice balance: we can assert the truth without being self righteous about it. Now we don't always do it that way, but that's the ideal."
And that's why I've grown to like you but, the sexually repressed angry Calvinist men (only men get leadership positions in the church I frequent with my wife; complimentarianism - just another name for chauvinism) I know would simply damn you to Hell for such a heretical belief.
I doubt I am closer to god than you. I'm only 5'5" : )
Hi Chuck --- you said this, "What would be really insteresting would be to put Marcus, Wes, Rob and Beautiful Feet in a room and see how long it would take for them to define the others as inauthentic Christians."
We would probably all agree that Christ is lord.
Beautiful Feet,
You wouldn't agree that you could trust that conclusion once you all revealed your theology.
You've defined someone like Marcus as an "idol worshiper" on this blog.
Marcus has defined Rob's Open Theism as heretical.
Agreeing on a set of words detached from systemic meaning is simply rhetoric.
Mr. McElhaney, you bring up exactly why I could never believe in God, even as a child. If my parents could figure out by the time I was 3 that "because I said so" elicited no cooperation or obedience from me, why can't your god figure out that some people need evidence and reasons? All this religious insistence on believers being 'sheep,' 'children,' etc. just points out how incompatible religion is with democracy.
Ryan Anderson said...
Shane, they think we are all degenerates who ignore reason just so we can sate our dark lusts in peace.
Ryan, I can tell you from twelve years of regular Church attendance that Christians probably have more dark lust than an agnostic. You would not believe the things I witnessed.
Beautiful Feet said...
No one "has" to believe, that is evident. However, think of the world without God's grace -- mercenary, cruel and oppressive -- survival of the fittest mode (although many are already indoctrinated into accepting and believing that this is 'normal' -especially the ones that are successful at survival mode)
My reply
What do you think is being observed in the world today and what has been observed throughout thousands of years of history?
Mercenary, cruel and oppressive--survival of the fittest mode as you call it, that is all happening in the world RIGHT NOW and you are telling us that it would be happening without God’s Grace. This does not make sense to me. Ware is God’s grace now in Bermuda?, or let’s say South Africa?
She also said
There is a passage in scripture that speaks of
a time with "no light" - that, to me, is when there is no grace.
Always have to throw them scriptures in hugh?
That to me is very subjective, the reality is there is no Grace of God.
Beautiful feet said
We would probably all agree that Christ is lord.
My reply: You cannot even be sure about that these day’s. Ever heard of LordShip Salvation? Christian seminary professors and half of Christianity don’t even agree on the term “Jesus is Lord, but it would not surprise me because that is how shallow the teachings in most churches are.
I had an interesting statement made by a Christian posted as a reply to a comment I made on another blog recently. He said: “There are no atheists in Hell since all atheists become immediate believers as soon as they get there! “ Interesting1
So, are we to understand that all theistic religions lead to Heaven? That God is on the top of a religious mountain and all religions lead to God / Heaven (Everybody plays, everybody wins!)
The Mormon Mission Elders stop by yesterday and invited me to join “an honest faith that had all the truth and was lead directly by God Himself via a living Prophet in Utah ”.
When I told them “true is relevant” and pointed out the fact that the D&C (Doctrines and Covenants) stated polygamy was “a new and everlasting covenant” that had been restored from the Old Testament, but was now rejected as well as the fact that Black men (who had the curse of Ham upon them - being dark and evil ) have, since 1978, been allowed to hold the LDS Priesthood, they told me this was all in God’s order of truth since God can not lie nor contradict Himself. Plus, if I had a problem with the Mormon Church, then the problem was with me; not the Church (LDS)!
I next asked them if God, in His wisdom and foreknowledge, knew solid-state electronic / microprocessors would be developed; they told me God already knew this too.
In short, all Christianity does is keep their “Truth” one step ahead of logic and reason. In this religious game, can I emphatically prove God did not create the world in Genesis 1-2 or that God knew about microprocessors and also is directing future technological breakthroughs? No! But this is the game played by Christians to keep God on a illogical life support system.
@Steven Bently
"Which God?" In context of the quote and my response we know we are talking about the God of the Bible.
You have a couple of egregious presuppositions:
1. Who says that kind, all loving, and all-knowing mutually excludes wrath, discipline, or a standard? You don't know the god of the Bible. Why should God be a door mat where you can act and behave anyway you want and God still bless you and reward you? That's not loving. That's stupid.
2. You don't understand the Trinity.
3. Jesus was not murdered. Jesus willingly gave up his life and rose again the third day with all power. Have you ever read the New Testament?
@Shane
What is it that makes you think that God is obligated to provide the amount of evidence you want? If God is all-powerful and in charge than why can't He provide only as much evidence as He determined was needed for you? It is more than an apt comparison between God's instructions to us and a parent to the Child. I know you think the Bible is full of contradiction and unclear but it isn't. If I had used the following excuses for disobeying my parents or if my children used these:
" Dad, I was repulsed by your apparent character in the command and did not do want to do what you said"! Punishment would be deserved for outright rebellion.
Or-
"Dad, the commands was so full of contradictions and absurdities, it was in such direct conflict with scientific findings and lacked historical confirmation of its most important features that I couldn't believe!" My parents would have told me the same thing God is saying: "Why didn't you ask me to help you? Why didn't you ask your older brothers and sisters who did understand?"
Shane, there is no excuse. The Bible does cut your arguments because they are not rational. Again, just because you didn't have first-hand evidence does not mean there isn't any.
@Ryan
You have objective evidence God exists. Read Romans 1 - it lays it out. Still stands after 2000 years, I don't think you are lost. I know you are. I know because i was too. You have the opportunity to not be lost anymore. There are church going people who are just as lost as you because they have not had that first-hand evidence. You can have it if you want it.
@Loftus
You do know what Jesus said about fodder right - Chaff?
@Lady Atheist.
You don't know what heaven is. You have totally mis-described it. There is no Bible to back up what you have used to describe heaven.
@Alexander
God does not need your worship. God does not need you, me, or anyone. We should praise and worship Him because He deserves it! Because of what we are and because of who God is - there is no other appropriate response.
@Chuck
I've never read Wes, Rob or Beautiful Feet writing anything I would disagree with because they have not written anything against the bible. We agree. You are wrong. I don't think that that open theists are going to hell. There is only one thing that can keep you out of heaven: denying Christ's atonement for yours sins and resurrection. You can be an open theist and still believe that. We can disagree on a lot of things but still be Christian. I sure would like to know why you think Calvinists who don't think women should lead churches are sexually repressed? Have you ever asked them why? I also would definitely agree with "Jesus is Lord". Please keep going to that church with your life. Hopefully you will get saved.
@Brosho7
Are you finally admitting that you are a pig? I don't want to cast my pearls before swine. I'll keep my promise and never make a comment on here again if you agree that you are a pig.
@nazani14
Why shouldn't "Because I said so" be enough for a child? My parents didn't put up with that. Like children we don't know anything. We don't what what we are doing. God does. Why should a parent be obligated to explain anything to a child. Indeed sometimes yo can't explain everything...and even if you had the time they would not be able to understand the explanation. Like the 3 year-old you don't know what you need. Neither do I. God knows. And we never have to worry about God telling us to do as he says and not as he does.
Marcus
Beautiful Feet doesn't think the bible is necessary to be a Christian and considers "Sola Scriptura" Christians like you idol worshipers.
I was a saved, confessing Christian baptized and repentent. I am now a logical grown up.
I don't consider the complimentarians all sexually repressed chauvinists, only those who have shared their views of women and sex with me.
Hi, Mr. Loftus),If you have some knowledge of Christianity, you must know (forgive my assuming this, I don't know how far you "got" in your faith) that belief in Jesus (Christianity, per se) is not something one "gets" from rational (physical) evidence. If you are trying to "debunk Christianity" by merely appealing to physical, rational arguments, you must know you might as well be trying to debunk belief in UFO's, Loch Ness monster, fairies, and anything "irrational" you might come up with. A noble endeavor, no doubt, but one that you must admit is pointless. Each of those categories will hold firm to "beliefs" at their cores. Not one of those areas has any substantial evidence to back up what they believe.
I hope you are fully aware that God, being a supernatural being, is beyond having to supply physical evidence to prove His existence (even though, repeatedly, He supplied it in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments). I would like to elaborate on this if you would find it worthwhile.
@Wes Isn't Platinga's basic argument 'if a christian thinks in his mind his belief is correct then it is'. Any Christian can do this but so can any scientologist or muslim or jew or anyone who wishes to believe anything.
Do you see how just thinking its real doesn't mean it is in reality.
@Jorge Please elaborate with details how god providing anything in the OT and NT. Demonstrate that god indeed did this.
I think we should expand on what could possible follow from this scenario between Bertrand Russell (Bert from now on) and God (Big G from now on).
Big G: Why did you not believe in me?
Bert: Why you didn't provide me enough evidence.
Big G: Yes I did.
Bert: No you didn't.
Big G: Yes I did! Are you still questioning me even after you've seen me?
Bert: No you didn't! You've created the universe in such a way that doesn't look like there was any creator behind it. What took you so long anyway?
Big G: Listen Bert, 14 billion yrs to you is like 1 millisecond to me, and 1 millisecond to you can also be 14 billion yrs to me.
Bert: Really! Wow! And your point is?
Big G: Don't get sarcastic with me Bert. You’re still not off the hook yet.
Bert: I'm sorry, forgive me if you will.
Big G: That I can forgive, but I don't know if I can forgive you for not believing that I exist; That I'm all-knowing, and all-good; That my son died for your sins and that I brought him back to life; Therefore, that Christianity was true;
Bert: Ummm....(interrupted)
Big G: Wait! I'm not finish; that I even divinely inspired a book about me (interrupted)
Bert: Hold on hold on hold on! About this book; In the Old Testament, you flooded the whole (interpreted)
Big G: No need to go there, I know what I said and did. You can see in the New Testament that I became a better being, so let’s focus on that.
Bert: I don't know if you actually got any better because all you talked about was people going to hell. And in the Book of Revelation, you don't necessarily sound very friendly.
Big G: Who are you to judge me? I created you, and I can send you anywhere I want to.
Bert: Just because I didn't believe in you?
Big G: Yaaaees!
Bert: So then, let ask you a question if I may. How do you explain so many non-believers and people who worship other Gods?
Big G: Ummm...ummm...ummm...well, they rejected me.
Bert: So are you saying they knew of your existence and chose to disbelieve?
Big G: Stop twisting my words. I gave them enough evidence. All they needed to do was have faith.
Bert: But how would they have known which god to have faith in?
Big G: Okay that's it. You’re asking too many questions now.
Bert: Okay, one last question. Why is there so much evil and suffering?
Big G: I said enough questions! Besides, you wouldn't understand anyways. I have my reasons.
Bert: Well, I didn't believe in you, and I had my reasons too. My ways are not your ways.
Big G: Hey, that's my line! And since you think you're so smart, I've got a line for you too, get "in the line of fire"!
Bert: You're joking right?
Andre
Marcus, you said, "I've never read Wes, Rob or Beautiful Feet writing anything I would disagree with because they have not written anything against the bible. We agree. You are wrong."
Thanks, Marcus!
Just to clarify where I stand on scripture:
I know it is possible to be faithful w/o scripture (this is verified even in scripture---think Abraham...), but I think it is really difficult to know and connect God w/o the promise of Christ (I also think this is verified in a scripture by Paul who said that there are those who know in their hearts about God's nature w/o hearing about Jesus-but when they hear about Jesus, they will recognize the gospel to be true).I also see the bible as a source of inspiration and also, as an avenue to be used in conjunction with the spirit and oral tradition of personal spiritual experience -- if one corrupts religion/scripture for prideful purposes then it would be used w/o Christ. Even so, God died for all, even those who misuse religious power for cruel purposes. From what I've read, Marcus seems like a caring and faithful person who acknowledges Christ as a savior, so I don't have a problem if we differ on other issues.
