Friday, December 20, 2013
Thursday, August 5, 2010
A Note of Support to Christopher Hitchens
I will not bother with any of the usual clichés about being brave and strong and battling the enemy that is cancer, you get enough of all that.
What I do want to say is thank you.
Thank you for all the writing you have done over the years and for the profound affect you have had on forming my current stance on politics, religion and ethics. You have been a powerful voice for reason in the face of an insane world and always with a great sense of humor.
I sincerely hope that you get to add cancer survivor to your lengthy resume and can give the world many more years of the honesty and ruthless wit that it needs. There are still too many nasty characters on the public stage needing to be skewered by your word processor.
I will not bother to pray for you but you will be in my thoughts.
Paul Kalbach
What I do want to say is thank you.
Thank you for all the writing you have done over the years and for the profound affect you have had on forming my current stance on politics, religion and ethics. You have been a powerful voice for reason in the face of an insane world and always with a great sense of humor.
I sincerely hope that you get to add cancer survivor to your lengthy resume and can give the world many more years of the honesty and ruthless wit that it needs. There are still too many nasty characters on the public stage needing to be skewered by your word processor.
I will not bother to pray for you but you will be in my thoughts.
Paul Kalbach
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Refutation of article about supposed former atheist
This Article below appeared on zionica.com on 04 Aug 2010 and was reproduced in full from its original posting on chrisianpost.com. It is fully reproduced below with comments inserted in bold. The post this was taken from is at http://zionica.com/2010/08/04/former-atheist-christianity-really-does-make-sense/
Culture|Mon, Aug. 02 2010 08:25 PM EDT
Former Atheist: Christianity Really Does Make Sense
By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter
Holly Ordway was a highly educated atheist who thought Christianity was "a historical curiosity" or "a blemish on modern civilization," or both.
"Smart people don’t become Christians," she thought, according to Biola University.
Her worldview, however, began to change at age 31. She recounts her journey from atheism to Christianity in the recently released Not God’s Type: A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith.
"It is no light matter to meet God after having denied Him all one’s life," she writes in the book. "Coming to Him was only the beginning. I can point to a day and time and place of my conversion, and yet since then I have come to understand that He calls me to a fresh conversion every day."
This is a rather classic example of theist prattle, we have an assertion of the gravity of the matter that is design only to get a head nod and an amen from the faithful while being based on nothing. This is then followed by a non-sense statement that is supposed to sound deep. What does it mean to be called? No one knows or can define it. What is this conversation, is it literal? No one knows or will say or will every question her on it. The reporter just regurgitates the line without asking, you really think you hear god? What exactly did he say?
Ordway, a professor of English and literature at a San Diego-area community college, wasn't raised in any religious faith. She never said a prayer in her life and she never went to a church service. Her exposure to Christianity while growing up was minimal and her few encounters with Christians involved televangelists or hellfire and damnation preachers.
"Religion seemed like a story that people told themselves, and I had no evidence to the contrary," she said in an interview with Biola University, where she is currently studying for her second MA, in Christian Apologetics.
To her, the Bible was a collection of folktales and myths – no different than the stories of Zeus or Cinderella.
"I was a college professor – logical, intellectual, rational – and an atheist," she writes.
Now we get the good atheist credentials to make it sound really plausible, say a few things to shock the faithful into hating the bad atheist that she was and draw scorn on logic, intellect and rational thought. Ok, set up done now lets go for the punch.
Though she knew next to nothing about Christianity, she began to mock Christians and belittle their faith, intelligence and character.
"[I]t was fun to consider myself superior to the unenlightened, superstitious masses, and to make snide comments about Christians," Ordway writes.
She was convinced that faith was by definition irrational.
Evangelical invitations to "come to Jesus and get eternal life" sounded like "believing something irrational on demand to get a prize."
"I thought I knew exactly what faith was, and so I declined to look further," she writes. "Or perhaps I was afraid that there was more to it than I was willing to credit – but I didn’t want to deal with that. Easier by far to read only books by atheists that told me what I wanted to hear – that I was much smarter and intellectually honest and morally superior than the poor, deluded Christians.
Now we get the punch of making atheism out to be smug and self-superior but based on ignorance. Forget the fact that most atheist know more about the bible and theology than Christians do; I suggest you test this assertion by talking to a few atheists. Most are what they are because they sought knowledge and could no longer support faith. Sure, some atheists are self-superior. You get them in any crowd but for a Christian to