In the past, I've said I was an idolotor, based on my personal relationships and how that shaped my perspective of God and caused me to be blind to His nature (and yes, it did cause me to misinterpret scripture).
Beautiful Feet,
How do you know you aren't misinterpreting scripture now and Marcus would not agree with your independent assertion that a church community unnecessary to mature in faith. That is still your faith assertion right? That no church denomination gets it right so you choose to be unaffiliated?
shane said,
"...The fact that [Christianity] DOESN'T have any sound arguments is the reason many of us just cant believe?"
The fact that Christianity DOESN'T have any sound arguments is the reason why there are apologists like Alvin Plantinga, W L Craig and others, whose one mission in life is to try and develop arguments that they think can't be refuted.
Hi Chuck --- Are you attempting to stir up dissension between Marcus and I? Marcus and I both see the nature of God in Christ as salvation for mankind. In accordance with what I believe, Christ expressed God perfectly.
About church attendance: I don't belong to a church because I've never really had the habit of going instilled in me. I see the wide variety of denominations as a sign of God's creative expression.
I have written about what Jesus termed "the sons of hell" - that would be those who abuse religious power for cruel purposes, so maybe you thought I didn't go to church because of that. I think it is evident that Jesus told the truth, yet those who claim to have been former believers act shocked and offended when they learn about religious abuses..
Wes Widner,
I'd agree with you and Plantinga that belief in God is "warranted" in a sense. Basically, Plantinga's argument boils down to saying the intuition of a theory of mind behind events is warranted.
But that is a category error because it is applying what holds for intentional events (such as human actions) to unintentional (natural) events.
And this other "mind" is not simply dismissed a priori. If there was a mind behind events in the world (and to infer this was more than the perceptual propensity in human psychology) and this mind is a god, there should be a coherent pattern. There isn't. Theists even admit this with the commonplace "God works in mysterious ways" ipso facto admitting there is no "god pattern" in events.
So, I disagree with John in one sense in that I do believe that god beliefs are psychologically plausible. I agree with him however that they are not rationally plausible. It just depends which criteria one uses. I think this is a no contest situation. If we were to take all things as accurate that are psychologically plausible rather than what stands after rational scrutiny, we'd hold all sorts of perceptual errors as "true".
Hi Exreformer! Hey, thx for the reply to my former comment which was this:
"No one "has" to believe, that is evident. However, think of the world without God's grace --"
I need to express this differently. God's grace is available especially in the midst of darkness, but there comes a time when there are few faithful to express God's grace or to be a light in the darkness. So, I ought to have said, "think of the world when people have little or no faith -- they do not have grace to share with one another".
Thx, Ex!
exreformed said,
"...Ryan, I can tell you from twelve years of regular Church attendance that Christians probably have more dark lust than an agnostic. You would not believe the things I witnessed."
Do tell.
Beautiful Feet, I agree with you. There are abuses happening in denominations and services all over the world but it's not every church and it does not nullify the Bible or God's fault. Some Christians find themselves without a home church for a short time. I'll be praying with you that God will send to the church He has for you where you will continue to grow and be a part of a ministry you can help build. It's an awesome gift that I want everyone to have because God wants us to have it. Thanks for commenting here.
Marcus said,
"You have objective evidence God exists. Read Romans 1 - it lays it out."
Can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true Maecus.
Try again.
Chuck, I don't even think you know what I said. Covenant identity is about whether you are in or out and it isn't defined by all the content of theological knowledge (Eric the catholic said much the same and I'm saying it as well).
Even in my own church, there have been theological differences. My own Pastor differs with me on some subjects that we both consider very important, critical even and I can even identify some horrors in the implications of some of his beliefs, and he's said as much as mine from the pulpit (not that he was singling me out, granted I am unique even in my own church). Yet he let me lead several study groups and I find that his teachings and leadership do exhibit a substantial degree of wisdom.
You can assert all you want how friendly all christianities are. Your competing theologies demand more honesty.
this is the honest truth for so many different denominations. The common ground is there to a great degree. It deserves to be acknowledged and some of it establishes covenant identity. The differences are important as well, it deserves to be acknowledged and it deserves to be understood that not all difference threaten covenant identity.
I know you see the world through your former experience in your catholic upbringing. I've said it before and I'll say it again because you atheists will keep providing examples. That which was limiting in your faith, those thought patterns you developed as a Christian, many of them remain. there are calvinist atheists, there are catholic atheists, there are non-denominational atheists, all who couldn't rise above the limitations of their traditions, nor find the positive depths from which to stand on also present within those traditions. And so their former faith, even as dead stagnated faith to a significant degree persists, even serving as part of the scales that cover their eyes. One will never truly and fully be an outsider to who he is including who he was.
Hi Jorge,
The Canonization of the Bible(biblos / book) is totally a human grouping formed out of debates with Jews and Jewish Christians; and in this case, especially those of the Pauline corpus.
Despite a late text supported by the Jehovah Witnesses, Yahweh as a god dies with the Hebrew Bible and was totally un-transliterated in the LXX. The word “theos” is not a proper noun despite the fact of its use with a capital “G”.
Scribal traditions are at odds with each other in the Hebrew Bible. Traditions from the north / Israel over whether the Covenant was eternal contradict those of the south / Judah.
The entire New Testament rejection the Hebrew Bible and its old god Yahweh in favor of the LXX's "god" and "lord" was a debate over emerging theologies; between two groups: The Hellenists of Asia Minor and the “Jesus Jews” (Peter and James) of Jerusalem.
The term "God" is now an ecumenical term Hellenistic "Christians" used to usher pagans in this new and evolving western expanding Greek tradition. As such, neither the Gospels nor Paul used the term "Christian" in their text. (Acts uses it twice and in 2 Peter once. Paul had no intentions of braking free from Judaism, but had hoped to reform it, thus he never used the word “Christian”.)
The term "Christian" is a name "Paganism" had given to this undefined movement with its dying and rising leader who could work magic or “works and wonders” as the N.T. puts it.
Finally, the uses of the term “orthodox” and “heretical” are, like the “Biblical Canon” both totally human creations formed from religious debates for power and authority. In light of this, Coptic (Gnostic)Christianity in Egypt is just as valid a “Jesus tradition” as the Hellenists of Asia Minor when put in context of a Jewish Jesus.
Marcus is seeking a ministers license through "The Church of God in Christ.
The Church of God in Christ was formed in 1897 by a group of disfellowshipped Baptists,
Separations Church of Christ (Holiness) U.S.A. (separated 1907), Assemblies of God (separated 1914), Church of God in Christ, International (separated 1969)
If we atheists had a dime for every stinking protestant group that started by separating from another one(and another one, and another one) we would be millionaires.
Charles Harrison Mason(denomination founder) (1866–1961). Mason was a licensed Baptist minister in Arkansas in the 1890s who was disfellowshiped by the local Baptist association for preaching the doctrine of Christian perfection also known as Holiness.
So, that is why Marcus picks apart arguments so well and is always right. He is filled with such a mighty holy spirit, to bad that Baptists don’t have this powerful holiness doctrine. Of course they are reading from the same Bible. Oh wait, these are just little issues right?
The church believes in divine healing, however, it does not advocate the exclusion of medical supervision.
Wow, that is a relief. You won’t have to worry about little children being denied medical care because there freak parents believe God will heal them.
Marcus, I thank God for your prayers on my behalf! I think it could be a new adventure for me to find a church to go to regularly.
And Chuck, thank you for inspiring the conversation between me and Marcus -- see how God can use anyone or anything to get ppl together? :-)
No Rob,
I am saying that your religion would not be considered sealed by any "covenent" at all by Roman Catholic theology because it ignores the sacraments and your open theism would be considered heretical by the elders of the church I attend. Be honest now, I put you in a room with Pope Benedict, John Piper and Rob Bell and you're telling me you will all agree on what defines "salvation'? This has nothing to do with my upbringing. It has everything to do with objective observation of competing exclusive theology.
You can rationalize all you want Rob but the Christianity you practice is anathema to other Christianities. Ild love to see what someone like JP Holding would say to your open theism.
Beautiful Feet,
I just want you all to assess the beliefs of each other consistent with the methods you assess atheism. Marcus is a "sola scriptura" Christian which you've defined idolotry, Marcus has asserted god's perpetuity which Rob would deny, Rob would claim covenent for all which Roman Catholics would challenge with sacramental theology. I just see competing religions galvanized by insularity due to rhetoric (e.g. "Christ is lord").
Chuck O'Connor said...
Beautiful Feet,
I just want you all to assess the beliefs of each other consistent with the methods you assess atheism. Marcus is a "sola scriptura" Christian which you've defined idolotry, Marcus has asserted god's perpetuity which Rob would deny, Rob would claim covenent for all which Roman Catholics would challenge with sacramental theology. I just see competing religions galvanized by insularity due to rhetoric (e.g. "Christ is lord")."
A play needs to be written based on this type of material Chuck ...Monty Python style .Just imagine the humor once you add Dooms Day Prophets, Mormons with underware ,JWs door knocking ,Amish in horsecarts ,Explosive Islamists ,Hindu sacrifice
Im sure it could go global.
The fact that it's called faith is something that really puts me off taking the concept seriously. While there may or may not be evidence (I did ask for it before, but so far no serious responses), when the position is belief irrespective to the question of evidence or plausibility then where can you go from there? You train people into how to defend their beliefs without giving them the grounding for beliefs. Beliefs can be passed down to threats of consequences or appeals to emotion, rather than having to demonstrate it. Because no matter whether or not there's anything valid there it's going to be believed anyway.
Now, now, Marcus the holy spirit would not want you to lie. So instead of giving the old "I'll be praying for ya Beautiful Feet, you need to actually do it. You better put her name on a card and take it to your prayer meeting in the morning.
Why don't you two pray for peace in the Middle East. Oh wait, that is another hot button to push with Christians.
Gear Head Ed
I sent you a private e mail to the one listed on your blog profile and it did not deliver.
Marcus wrote,
"You have a couple of egregious presuppositions:
1. Who says that kind, all loving, and all-knowing mutually excludes wrath, discipline, or a standard? You don't know the god of the Bible. Why should God be a door mat where you can act and behave anyway you want and God still bless you and reward you? That's not loving. That's stupid.
A true loving god would gladly and willingly love his creations unconditionally, apparently you do not understand what true love is!
Apparently you think true love must be met with conditions, unconditional love is not what the bible teaches, the bible teaches conditional love, only if certain conditions are met!
2. You don't understand the Trinity.
There's nothing to understand!
3. Jesus was not murdered. Jesus willingly gave up his life and rose again the third day with all power.
How about if it's OK with you, I come to your house and crucify you or a member of your family on a wooden cross in your front yard, only if you'll sign a waver not to hold me responsible for the murder of either you or the member of your family? Would that be justifiable to you in your mind? Since I did ask you before hand if it's OK with you?
Now I want you to tell me in your mind when crucifixion is OK and not murder?..Looking forward to your skewed answer!
Have you ever read the New Testament?
Is it listed under the bizarre fiction department?, It should be!
Beautiful Feet said..."I also see the bible as a source of inspiration "
Amen Sister ..Yes its so true its been such great inspiration for polygamy ,witch killing,exorcism ,seperation and ecommunication and bigotry against other faiths and stuff
Ed, every comment you make proves Romans 1. Thanks.
...and now for something completely different:
http://www.syatp.com/
Could this be more pagan? Are these people idiots or twits or retards? I can't decide.
Beautiful Feet said..."From what I've read, Marcus seems like a caring and faithful person who acknowledges Christ as a savior, so I don't have a problem if we differ on other issues."
Westboro Baptist acknowledge Christ as a Saviour.So did Jim Jones.They feel they were only being caring,so who decides.
@exrefomed
I have my license now. And I my mother met personally and had a chance to witness the power of God through that man. I myself have seen God move in the life of his People.
@Chuck
No Christian here has said anything I would pronounce an anathema against them. But you on other hand continue you your obstinate rebellion against God. It's really sad. I hope God will grant you the gift of repentance before your time on earth is over.
@Kel
Faith is not contrary to evidence. No where does Bible define "Faith that way.
@exreformed
Who said I don't pray for Peace in the Middle east? Who said I won't be praying for Beautiful Feet? I will. Who says I haven't already?
@Steven Bently
Upholding a standard for you children and punishing them when they rebel against that standard is true love. Not conditional love.
If the Trinity is not something to understand than stop talking about things you don't understand.
Killing and murder are not the same thing. We are all responsible for Jesus' death because He died to redeem us. We didn't ask Him to do it. We didn't even know we needed Him to do. He did it because we need it. He wanted us to live and not be cut off from God! I never said that crucifixion is okay. It was capital punishment in the First Century. I only said that Jesus was not murdered he gave up his life for us. If someone takes your life against your permission it's murder. They thought that they were murdering Jesus But he was the one who was in control. He also was raised from the dead with all power. WE didn't ask for it. He did it because He loves us.
@ X
"Please elaborate with details how god providing anything in the OT and NT. Demonstrate that god indeed did this."
I will not go into chapter and verse here. Too easy, and it may not be what I understand you to really want. I, for the sake of time and space here, will just mention that a plain reading of the Old and New Testament reveal, without much need for clarification, that indeed God is at the center of the Scriptures. He is said to speak to people, to show them things, to show His anger and love, among others. In the New, Jesus (God in human form) is more personal than in the Old, performing miracles and stuff.
I was hoping you'd address my concern that, If you want to base your "debunking" on the lack of rational, physical evidence, you would have a hard time, as you have no doubt already experienced.
Gearhead wrote: "Can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true Maecus."
That is at the very core of this issue. The Bible IS the one and only thing that helps us understand as much of God as we can possibly understand humanly speaking. In studying it, one learns more and more WHY it is a true and reliable source of our faith (hopefully, churches still teach why we can believe the Bible).
So, if we are to truly have a discussion on how and why we believe in Christianity, you have to allow us to use the Bible.
@Harry H. McCall
Hi, Harry. I don't think you meant to address me. No problem. I am willing to debate biblical matters from the Old and New Testaments from what they teach today. I have heard of issues some people have about the accuracy and reliability of the Bible, regardless, I find it more revealing that I can still use it today for what it is: The one source for understanding our faith. I read from KJV, NIV, and now the ESV versions, and have no problem understanding what it says about most issues, and I am even more amazed at the harmony and consistency found in it.
Marcus
Do you believe that your professing God heals Cancer today?
@exreformed
I know people who God has healed of Cancer. He healed me of crippling arthritis of which I suffered for 5 years. Of course God heals today.
I know not all Christians agree with me. That does not matter. It's not about whether or not you believe in miraculous healing that makes you a Christian.
It's interesting to note that worldwide, more people have become Christians in the last 150 years than in the previous 2000 years.
@Marcus stop being evasive. You know very well what Matthew 7:6 is talking about. Just wondering when you will start obeying what you say you believe in. So far, you appear to be a liar because you actually said you wanted to obey Jesus.
"Faith is not contrary to evidence. No where does Bible define "Faith that way."
I didn't use the word contrary, I used the word irrespective. There's a big difference. Who would believe despite knowing what they believe is against all that they know? It's an incoherent proposition. But that people will hold an idea to be true and either refrain from critical examination or dismiss any evidence they see as to the contrary is just a part of human nature. Since we know it's a part of human nature (people tend rationalise beliefs they came to for non-rational reasons) then critical examination of what you believe is something everyone should do as much as possible.
@brosho7
Finally you speak. I'm not being evasive. Jesus said to shake the dust off your feet if you weren't welcomed. You ain't the only one here on this blog making comments. Just ignore them if you don't like them. Otherwise, admit you are a pig and like I promised I won't post here anymore. I mean many of of you guys here think I just read the Bible in a completely literal fashion right? So let's take this passage literal. If you are pig then I don't have to witness to you.
@kei
I didn't use the word contrary, I used the word irrespective. There's a big difference. Who would believe despite knowing what they believe is against all that they know? It's an incoherent proposition
I agree with you. The thing is what I believe is not against anything that I know to be true. Critical examination goes both ways. I find the atheist worldview bankrupt and wanting of any true foundation in rationality.
"
Upholding a standard for you children and punishing them when they rebel against that standard is true love. Not conditional love."
See that's the problem. You Christians value obedience not as a means to an end, but as an end itself. Which is dumb. Obedience for obedience's sake means slave mentality. Plus, even if it is true that true love requires punishment for disobedience, there's another problem.
Punishment has to serve a purpose, other than satisfying the punisher's lust for vengeance, in order to be of use. However, the Biblegod's version of punishment means that if you don't believe, your punishment never stops. It's pure vengeance. Unconditional love means that you use punishment only to correct and reform the wrongdoer. It's still tough love enough, for punishment is always tough to go through, but of course temporary, corrective punishment for sins is "too vanilla" or "too soft on sin" to please the conservative/fundamentalist segment of Christianity, heh. There's that lust for violence in the believers who adamantly preach that anyone who doesn't believe as they believe go to hell. It's a perversion, really.
I'm an atheist and I'm opposed to any religion that teaches the monstrosity of everlasting hell. So revolting is this concept that I can't see why any rational human being could accept this fear-mongering nonsense. But I'm sure if God exists, he's much nicer than the religious fanatics portray him to be. And more willing to correct even the worst villain ever and punish him only to cleanse him of his sins altogether. Because this is true love: to redeem even the worst among humans. Otherwise Satan or whoever is responsible for making humans sin is more powerful than God himself.
Errki, God does correct people in the hear and now. After you die, what else is there to say? What else is there to do. Hell is just the continuation of your existence without the influence of God. Is that torture? Yes it is, but its a torture of your own choosing. No one is going to hell because they disagree with me. People go to hell because they reject God as He truly is. That's your choice to make. I see no reason for getting mad at God for allowing you to live out the consequences of your own decision.
"Critical examination goes both ways."
Indeed, everyone should be critically examining what they believe, to take the path of Cartesian doubt and see what remains. I was at the local Skeptics In The Pub on the weekend and we got into a discussion about free will. One of the people there said "I love sceptics" not because there was any agreement, but because of the spirit of inquiry. It was because people were willing to discuss and dissent, to be able to disagree and have to articulate why instead of just holding something to be true. If one isn't being reflective, then one doesn't really have the ability to claim any will in what they believe.
"I find the atheist worldview bankrupt and wanting of any true foundation in rationality."
A couple of things. Atheism is not, has never, and will never be a worldview. It's as much a worldview as non-astrology is a way of predicting the future. It's the negation of theism, not a view in itself.
As for no foundation in rationality, what do you mean by this? Are you saying A=A only if God commands it? Because a foundation for rationality is a question external to the notion of the existence of deities, unless you can demonstrate that deities are vital to the process.
Perhaps this would be best illustrated by an example. If I had one banana and someone gave me another banana, would the conclusion that I had two bananas only be valid if God exists? If not, what does rationality (and the use of rational systems) need the divine?
I recommend
Bertrand Russell - The Problems Of Philosophy as something to read if you are genuinely interested in the question of knowledge and the foundations thereof.
Ah, Marcus, you've clearly bought into the view that "Hell is eternal separation from God". Which is really relatively new view. Before that, it was common view among theologians that God tortures the sinners for all eternity. Consider Tertullian:
"At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how
laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the
lowest abyss of darkness…"
Lust for violence, no? Lust for seeing all of the people he hated burning forever, no? Nevermind, let's move on to Jonathan Edwards:
"Reprobate infants are vipers of vengeance, which Jehovah will hold over hell, in the
tongs of his wrath, till they turn and spit venom in his face!"
"The view of the misery of the damned will double the ardour of the love and
gratitude of the saints of heaven."
Yes yes, it ain't heaven to you if you can't see them damned infidels burning and screaming. Next->
Thomas Aquinas:
"That the saints may enjoy their beatitude more thoroughly, and give more
abundant thanks for it to God, a perfect sight of the punishment of the
damned is granted them."
Oh praise the lord for he spareth us whilst screwing over these bloody infidels!
Jeremy Taylor
"Husbands shall see their wives, parents shall see their children tormented before
their eyes…the bodies of the damned shall be crowded together in hell like grapes
in a wine-press, which press on another till they burst…"
Now what did Frank Zappa sing about the details sounding real gory? :)
Or what about John Calvin (who had some of his theological enemies burned to death in
green slow-burning wood):
"Forever harrassed with a dreadful tempest, they
shall feel themselves torn asunder by an angry God, and transfixed and
penetrated by mortal stings, terrified by the thunderbolts of God, and broken
by the weight of his hand, so that to sink into any gulf would be more
tolerable than to stand for a moment in these terrors."
I am the Lord and lo, the vengeance is mine, I teareth thee asunder, throweth thunderbolts at thou, for lo, I am the God of love, but also justice!
So the track record of Christianity over the centuries is pretty much portraying the God as a vindictive tyrant. No mention whatsoever of the "separation of God", which does make the view of hell more palatable, but it does not make the idea of everlasting punishment more valid.
Marcus said,
"Upholding a standard for you children and punishing them when they rebel against that standard is true love. Not conditional love.
So to you Marcus, punishment in hell for all eternity is totally acceptable and showing a display of unconditional love?
I'm glad you're not the one in charge of things here on earth!
If the Trinity is not something to understand than stop talking about things you don't understand.
You're the one that mentioned the trinity, I personally do not believe in it, nor do I see any reason why you should either!
Killing and murder are not the same thing. We are all responsible for Jesus' death because He died to redeem us. We didn't ask Him to do it. We didn't even know we needed Him to do. He did it because we need it. He wanted us to live and not be cut off from God! I never said that crucifixion is okay. It was capital punishment in the First Century. I only said that Jesus was not murdered he gave up his life for us. If someone takes your life against your permission it's murder. They thought that they were murdering Jesus But he was the one who was in control. He also was raised from the dead with all power. WE didn't ask for it. He did it because He loves us."
I'm wondering how one gets, "cut off from god?" if god is everywhere, how can people hide or get cut off from a god?
These man made cliche's, cut off from god, turn your back on god, hide from god, etc.?
How can we as humans hide from a all knowing god???
How does that work Marcus??
So anyone who will volunteer and climb up on a cross and die is perfectly OK in your mind, even if the people have control to stop the murder, but yet choose not to, that's OK in your mind??
It's not murder!!!
It's human sacrifice???
Because he loves us, but he will send people to hell that do not believe in him, because he loves us so much, that's pure love, not unconditional love???
Thanks for clearing that up for everyone here, Marcus!
@Keri
A couple of things. Atheism is not, has never, and will never be a worldview. It's as much a worldview as non-astrology is a way of predicting the future. It's the negation of theism, not a view in itself.
I think you are confusing "worldview" with "religion". A worldview is a systematic set of assumptions and conclusions on which you live your life and make decisions. You cannot honestly say that your atheism does not have an affect on how you think or how you live your life.
As for no foundation in rationality, what do you mean by this? Are you saying A=A only if God commands it? Because a foundation for rationality is a question external to the notion of the existence of deities, unless you can demonstrate that deities are vital to the process.
Perhaps this would be best illustrated by an example. If I had one banana and someone gave me another banana, would the conclusion that I had two bananas only be valid if God exists? If not, what does rationality (and the use of rational systems) need the divine?
I'm saying that without God you have no banana. You have no air to breathe as you count your bananas and neither of you exist. I'm saying that in God we have our very being. We exist because he said so and allows it. No other reason.
@Erkki
No you misunderstand....separation from God is torture. An eternity without him...suffering conscious torment. I don't know what kind of torture. The Bible talks of fire but I think you are confusing Dante's Inferno and cultural ideas of hell with reality. I don;t know what will be worse...not being able to feel or talk to God - no love - no comfort - at all or whatever horrors the people of Hell will be feeling for eternity.
I don't fully agree with Tertullian. He may be describing it correctly. I don't know. What I do know is that it will be horrible and if you end up there you will wish you weren't. We have no Bible telling us that those in Heaven will be able to watch those in hell suffer. We are going to be too busy marveling and worshiping God. Just gratitude knowing that we don't deserve to be there. We will be there only by Grace and not by anything we earn.
I would suggest that you educate yourself further regarding Calvin and what he actually did. Start here
That does not sound like tyrant to me. If God made you why don't you think he might have something to say or expect from you?! IS God Sovereign? Yes. Can He do whatever he wants with us? Yes. Total separation from God is a horrific punishment. I'm not surprised that you can't grasp that.
@Steven Bently
It makes sense that God is so utterly holy that sin is really that bad deserving eternal punishment. We all deserve it. Not one of us deserve the Grace God has given us. Because of God's mercy, love, and grace is why we have Jesus.
When I use the term "Cut off from God" I don't mean that God no longer knows about you. It means that you no longer have access or the opportunity to be in relationship with God. No one can hide from God. You didn't understand what I meant. I hope it's clearer now.
IT was either going to be your blood to be paid to satisfy the debt of your sin to God or Jesus'. The problem is that neither you nor I are qualified enough to pay for our own sin. You can never do enough to make up for your sin. We needed a sinless - perfect - sacrifice. This is the way God chose to do it. You can either attempt to pay for your own sin or God could apply Jesus' propitiation to you. Take your pick. It is pure unconditional love. What did you or I do to deserve Jesus dying in our place for sins? Nothing. What do you have to do get this salvation? Nothing. What does God get out of this? You. All you have to do is believe. That's it. Now with that belief comes changes because now your worldview would be different and the way you live your life would change - the things you do and say.
But if you would rather go to God on your own, hoping that you have been good enough to be accepted. OR thinking some lame excuse like Bertrand Russel's will cut it and God has to let you into his paradise although you reject him and dishonor him now, more power to you. Good luck with that.
See Marcus, you operate under the assumption that God is good. But he could just as good be evil. Hell yeah, evil to the core. And all this talk about sin and judgment is just a cover-up to justify his whims of tormenting his opponents forever. God sounds like an awful tyrant to me if he expects me to kiss his ass, or else he'll make me suffer the consequences for not kissing his ass. In any case, Biblegod in no way values free thinking at all. It's either toe the line or get totally fucked!
And yeah, it is better to go to hell if the price of going to heaven is mindless obedience and slave-mentality and kissing the ass of a megalomaniacal vindictive tyrant. Fortunately, this tyrant does not exist or is unlikely to exist so all these fears about going to hell is mere irrationality and susceptibility to brainwashing.
Marcus said,
"Ed, every comment you make proves Romans 1. Thanks."
Whay are you reading someone else's mail and behaving as if it is speaking to you, Marcus?
jorge wrote:
"Gearhead wrote: "Can't use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true Marcus."
That is at the very core of this issue. The Bible IS the one and only thing that helps us understand as much of God as we can possibly understand humanly speaking. In studying it, one learns more and more WHY it is a true and reliable source of our faith (hopefully, churches still teach why we can believe the Bible).
So, if we are to truly have a discussion on how and why we believe in Christianity, you have to allow us to use the Bible."
And men wrote the Bible and there is no "divine" from which to be inspired to write.
It's all men, thinking men's thoughts.
The Bible proves nothing.
Hi Marcus--
Thanks again --
And Chuck, thanks again to you too. Even though I think you have our best interests at heart, I do reject your attempts to turn faith into a cloning process. That is a compulsion and an ungracious concept. Some ppl cannot understand that. They think that to belong to Christ means to be cloned.
By faith, I am just one part of the bigger body of believers. We can each present certain aspects of faith in accordance to our abilities.
At any rate, take care all!
Hi Jorge,
Gearhead made some great points.
You have not address the issue of the Biblical Canon yet. Apart from inter-religious debates over the nature of God, there was no Biblical Canon (66 books or otherwise) until the Jewish Christian debates over soteriology and the nature of who or what Jesus was.
Fact is, NONE of the Biblical Canon is either an autography from God nor is there any text in this human Canon claiming to be written by God. The closest are the Biblical laws (of which the Decalogue is but a small section) given authority by scribes claiming Moses took dictation directly from God, but these laws parallel other much older ancient Near Eastern cultic laws from which they were redacted.
The nearest grouping of texts making an ancient canon is from the Jews at Qumran, but their use of the Pesher texts and their rejection of Esther greatly both expanded and changed the canon into a bible of its time and culture.
Christianity is (present tense)always in the process of being defined. As such, both Peter and Paul had many differing view of exactly who and what Jesus was just as it still rages on today.
Dictionary.com as the perfect word of the day today (8/21): imago.
With God as your Father, it makes sense.
2. Psychology An often idealized image of a person, usually a parent, formed in childhood and persisting unconsciously into adulthood.
Beautiful Feet said..."I do reject your attempts to turn faith into a cloning process. That is a compulsion and an ungracious concept. Some ppl cannot understand that. They think that to belong to Christ means to be cloned.
By faith, I am just one part of the bigger body of believers. We can each present certain aspects of faith in accordance to our abilities."
It dont feel all to "gracious" being caught up in some of these Christian cults either.
Not that i expect you to think about that factor Beautiful Feet. You seem far to busy faithfully considdering others as those being so ungracious
Marcus
I am sure you have medical records that prove you had "crippling" arthritis".? Do you also have ex rays showing the arthritis to be completely gone?
Kel
In regards to hell and penile substitution; Marcus offers us nothing new. He just regurgitates the same drivel that apologists have been for the last thirty years.
Well it's like this Marcus, your bible god did nothing to help his own favorite people (over 6 million jews), so christians do not have a tinkers chance in hell to be saved just because you claim to believe in him.
Your god may just one day decide to roast all you christians on his special built barbeque rotisserie because he loves you all so much.
The thing is, Marcus had juvenile arthritis, which often goes away as one grows older.
His juvenile arthritis went away as he grew older.
Ergo God healed him.
Reminds me of this absurd miracle claim.
Marcus,
What type of arhtritis were you diagnosed with? Osteo, Rheumatoid, Psoriatic? Did you seek treatment? What treatments? What stage was your disease (e.g. what were your CRP levels if you had RA?)
See, there are many points of inquiry left to examine before we take your claim of a 5 year suffering with miraculous remission. That is all the scientific process entails.
"I think you are confusing "worldview" with "religion". A worldview is a systematic set of assumptions and conclusions on which you live your life and make decisions. You cannot honestly say that your atheism does not have an affect on how you think or how you live your life."
Only in the same sense that I don't read my horoscopes to predict the future. It does have an impact but only on what I don't do. Atheism is only the negation of theism, it's a word to distinguish those who don't believe.
And it should be quite obvious, if I don't believe in gods then what can you say I do believe in? You can't derive anything from the position except the negation of all gods! And in so far as the actions in relation to gods, that's about as far as you can take atheism as a means of behaviour. You could probably gather that I don't pray and I believe that this life is it, but what does it say about how I treat others or find value in what I do? In short, yes some things follow from the position but they are very limited in scope and to call it a worldview is going to be a gross misrepresentation.
"I'm saying that without God you have no banana. You have no air to breathe as you count your bananas and neither of you exist. I'm saying that in God we have our very being. We exist because he said so and allows it. No other reason."
Couldn't it just as easily be said that without Brahman, there could be no banana? There would be no air to breathe as I count my bananas that neither of us exist? That in Brahman we have our very being. (literally, since in Hindu mythology Brahman became the universe) We exist because he became so? No other reason?
Now to get away from the presupposition for a moment, are you honestly saying that the only explanation you can come up with is that there's an immaterial superhuman beyond space-time that's behind it all? And beyond all that lies the simple question of epistemology: how do you know?
As an aside, can you please spell my name right? It's just three letters, so I don't get why you've managed to get it wrong twice.
Marcus said,
"...When I use the term "Cut off from God" I don't mean that God no longer knows about you. It means that you no longer have access or the opportunity to be in relationship with God. No one can hide from God."
Awesome!
I DON'T have a relationship with God now;
ergo, I am already in Hell.
So when I die, and my consciousness dissipates into random tiny packets of unorganized energy, and I'm no longer ME, that will be an improvement.
But I won't know about it--I'll be gone.
Oh, yeah...
Oink, oink, oinkity oink, Marcus.
I'm a pig.
Now go away like you promised.
Honestly, I don't know why you people are bothering with him. There's obviously a cognitive deficit in evidence.
The christian story is that God wants us to believe and have faith in him, if we don't, we go to hell, if you do you go to heaven. Is it just me, or does the idea of having faith loses its pretentious virtue when we consider the fact that God is using reverse psychology in order to get people to believe and have faith? How easy must it be in getting people on your side with the threats of hell and instilling fear in the minds of his supposed creation? Where is the virtue in all of this? Why would God want us to believe by such petty means?
Also, on the topic of Rob R's favourite - free will - where this is an ultimate virtue, why would God then not respect our decision to not believe when we use said "free will"? It's implausible to think that God would say, "That's fine, you don't have to believe or have faith, but I still have to punish you!" He gave us free will, while at the same time, he’s supposedly doing all he can and trying his best to get us to believe what he wants us to believe. And we should arrive at this using his “gift” of choice. Either free will is not all that it's proposed to be, or, christianity makes no sense.
Andre
andre said,
"Either free will is not all that it's proposed to be, or, christianity makes no sense."
Absolutely!
That is the equation!
@ gearhead wrote:
Re "And men wrote the Bible and there is no "divine" from which to be inspired to write.
It's all men, thinking men's thoughts."
Hi, Gearhead. It is true that men wrote the Bible. The divine part is that they wrote under the inspiration of God. If it were mere men's thoughts, how would one account for the harmony of all 66 books?. Keep in mind they were written over several hundreds of years appart, under different circumstances, and under differing cultures, yet, they managed to keep the central point of God's plan for redemption. I think it would be impossible for mere men to agree and stick to that point over such a long period of time. That's just one good reason to believe it's divine origin.
@ Harry H. McCall, wrote:
"Christianity is (present tense)always in the process of being defined."
Hi, Harry. I think it's more accurate to say that some Christians (and I use the term loosely), are and have always tried to redefine what Christianity is.
Take any controversial topic (I don't want to take this blog on a tangent, so I'll keep the subject open to the reader's interpretation). A Christian may say and believe a topic or behavior is clearly taught as wrong, and condemned in the bible as an abomination, with scriptures to back it up, until that behavior finds it's way into their families. Then, all of a sudden, they will, somehow, and conveniently, find ways in which the convictions they once held firmly onto become mere "grey areas" that are now subject to re-interpretation. Suddenly, their whole faith is shaken and they see no other option but to accomodate or, more often than not, compromise their values. This is what you refer to as "redefining Christianity". I'd call it: compromising with the world's views, and not advice it.
I'll just take a moment here to speak to a couple of issues raised by other commenters. To say that slavery, and other issues were once seen as aproved of by the Bible is really taking the wrong approach to Scripture interpretation. I'd challenge anyone to find anywhere in the Bible where those kinds of issues were spoken of as "right" things to condone and accept. You will find that misinterpretation would be at the core of their acceptance.
Re " As such, both Peter and Paul had many differing view of exactly who and what Jesus was just as it still rages on today."
Without you citing examples, I'd have a hard time answering that. I'll say this; The foundations of the Christian faith were established and taught by both Peter and Paul in that first century church. If there were any "differing views", I'd say they were of minor importance. Care to elaborate?.
There should be no mistake as to who Jesus is from a plain reading of the Scriptures. Where people misunderstand scripture is where problems arise.
Kel,
you said regarding atheism and it's effect on your life:"It does have an impact but only on what I don't do."
So atheism is a discipline?
You said:"Atheism is only the negation of theism, it's a word to distinguish those who don't believe."
So atheism is nothing more than a "word" denoting anti-theism??? It's an alter-theism of some sort? Where do you get that type of philosophical construct from??? how can it have any impact if it's only a "word" as you say?
Gearhead,
you said:"So when I die, and my consciousness dissipates into random tiny packets of unorganized energy, and I'm no longer ME, that will be an improvement."
A randomly disorganized unconscious mass will be an "improvement" over what you are right now? I won't argue with that, but I was just checking to make sure if that what you meant...
Then you said:"But I won't know about it--I'll be gone."
OK, where will you go and how will you get there? in fact how will you "know" when you've arrived? Then what will form that basis of this "I" that you reference...you say "I won't know"...what does that mean in an atheistic worldview? Just curious.
Harry,
Since Chuck failed his attempt to prove the disunity of Christianity, now you bring in JW's who are NON-Christian and Mormons who are also NON-Christian to try to prove your point that Christians believe different things etc...
Harry, I'll give it to ya, you have much info and will whoop a novice's behind, especially those Mormons you referenced...but that only goes so far.
You know as well as I that the unification of the Christian church developed early...much earlier than the second century and certain earlier than Nicea. You KNOW there were developed creeds as signified in Paul's writings prior to 52 AD as transmitted by him in 1 & 2 Cor. much of what he received as much as 12 to 14 years prior placing a developed Christian belief system in effect within a very short period of Jesus death and resurrection...Those early creeds and consistent beliefs were that Jesus 1-lived, 2- Died (by crucifixion) 3- He rose BODILY from the grave 4- He ascended, 5- he will return 6- that he lives and 7- those who share faith or belief in his atoning work have their sins remitted upon repentance.
Now these essential beliefs were consistent in every writing we find in the ancient world when it comes to those who confessed "Christianity"... The rise of gnosticism affirms this as we can identify the diverging points and deviations of teachers such as Cerenthus, Marcion and others to see where they differed and why they were not considered "Christian" by the early church.
I find your attempt to present an amalgamated Christianity yet another effort to confuse and obfuscate the truth. ie: we can see through that mess Harry as always...
BTw,
I don't have to believe every point of doctrine of some else to be a Christian, neither do we have to have the same practice...to "mind" the same thing has nothing to do with a synchronization of watches or actions etc...it has to do with observing the supremacy of Christ and what he has done by remitting our sins.
So in spite of church dogmas, doctrines and polemics, we are unified around a risen Christ, who demonstrated himself to be God by conquering death, controlling the elements, and exercising power and authority over sickness and disease.
Now, does the Lutheran across the street and I differ over those things??? Does the Presbyterian and I differ over that??? how about the Methodist and myself? Funny, that we come from radically different experiences and all AGREE over those points without question.
Sorry Harve, but you are wrong about Methodists and Presbyterians agreeing with you on those topics "without question" There are plenty of Presbyterians that advocate same sex marriage and Women Pastors, same with Methodists.
It looks like "Marcus" sicked you on us. Why don't you write to Marcus and tell him to post those medical records?
"you said regarding atheism and it's effect on your life:"It does have an impact but only on what I don't do."
So atheism is a discipline?"
No! It's a simple concept to grasp. Imagine someone said they base their life decisions off the advice of a psychic. As someone who doesn't believe in psychics, I don't base my life of them. It's not a discipline, just saying what I don't do. I don't believe in gods, that's all atheism entails.
"So atheism is nothing more than a "word" denoting anti-theism??? It's an alter-theism of some sort? Where do you get that type of philosophical construct from??? how can it have any impact if it's only a "word" as you say?"
No! antitheism is something different to atheism. Antitheism is someone who is against religion, atheism is someone who doesn't believe in gods. As for the philosophical construct, atheism is descriptive rather than prescriptive. It's a word to describe people who don't believe, that's all the concept has to it. The word ideally shouldn't exist except for the fact that labelling oneself and others by their belief is a necessity in our current society.
Just to make sure you've got it, ask yourself what it means not to believe in astrology. It doesn't mean anything except that you don't believe there's a relationship between the relative position of the planets and stars from our vantage point and the events of individuals and societies. That's all not believing in astrology entails. Now take that concept and apply it to gods. All atheism entails is that people don't believe in gods. That's it, nothing more nothing less.
It's an incredibly simple concept to grasp, it's amazing how many people get it wrong!
exreformed: In regards to hell and penile substitution
Best Freudian slip ever!
exreformed,
No, I just haven't been here in a while, but still the same lame arguments are being offered I see...you said"Sorry Harve, but you are wrong about Methodists and Presbyterians agreeing with you on those topics "without question" There are plenty of Presbyterians that advocate same sex marriage and Women Pastors, same with Methodists."
Well those AREN'T the topics I was referencing were they??? I referenced these now didn I not:
we are unified around a risen Christ, who demonstrated himself to be God by conquering death, controlling the elements, and exercising power and authority over sickness and disease...Now, does the Lutheran across the street and I differ over those things??? Does the Presbyterian and I differ over that??? how about the Methodist and myself? Funny, that we come from radically different experiences and all AGREE over those points without question.
That's what I said and these things are the things that have been recognized as what it takes to be a CHristian.
So stick to the point I was making please.
So far as medical records, anti-Crist advocates such as you wouln'd be;lieve anything because you don't comprehend the nature of miracles to begin with, so anything along those lines are a complete waste of time. I've written on the FACT that there is plenty of proof and evidence for miracles, HERE and HERE but what you can't understand scientifically you all cower to the position "we don't understand but we'll know when we know more science" this is scientism or the worship of science and you exercise FAITH in it...Not because you can affirm it, or even test it, but simply because you 'believe' it and have 'faith' in it...that's all, plain and simple.
I knew you would like that one Ed
Kel,
You said:" I don't believe in gods, that's all atheism entails.
and
"It's a word to describe people who don't believe, that's all the concept has to it.
then you say:"The word ideally shouldn't exist except for the fact that labelling oneself and others by their belief is a necessity in our current society."
OK, so you say that "atheism" is only a word that shouldn't exist that describes what you don't do or believe...Allright, so then the "description" is meaningless as it has no further implications than naming something you don't do...
What you are trying to do is claim that what you "don't do" or believe has no implications on what you do, do or believe...That's garbage and a non-sense argument.
What you don't believe makes every difference in what you do believe. Everyone has what is called a presuppositional stand, belief or control belief. Loftus can at least school you on that point and I have leaned something from him regarding that subject or area.
To define atheism as simply a 'non-belief" and then disconnect that "non belief" from any consequences that it has is ridiculous, and totally disingenuous to the reader.
Example: I don't believe in driving cars. No matter who does or what they look like...Guess what I do? I then shape every part of my life to accommodate what I believe in doing...I get a bike, ride the bus or train or walk...tell me that my "non-belief" has nothing to do with how I shape my life and handle my affairs...IT DOES 100% of the time...
So please understand that atheism IS a worldview, it is more than simple non-belief in something as simple as a car because it has implications and makes statements for how one lives, why we exist, and our purpose and place in this great universe.
We're not simple my friend, please don't try to pretend that we are...thanks!
The biblical scripture is far ahead of you pretending that what you believe doesn't matter...Solomon said as it pertains to dealing with individuals of authority "as a man thinks in his heart so is he" Prov. 23:7
What one believes and doesn't believe means everything!
Harvey, Marcus,
A couple quick questions for you: does more than one god exist now; if not, has more than one god ever existed?
It's true that lots of people now do worship, and, in the past, have worshiped many different gods, but I'm curious about your official Christian position on this.
Harvey
I will read your matiral on miracles some time today. In the meantime, can you please answer the question I asked before, Ware did you go to seminary?
exreformed,
On Harvey's profile it used to tell us when he became a Christian and when he became a Christian clergyman. I think that at that time it said that he had been a Christian and a minister both for 28 years. That might give you some insight.
That has been a topic of discussion before here at Debunking Christianity so I'm not trying to "out" the good preacher's credentials. In all the discussions I don't recall Harvey having mentioned any seminary or other formal training for the clergy.
Russ
That is why I asked, because anyone can become a minister in this country. I think it is very important ware someone went to seminary. It clarifies so many things upfront.
For instance, John went to "Trinity Evangelical Divinity School" which is a very well respected scholarly seminary. I guarantee you they did not just give him a degree like a degree mill. He had to work his but off and earn it.
Harvey wrote
how about the Methodist and myself? Funny, that we come from radically different experiences and all AGREE over those points without question.
So stick to the point I was making please.
My reply
Sure thing Harve, I will stick to the point. YOU ARE WRONG!
I know plenty of Methodists and Presbyterians that do not believe that Christ rose from the dead, and yet they are supposed to agree "Without question" as you state....
Harvey wrote:
So far as medical records, anti-Crist advocates such as you wouln'd be;lieve anything because you don't comprehend the nature of miracles to begin with, so anything along those lines are a complete waste of time.
My reply
I served faithfully in three churches over twelve years. I dogmatically believed every thing in the Bible and defended it. I was also a Pentecostal for five years. I have been to healing crusades, afterglows and Holy Ghost meetings. I believed in your delusional miracles.
So you can claim that my presupposition is anti miracles all you want.
Bottom Line: Just give us the name of one oncologist that has witnessed someone with a deadly cancer and God healed it completely.
"What you are trying to do is claim that what you "don't do" or believe has no implications on what you do, do or believe...That's garbage and a non-sense argument."
I said it has no implications beyond the direct consequence. Being a non-astrologer means I don't base by life on the relative position of the planets and stars and the interpretation thereof. But what does that say about what I do believe?
I'll illustrate this. Let's say I had a significant amount of money I wish to invest. Being the non-astrologer that I am, I don't consult my horoscopes or check the ascension of Mars as part of my decision. Now what does that say about how I will invest my money? Nothing at all!
"To define atheism as simply a 'non-belief" and then disconnect that "non belief" from any consequences that it has is ridiculous, and totally disingenuous to the reader."
I thought I explained this. The only consequences that are valid are those that necessitate theism. Just as the non-astrologer does not consult horoscopes, the non-believer does not pray or act for the next life. These are direct consequences of not believing, but this doesn't constitute a worldview any more than believing astrology is nonsense.
"So please understand that atheism IS a worldview, it is more than simple non-belief in something as simple as a car because it has implications and makes statements for how one lives, why we exist, and our purpose and place in this great universe."
So what does atheism say about how one lives their life? What does atheism say about why we exist? What does atheism say about our purpose and place in the universe? The position says one thing: there's no gods behind it. That's it. Are you honestly telling me that there not being gods behind it all is sufficient to call it a worldview?
Again I'll stress that atheism is a negative position, one that describes rather than prescribes. You're free to show me otherwise. Show me how atheism in of itself answers those questions, but I'm betting you can't. The only kind of answers I see from theists are taking their own theistic worldview then removing God from it, and that's like being a Young Earth Creationist and asking how evolution could work in 6000 years.
I'm not saying I don't have a worldview, or that there aren't such things as atheistic worldviews - just that atheism is of itself not one any more than being a non-astrologer is.
Everyone has what is called a presuppositional stand, belief or control belief.
Oh, this presuppositional garbage again.
John, this is why I tell you every so often - arguing with these people (to say nothing of debating them formally) is a waste of time. I'm convinced it's neurological. The few who have the capacity to get out, will. The resources (including books such as yours) are there. The VAST majority are literally unreachable.
jorge said,
"...If it were mere men's thoughts, how would one account for the harmony of all 66 books?"
One word:
Editing.
Prove they didn't.
Also - what harmony? More holes, contradictions and grammatical anachronisms than you can poke a stick through.
Supt. Harvey said,
(I said):
"So when I die, and my consciousness dissipates into random tiny packets of unorganized energy, and I'm no longer ME, that will be an improvement."
(you said): "A randomly disorganized unconscious mass will be an "improvement" over what you are right now? I won't argue with that, but I was just checking to make sure if that what you meant...
Not an improvement over what I am; it will be an improvement over having to listen to a gang of Christians telling me over and over and over that "separation from God is Hell".
The silence will be positively refreshing, except that my ears won't be functioning anymore, along with my (also dead at that point) brain.
Then, Supt. Harvey asked,
"...OK, where will you go and how will you get there? in fact how will you "know" when you've arrived? Then what will form that basis of this "I" that you reference...you say "I won't know"...what does that mean in an atheistic worldview? Just curious."
The part that says "me" or "I" will not exist any more.
There is no such thing as "soul", that survives the death of the body.
That's just a bunch of wishful thinking dreamed up by people who can't imagine a state of non-being after having enjoyed consciousness for a short time.
Go thump your Bible at somebody else.
Supt. Harvey said,
"...Now these essential beliefs were consistent in every writing we find in the ancient world when it comes to those who confessed "Christianity"... The rise of gnosticism affirms this as we can identify the diverging points and deviations of teachers such as Cerenthus, Marcion and others to see where they differed and why they were not considered "Christian" by the early church."
You do realize you've refuted yourself in the space of one paragraph?
All those first century "Christians" who disagreed and were declared heretics were Christians, too.
So either the early beliefs were NOT consistent, or you MUST use the "no-true-Scotsman" fallacy to declare that guys who called themselves Christians WEREN'T.
Take your pick.
Gearhead,
Aside from just being wrong, your even more wrong-LOL
Look Gnosticism arose and was IDENTIFIED as an non-Christian belief...eg: if there was a distinction, the followers of gnosticism COULD NOT have been Christians...follow???
So far as the soul you said"There is no such thing as "soul", that survives the death of the body."
On what basis do you make this determination? What information do you have and what investigation that provides the information necessary for you to come to such a comprehensive decision?
What you have here is a statement of faith...that's not bad in an of itself, but as the materialist that you are you step way outside of it to come to that conclusion now don't you?
So you're a faith based atheist???
exreformed,
As I've told Russ before my education makes no difference...in fact my 7th grade education obviously is sufficient to deal even with the most avid materialist I'd say...
Only thing I can't do well is type and spell at times...maybe I can take an 8th grade summer school class on that...
Touting educational accomplishments especially in places like this is purely for the self-exalted and certainly not necessary to handle your assertions...
You said:"I know plenty of Methodists and Presbyterians that do not believe that Christ rose from the dead, and yet they are supposed to agree "Without question" as you state...."
You know plenty of "people" right??? Look at their statements of faith will ya please!!!
Here they are:
Church Of God In Christ :THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST
We believe in the second coming of Christ; that He shall come from heaven to earth, personally, bodily, visibly (Acts 1:11; Titus 2:11-13; St. Matthew 16:27; 24:30; 25:30; Luke 21:27; John 1:14, 17; Titus 2:11) and that the Church, the bride, will be caught up to meet Him in the air (I Thessalonians, 4:16-17). We admonish all who have this hope to purify themselves as He is pure.
Then there's the Methodists
How about the ECPA
In fact just look at many of the majors on the essentials side by side and there's remarkable unity ON THE THINGS I REFERENCE...
Jesus lived, died, was bodily resurrected, will return, carried away our sins through his atoning work, etc...essentials...
Now I've supported my argument Mr used to be Christian...support yours or harp on something else please.
Russ,
You asked:"A couple quick questions for you: does more than one god exist now; if not, has more than one god ever existed?"
How many God's must exist and how do they exist Russ? There is and can only be one true and living God. If he is not living, he is not God, if he is not true then again he is not God...If there is a coexistence with something else also called God, he can't be God.
You said:"It's true that lots of people now do worship, and, in the past, have worshiped many different gods,"
Now this leads back to something called cultural commensurablility. The question is SINCE we see so many with faith in "gods" through the course of history why is it that you have no faith in any?
What I'm saying is that in the whole of human history belief in something seems to be a default, whereas non-belief seems to be some sort of anomaly...explain THAT for us...
Remember one thing though...I already know that the age of scientific enlightenment HASN'T really decreased religious belief. The increase in atheism or non religion from 8% in 1990 to 15% over 18 years and 2400 years of atheistic philosophy is still dismal and seem to be a recent anomaly.
But since you bring this sort of thing up, I'm also curious about how you account for it.
Thanks Harvey,
Just wanted to know your position because I've been chatting with another Christian who thinks there have been many gods and the Christian gods are just the best ones.
"Hippolytus records that Marcion was the son of the bishop of Sinope, in Pontus. His near-contemporaries Rhodon and Tertullian described him as a ship owner.[2] Marcion possibly was consecrated a bishop, likely an assistant or suffragan of his father at Sinope.[2]
Epiphanius states that after beginnings as an ascetic, he seduced a virgin and was accordingly excommunicated by his father, prompting him to leave his home town.[3] This account has been doubted by many scholars, who consider it "malicious gossip". More recently, Bart D. Ehrman suggests that this "seduction of a virgin" was a metaphor for his corruption of the Christian Church, with the Church portrayed as the undefiled virgin.[4]
Marcion had traveled to Rome about 142/143.[5] Over the next few years, Marcion worked out his theological system, and subsequently attracted a large following. He made a notable donation of 200,000 sesterces to the church.
When conflicts with the bishops of Rome arose, Marcion began to organize his followers into a separate community. He was eventually excommunicated by the Church of Rome, his donation being returned to him. After his excommunication, he returned to Asia Minor where he continued to promulgate Marcionism."
Marcion of Sinope wiki
How, pray tell, does one get excommunicated from the Church of Rome, if one is not a Christian to begin with?
Russ,
That's ll work but I think you know my position. I can see the claims of the ancients, but I can only see one true and living God...
Gerarhead,
Marcion wasn't the first heretic...Both Simon and Cerenthus were much earlier, had much larger followings and both were known in the early church as heretical because the teachings were against the FACT of a bodily resurrection and many other points that caused the early church to know that these weren't Christian people or teachings...
Valentinus was also during a similar time being born around the turn of the second century. The nature of God was why (even though he almost became Pope) he and his teachings weren't considered CHristian. It was said:
"Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God... These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato."Marcellus, in Logan 2000:95
another site said regarding him and gnosticism The present writer holds that Valentinian (as well as all other) Gnosticism can be understood in psychological terms, so that the religious mythologems treated by the Gnostics are taken to symbolize psychological conditions and intra-psychic powers of the mind. Taking this approach we might conclude that what Valentinus tells us is that because our minds have lost their self-knowledge, we live in a self-created world that is lacking in integrity.
Somehow people think the early church couldn't distinguish these differences and weren't given to study, but the contrary is true...Children by age 8, knew a lot more than many adults do today.
Anyway, that's another subject and I'll leave that alone...
Apparently 7 years of primary school is all you need to learn to fleece a flock.
Ryan,
LOL-LOL-LOL!
Believe me "flock fleecin'" is one class I never took or learned on my own...but that was a good one!
Harvey wrote
You know plenty of "people" right??? Look at their statements of faith will ya please!!!
LOL, like those mean anything now days
The U.M.C. ordains Pastors that don't even believe in a bodly resurrection, but they will "without question" uphold your dogmatic assertions
evidence
Bishop John Shelby Spong is ordained by a ministry listed in your little chart. We all know what he thinks about your "without question" statement.
In the words of Christian Apologists Josh McDowell "All religions cannot be right, but they can all be wrong"
I assert that they are ALL WRONG!
Harvey wrote
Touting educational accomplishments especially in places like this is purely for the self-exalted and certainly not necessary to handle your assertions..
Your mind is so conditioned to think dogmatically. You are the one making false assertions. Behold the omnipotent District supt, he knows for 100% certainty that you are "purely exalting self if you are proud of your education accomplishments.
Why is it that only uneducated people like you would make a statement like that? I only have a g.e.d., but I don't write like a "no it all like you, Mr. Big supt.
I sure wouldn't want anyone with a seventh grade education handling my retirement.
Gearhead wrote:
"Editing. Prove they didn't.
Hi, GearHead. I can't prove something that I don't believe is there. I can only show you what the Bible says.
Can you prove that changes that have been made to the Bible were not merely to change printing errors, or minor phrase updates? In comparing something that was there to whatever it ended up being, is there what you would consider irrefutable proof of tampering or at the very least blaring inconsistency?, then, you would prove Biblical inerrancy. That may be a topic for another discussion.
The issue at hand is the reliability of the Scriptures. Not having (yet) seen irrefutable proof for not believing the Bible, I can, in good conscience, use it. It has not failed me yet. It answers, with surprising simplicity, any question one might have.
The same goes for so called "canonization". I haven't seen where changes made to any books altered the Scriptures enough to render them unusable.
Cipher wrote:
"Also - what harmony? More holes, contradictions and grammatical anachronisms than you can poke a stick through."
Hi, Cipher. By harmony I meant that the Old Testament speaks of the coming Messiah and God's plan for redemption, and the New Testament speaks of that plan coming to fruition, and explains what truly is required to keep in God's plan (mainly, faith).
It's worth mentioning that many of the prophecies of the OT were realized in the NT, and that the NT makes many references to the OT. Thus, there is a connectivity between the two that I find hard to believe could be achieved by mere men's planning and effort.
As to the holes, contradictions and such, again I can not prove something that I believe isn't there. Another topic to address, perhaps some other time?
"What I'm saying is that in the whole of human history belief in something seems to be a default, whereas non-belief seems to be some sort of anomaly...explain THAT for us..."
There's a wonderful book called The Science Of Superstition (formally titled: Supersense) by Bruce Hood that explores that very topic. It's a really good read, very informative and entertaining.
Another book on the matter is How We Believe by Michael Shermer, which is also a really good read.
It's worth mentioning that many of the prophecies of the OT were realized in the NT, and that the NT makes many references to the OT.
Nope. Fail.
Supt. Harvey said,
"...Marcion wasn't the first heretic...Both Simon and Cerenthus were much earlier, had much larger followings and both were known in the early church as heretical because the teachings were against the FACT of a bodily resurrection and many other points that caused the early church to know that these weren't Christian people or teachings..."
It's only regarded as a FACT because the fanatics ganged up and ousted those with differing opinions.
And WHY were there differing opinions in the early church (noting here that you denied that there WERE differences of opinion above)?...
Because the "official version" had not yet been writen at that point.
THAT wouldn't happen for at least two more centuries.
For contrast:
"...Now these essential beliefs were consistent in every writing we find in the ancient world when it comes to those who confessed "Christianity"..."
(first he states that there were no inconsistencies in Christian belief in the early church...)
""Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has corrupted the Church of God... These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato." Marcellus, in Logan 2000:95"
(...then he provides example after example of CHURCH FATHERS who had differing opinions and were expelled from the church for saying these things out loud....
AND:
This reference itself calls Valentinus' theory of the Trinity a heresy!:
"For he was the first to invent three hypostases and three persons of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato."
This is a guy who was thrown out as a heretic, for saying exactly what every Christian who recites the Nicene Creed on Sunday says every week!)
It was a collection of warring factions in the early church; there was MUCH difference of belief (otherwise, there would have been no need for Paul to have written correctional instructions in the form of epistles to so many of the early churches... i.e., the New Testament itself says you lied earlier, Supt. Harvey!)
Harvey,
You said,
That's ll work but I think you know my position. I can see the claims of the ancients, but I can only see one true and living God...
I asked since I know people do change their minds about such things. On one thread here at Debunking Christianity, Dr. Randal Rauser, told us,
I've changed my views on many many issues over the years by exercising certain intellectual virtues. It was careful reflection and an evaluation of all the data -- biblical, theological, philosophical, et cetera -- that led me to reject doctrines like eternal conscious torment and divinely commanded genocide.
Dr. Rauser boasts a fine pedigree, the contributor page on his blog, The Tentative Apologist, saying,
Rauser received his master's degree in Christian studies at Regent College, later earning a PhD at King's College London, where he focused on studying the doctrine of the Trinity.
[http://www.christianpost.com/blogs/tentativeapologist]
Randal feels content changing his mind about theology, whereas others think theology is set in stone. That he would "reject doctrines like eternal conscious torment" tells me that people, regardless of education level, are just making it up. Randal didn't do this just willy nilly, no, not at all. For him "It was careful reflection and an evaluation of all the data -- biblical, theological, philosophical, et cetera" that led him to conclude that what the Bible says isn't really what it really means. Clearly, it's quite all right to decide for oneself what the Christian god actually means with its words.
For Harvey:
Johnny P said...
"Harvey
these are the things that you have to stretch to accept:
1) Mary and then Joseph are visited by god to anounce the birth of their son, the messiah (not much of a stretch if you believe in the supernatural)
2) joseph has to go to bethlehem to attend a census. this requires him to go to his ancestral home. no census has ever required this. one in egypt required migrant workers to return home, which is understandable, but not to an ancestral home. (STRETCH)
3) to get there, joseph will have to take 3 weeks off work (STRETCH)
4) he will also have to feed and house himself, mary and most probably a donkey for that time with no income. holidays didn't exist. (STRETCH)
5) bethlehem was not in the same tax area as nazareth, so requirement for himto travel there would be incoherent (STRETCH)
6) at the time, judea was a client kingdom. no client kingdom was ever recoded as needing a roman census. this simply NEVER happened. why would it happen here? (BIG STRETCH)
7) Quirinius, legate of judea took the reins in 6CE. Herod died in 4BCE. There is at least a 10 year difference in dates between luke and matthew, and no correlation of these two ruling simultaneously (MASSIVE STRETCH)
8) Matthew had joseph as already living in bethlehem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem#Roman_and_Byzantine_periods) and this contradicts luke as having them living in nazareth and travelling to bethlehem (STRETCH)
9) Joseph, a supposedly loving husband, makes his wife travel (on cart / donkey back) for 80 miles whilst heavily pregnant. this is both cruel, and would have almost certainly resulted in miscarriage. elizabeth, who had been visited too, lived a few miles away and would have been a much better place for mary to stay. (STRETCH)
10) women were not required to attend censuses (STRETCH, given her pregnancy)
11) it explicitly says that joseph attended bethlehem census because he was in the line of david, mentioned in luke as being 42 generations past. this is an arbitrary requiremeent (totally unevidenced) requiring a man to return to his home 42 generations past. why 42, not 34, 16 etc? “Under no circumstances could the reason for Joseph’s journey be, as Luke says, that he was ‘of the house and lineage of David,’ because that was of no interest to the Romans in this context.” [Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Putting Away Childish Things, (p.10)]. (STRETCH)
12) getting either the whole nation (or even less, if bizarrely argued) to return to a 42 generation past census contradicts all knowledge of censuses, and would have been logistically and economically impossible. (BIG STRETCH)
13) the generations of matthew and luke do not cohere, and directly contradict jesus' grandfather (STRETCH)
14) the magi followed a star going counter-directionally in the sky for what must have been months. in a highly astrolonomically literate period, there is no other written etc evidence for this very long incredible miracle. (STRETCH)
15) the magi are only elswhere used as a word in daniel. matthew seems to copy daniel in many aspects. is this pulling on daniel as a literary technique? also, it seems, in conjunction with the shepherds, a technique to show jesus' appeal to the rich and influential as well as the poor and lowly. (smaller STRETCH)
End of part 1
Part 2:
16) these rich and influential people, and the shepherds, despite knowing they have met god incarnate, are never heard from again. no cult, no movement, no writing, nothing. (STRETCH)
17) there is no extra-biblical evidence of herod massacring babies, despite 2 historians noting his atrocities. (STRETCH)
18) luke and matthew directly contradict where joseph goes after birth. one has egypt, chased by herod, for 2 years. the other has them going to see simeon in a temple and then returning to nazareth. (STRETCH)
19) it seems like, by hook or by crook, there are devices afoot to get jesus to be born in bethlehem to gulfill prophecies. (smaller STRETCH)
20) miraculous birth narrative fits perfectly in line with other mythological birth stories. (smaller STRETCH)
21) despite all these miracles, jesus' family (including, most probably his mother) do not believe jesus is messiah in his life. (STRETCH)
22) herod would have been incredibly unlikely, at the age of late 70s as he was, to have given 2 hoots about a baby boy who would have come of age clearly after he had died. no threat at all to go to all that rigmarole (good point made by r. stovold). (STRETCH)
23) census takers more commonly travelled TO the land-owners, not the other way around (STRETCH)
24) jesus is called everywhere 'Jesus of Nazareth' and not jesus of bethlehem, which would have been correct. (smaller STRETCH)
25) the star was lifted from Numbers 24:17 as a refernce from authority of the OT (smaller STRETCH)
26) vigin birth (STRETCH)
27) problem of how the male genome is selected to allow him to be fully human (STRETCH)
if your answers are continuously 'maybe' and 'this could have happened' and 'there is a possibility', then you are convincing yourself with weak arguments. which is fine on the odd occasion. but for over 20 points makes mockery of reason. i think the nativity narratives are hugely important and if they are false, shed so much doubt on eeverything else as to allow the NT to start crumbling
cheers!
August 20, 2010 6:57 PM
----------------------------
You promised him an answer on August 21st, but never delivered (at least in public).
I'd like to see the answers, too.
Gearhead,
There are many good resources that clarify all those points...I told Johnny P I wasn't going to go through all them and many I've already written on or about already.
I did forget to get back with Johnny on the topic we were discussing...I'll have to look up the topic again, I believe it was the census of Quinirius...
Exreformed,
He said:"I only have a g.e.d., but I don't write like a "no it all like you, Mr. Big supt.
Btw: I commend you for getting that G.E.D., love that, and you certainly don't...and people with 7th grade educations need to make money too-LOL
Harvey
dogoneit, now your making me feel bad.
I don't have any money for retirement anyway. LOL
exreformed,
Man I just knew I was gonna make a boatload of commissions off of you-LOL
Anyway, one a serious tip, that is good regarding that G.E.D....Now from a business stand point, I got tired of somebody picking over me and using my skills to benefit them when they wanted to...I started my own thing 15 years ago and haven't looked back...at times it was rough 'cause as I told Ryan, I missed the "fleece the flock" class-LOL, but man I wouldn't change it or have it any other way.
(imagining- as I sit back in great big-old pair of overalls with a cold lemon ice tea, and in my best southern accent and voice) "Gives me plenty a' time to combat u ate-e-ists and slap some sense upside ya head wif a few scriptures!"
Now imagine I was white!
LOL-LOL!
Anyway, in spoite of what Russ and Chuck O say, I'm not all bad!
Later.
Marcus;
You do realize, of course, that a god who demands that we all devolve into starry-eyed children who'll believe anything they're told is patently absurd. If we are the children of God, then why did He create evil in the first place? Why did he create two people with the mental capacities of retards, who were completely ignorant of right and wrong, and cause them to sin by not warning them about Satan? I mean, duuuuh....
Apparently, you choose to think like a child; but the rest of us have to face reality. For example, I could say this;
Marcus, after reading your comments, it is obvious to me that you hate Cthulhu, the Harbinger of the Old Ones. I recommend that you set your heart straight with Him, unless you want your soul to be torn apart by the Shoggoths for all eternity. Cthulhu offers little evidence for His existence, other than a corrupted, heavily-edited copy of the Necronomicon, but I don't need evidence; I have Him living in my heart, and every day I hear His voice in my head, telling me to do things for Him. I am amazed how short-sighted your rejection of Lord Cthulhu's offer is. When He rises from the sunken city of R'yleh, He will bring about the Apocalypse by summoning the Old Ones, who will then reclaim their long-lost kingdom of Earth... those who stand with Him upon that day shall be granted mansions, unlimited power, a personal relationship with Cthulhu Himself(an incredibly generous act of grace that we pathetic humans don't deserve), and the chance to watch our foes be tormented for all time...
However, those who stand against us shall be swept away. Will you become a slave of Cthulhu?
Look up Capella's Guide to Atheism, as well as...
Biblical Contradictions,
Christian Atrocities,
and Ten Reasons Why Christianity is Wrong,
and ExChristian.net.
B.R.,
In honor of your comment directed at Marcus, I'm putting on my Halloween costume early this year...
Hi, B.R;
Re "If we are the children of God, then why did He create evil in the first place? Why did he create two people with the mental capacities of retards, who were completely ignorant of right and wrong, and cause them to sin by not warning them about Satan? I mean, duuuuh...."
God did not create evil. In a nutshell, evil came into the picture first because of satan's rebellion, and was augmented on Earth through his involvement with Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve, far from being retards, obviously had no idea what "dying" would entail. The "fall" did not involve intelligence or lack of it, but rather involved not trusting what God had said to them. I don't think they had to be warned about satan; the main point is they trusted what satan said rather than what God said. Very simple when you think about it.
Re "You do realize, of course, that a god who demands that we all devolve into starry-eyed children who'll believe anything they're told is patently absurd."
I would not count anything we are told that is corroborated by the study of the Scriptures absurd at all.
Something to keep in mind. Many, many people think we will get to plead our case before God at the last judgment (i.e "Bertrand Russell was asked what he would tell God on judgment day..") The thing is, we won't. It will be a judgment, not a trial.
jorge said,
"...God did not create evil. In a nutshell, evil came into the picture first because of satan's rebellion, and was augmented on Earth through his involvement with Adam and Eve."
God created the Universe.
God created everything IN the universe,
Therefore, God created Adam and Eve.
Therefore, God created Satan.
Therefore God created evil (see Plantinga's "Free WIll Defense"- personally, I think it's a poor argument, but there's a lot of folks who thinkit has merit (mostly Christians who think about such things)).
God is responsible.
Furthermore, if you assert that "Jesus was the plan for salvation from the beginning of the universe". then Adam and Eve were CREATED TO FAIL.
Marcus.
You keep telling me that im wrong and irrational, yet you haven't explained how christianity has met its burden of proof yet?
If my view that Jesus walked on the sea of Galilee,rose from the dead, cast out demons, and all the rest of the unearthly things the bible claims....if my view that these claims need some sort of confirmation is irrational to you...then please explain to me what you base rationality on?
Also, by you saying that God has probably offered just the right amount of evidence for me to believe...then how come I dont believe?....your statment is an oxymoron!
GearHed had listed alot of very good points that I myself dont have the patience to type on here....thank you GearHed.
All I can do is sat back and laugh at christians who try to assert the truth of the bible when there are tantamount descrepencies standing against it!
I mean....there is probably some truth within the bible, but to claim that the gospels are inspired by a God, and the claim that they are literaly word for word true is just friggin ridiculous!
-How could the robe that was placed on Jesus be a scarlet robe and a purple robe at the same time?
-How can the stories regarding what happened at Jesus tomb that sunday morning all be true at the same time?
-How can one gospel say that the last supper occurred on the fisrt day of passover, when another says Jesus was already on trial on the first day of passover?
-How can one gopspel say that Jesus ascension took place at Bethany on the same day as His resurrection, yet Acts says it took place at Mount Olivet forty days after His resurrection?
and the list goes on and on!
There are just way to many problems for the gospels to be inspired by any perfect being!
Although apologists try to answer these issues-and maybe some of them have been answered-the good majority of answers are just plain nonsense...
You cannot reconcile something that cannot be reconciled!
Thanks, Shane.
I was wondering if anyone even noticed...
Isaiah 45;7-
I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the LORD do these things.
You were saying, jorge?
Anyway, Christianity is false because Adam &Eve is false. God created two people and told them nothing about Satan; in fact, when he told them that they would die if they ate the fruit, he made sound like they would die immediately. And, then god, in all his genocidal wisdom, decided to punish every single human being for the rest of eternity for something they didn't do.
Here's how one atheist put it elsewhere on the Net; imagine that I take a retarded child into my house who is completely ignorant of right and wrong, set him down in my living room, and tell I have to go get some ice, but I'll be back in twenty minutes or so. There is a cookie on my coffee table, but I tell him that it's bad, and he'll get sick if he eats it. My annoying cousin lives down the street, and often lets himself into my house, so I try to get back quickly. However, when I get back, my cousin has already talked him into eating the cookie. Now, should I spank, or punish this kid at all? No. But I spank him anyway. And when he has kids, I spank them too. And when they have kids, I spank them too.
Plus, if Adam & Eve were the first humans, there's no way they could avoided inbreeding.
Oh, and Genesis provides two conflicting records of Creation. I wonder why...
All Praise and Glory to Cthulhu!
And the Hypnotoad!!
"I would not count anything we're told that is corroborated by Scripture absurd at all."
As I've pointed out, only a gullible imbecile would believe in Genesis; this, and the rest of the bible have no credibility. For example, the bible says that all languages and cultures originated from the tower of babel; however, this view was discarded by linguists in the nineteenth century and is no longer given any credence. There is no proof that this tower even existed, as no other documents mention it, and anyway, the Sumerians had written language as early as 9,000 b.c.
The bible also says that Samson killed over 1,000 men with a donkey jawbone. Even though a bone would shatter after a few hits.
Even though the soldiers would've had spears, swords, arrows, slings, and shields.
You really have to be a moron to buy into that story(no offense).
GearHedEd, you should visit my blog. I plan to put some Lovecraft stuff on there tomorrow.
@ GearHead
"God created the Universe.
God created everything IN the universe,
Therefore, God created Adam and Eve.
Therefore, God created Satan."
Well, almost right on. Satan was created before Adam and Eve. Satan, and all the angels, were created with the ability to chose to obey God or not (after all, God did not create robots. Where would the fun be in that?). Satan desired to be like God, and that got him expelled from heaven (along with a third of all the angels that chose to side with him).
Re "...then Adam and Eve were CREATED TO FAIL."
Adam and Eve were created with that same ability to disobey, if they so chose. God was not taken by surprise when the fall came. As I mentioned before, God's plan for redemption was from before even the world began. That's what I meant when I wrote that both the OT and the NT have at their central point God's plan for redemption. It's all there.
You did bring up an interesting point in your responses to me and to others. In essence, you asked WHY God did things the way He did. I will certainly admit that I have myself wondered about that. But, in the end, I have to come to the realization that God is who He is, and that I am limited in what I can grasp. What you and others are trying to do is, as has always been the case, to try to put God "in a box". To try to figure Him out. To know what makes Him "tick".
You have to keep one point in mind. God is a Supernatural being. Do you really think a supernatural being can be understood by physical, logical, or other human endeavors?.
Even the Scriptures themselves reveal that everything in them cannot be comprehended by the human mind. That everything I, or others say from or about scriptures is foolishness to those who are not given the ability to understand. So, the logic I and others use when defending scripture can only be applied in that context (supernatural).
If we're discussing The Bible and it's reliability, that's easy. I just have to look at the "contradictions, holes, and anachronisms" and debunk them, one by one. That clearly would take more time and space I'm willing to take from this blog (or may be allowed to take). Just a couple of examples in my reply to B.R below.
@ B.R
Re "You really have to be a moron to buy into that story(no offense)."
None taken. Someone had to say it sooner or later.
Re "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace and create evil; I the LORD do these things."
Hi, B.R. Here's a thought. This passage, is to be taken in it's context. God is addressing Cyrus, and showing him that He (God), is the only true God and the He controls everything. In the first statement, God says He forms the light, and therefore, darkness, since darkness naturally follows as the opposite of light. Then, He says He makes peace. What would naturally follow? Not necessarily evil as you understand it. That would not be in the "nature" of God (since evil has no part in Him). I think it's better understood if, rather than "evil" we find a word that best describes what would the opposite of peace would be (please note that "evil" here has more than one possible translation). How about war, or calamity?. That's a better translation. Please refer to the ESV or the +KJV versions of the Bible for reference, if interested.
Scripture corroborates scripture. One should not take one verse of scripture and build doctrine around it, but take the Bible as a whole.
Re "Plus, if Adam & Eve were the first humans, there's no way they could (have) avoided inbreeding."
They didn't. Inbreeding was the only way they could "be fruitful and multiply". As they were perfect after creation, the bad things we know happen from inbreeding were not an issue. Later (much later), God does prohibit inbreeding.
This is just sad. First off, this verse is just one of many that say quite clearly all things were created by god. Secondly, after reading through the OT, only an imbecile(no offense) could believe that evil is not in god's nature.
Thirdly, you basically admit to believing in a false story.
And finally, you make one of the most idiotic fails in human history; you actually think that the human race was started by inbreeding. First off, inbreeding only works for a few generations before the gene pool becomes totally barren and corrupted. In short, it completely impossible that the human race started from inbreeding; if so, then we would've gone extinct within two centuries of less. Christianity has just discredited by science.
Thanks for pointing that out, jorge.
@ B.R
Re "..that say quite clearly all things were created by god."
Nowhere is it implied that "all" things created include evil. After He created everything, it is said that He Himself called everything "very good".
Just a quick lesson in Bible interpretation: Scripture says that God can do all things. Yet, God cannot lie, He cannot learn anything new, He cannot tempt anyone, etc.
Lesson to be learned: God can only do things according to His WILL. Only things in keeping with his good nature. God IS beyond human understanding.
Re "Thirdly, you basically admit to believing in a false story."
(?????)
Re "..only an imbecile(no offense) could believe that evil is not in god's nature."
Sorry, B.R., there's just too many Scriptures that reveal evil is NOT in God's nature. Evil (or evilness), only came to the forefront when creatures chose to NOT trust or obey God. Is it not clear that, only when moral (or "good") things are absent, ignored, or even known, that evil rears it's ugly head?.
Re "In short, it completely impossible that the human race started from inbreeding; if so, then we would've gone extinct within two centuries of less."
Completely impossible?? Give God some credit. Nothing is impossible with God.
Noah and those with him, after the flood, were the ones who re-populated the Earth, with God's blessing (meaning they would be able to, again, "be fruitful and multiply").
Noah lived after the flood 350 yrs (altogether, he lived 950 yrs). With him on the ark were his three sons each with a wife.
When son Shem was 100 yrs old, (and 2 yrs. after the flood), he fathered his firstborn. Shem lived for another 500 yrs, having more sons and daughters.
Pretty much the same can be assumed for the other two sons. They also lived hundreds of years, having sons and daughters.
No problems with inbreeding yet. God wouldn't allow it. It isn't until Moses (much later),that inbreeding is ordered to stop.
jorge said (to me)
"...You did bring up an interesting point in your responses to me and to others. In essence, you asked WHY God did things the way He did. I will certainly admit that I have myself wondered about that. But, in the end, I have to come to the realization that God is who He is, and that I am limited in what I can grasp. What you and others are trying to do is, as has always been the case, to try to put God "in a box". To try to figure Him out. To know what makes Him "tick".
You have to keep one point in mind. God is a Supernatural being. Do you really think a supernatural being can be understood by physical, logical, or other human endeavors..."
Maybe, maybe not.
But we CAN understand what his plan (as described in the Bible) is by looking at the things that happen to the characters in the story. I'm not really interested in "why god did things the way he did", being an atheist that doesn't believe that there IS a god in the first place.
What I'm doing is pointing out the holes in the story. What you're saying, in essence, boils down to
"God works in mysterious ways..."
which tells us absolutely nothing of value.
@ GearHead wrote
"But we CAN understand what his plan (as described in the Bible) is by looking at the things that happen to the characters in the story. "
And: "What I'm doing is pointing out the holes in the story."
Yes, GearHead, and I really appreciate your participation and patience in engaging me. All I am doing is trying to clarify what that plan you speak of is all about, and trying to "plug" the holes you and others keep finding.
The fact that God DOES work in "mysterious ways" (or, as I understand it: God is incomprehensible), may have "absolutely nothing of value." for you (and others), but I think there is enough revelation about God there where we can still find something to discuss. Looking forward for another chance to participate.
"And finally, you make one of the most idiotic fails in human history; you actually think that the human race was started by inbreeding. First off, inbreeding only works for a few generations before the gene pool becomes totally barren and corrupted. In short, it completely impossible that the human race started from inbreeding; if so, then we would've gone extinct within two centuries of less. Christianity has just discredited by science.
Thanks for pointing that out, jorge."
Well said BR. Of course, Christians will continue saying things that "nothing is impossible for God" but that's real flimsy. A cop-out, much like that entire "God's ways are foolishness to disbelievers" nonsense. As if I have to feel guilty for not buying into superstitious crap.
Science may or may not discredit Christianity itself, but it definitely discredits creationism in general and the Biblical literalist model of one man one woman first and then being fruitful and multiplying in particular. Unless you're willing to argue that only creationists are true Christians. Which is debatable.
Then again, maybe I'm not as well-versed in evolution as some of you, so just to play Devil's advocate: when apes evolved into humans, was there not a problem of initially being just few examples of new species? When humans first came into the scene, how did they avoid inbreeding and its inherent problems?
This just gets sadder and sadder.
"Nothing is impossible for God"? You're defending a hypothetical being by making up random nonsense, jorge. God can't lie? How about when he sent those "lying spirits" into the mouths of Ahab's prophets? How about when Jesus said that he would return before "this generation passes away"? I'd love to read what sheer gobbledy-gook you come up with to answer this. Also; what about the Death of the Firstborn? Killing thousands of Egyptian children for the crimes of their parents... tsk tsk! And that's just one of many examples; how about all those vicious, totalitarian laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy? AS for the Great Flood; *sighZ* where to even begin? The Flood never happened, because all of the geological signs it would have left are nonexistent Secondly, yu actually believe that ten people restarted the human race? The gene pool would have been diverse enough to sustain our species for more than a few centuries. Period. Believing otherwise is a sign of gullibility like that of a lobotomized 3-year old. I'm not even going to point out the fact that "God works in mysterious ways, etc." is just a knee-jerk dodge used by the superstitious and deluded to protect the gaps in their mythology.
And finally; if god did not allow Noah & Co. to inbreed, then how did they breed, Einstein? Did the males spread their sperm like amoebae? Did the females lay eggs, which were then fertilized by the males? Eh? Oh, wait, let me guess; Sky Daddy works in mysterious ways, amirite?
Classic logic fail...
Sorry, I meant the gene pool would "not" have sustained our species for more than a few centuries.
By the way, jorge, your dogma about non-Christians being unable to understand the bible is hog wash. Every time a skeptic refutes Christianity by bringing up uncomfortable verses such as Deut. 25;11-12, Christians predictably squeal "You don't have the Holy Spirit! You can't understand it!".
And when skeptics show verses where god changes his mind and/or contradicts himself, all the mystics yell "You're cherry-picking the Bible! You're taking it completely out of context! It was a COMPLETELY different time and culture! You're no theologian; you can't understand that! Blah blah blah blah blah!!!"
Honestly, whenever you guys are trying to convert someone, you always(predictably) trot out the feel-good verses that describe god's boundless love, mercy, wisdom, compassion, benevolence, etc., yet neglect all those genocidal goodies from the Old Testament. If you can't defend your beliefs, then don't accuse us of not being able to understand because some magic "holy ghost" doesn't reside in us.
This bugs me:
"God's plan for redemption was from before even the world began."
Not picking on jorge directly, as many other Christians have said this out loud.
But what does it say about God?
He planned for Adam and Eve to fall from grace.
If I've said it once, I've said t a hundred times:
Why couldn't God have created Adam and Eve to be successful, if he could determine ahead of time that they would fail? Why did God need to wipe out life with the flood, when he could have just started over, and no one would have been the wiser?
Did he use up all his magic "creation powder" in Genesis 1?
No, the answer is simple.
Without the Fall, the Bible would have been a very short story:
"And God created Adam and Eve, and Adam and Eve were righteous and obedient. And God and his little family lived in the Garden of Eden forever and ever, in happiness and laughter, Amen."
The End.
If we are to believe the Bible, and with it the notion that "God's plan for redemption was from before even the world began", then we MUST accept that God planned for humans to fail.
But, being an atheist, it looks like this to me:
The story claims we have a condition called sin, and then the story claims that it is the only solution to the problem created by the story. And how do we get "cured"?
By submitting to earthly authorities that have set themselves up as arbiters of justice and morality, and keepers of the tithes.
There's no "God" in any of this.
You're absolutely right, GearHedEd; just look at Leviticus and Deuteronomy, it's practically the "Dummy's Guide to Building a Totalitarian/Theocratic Hellhole".
Post a Comment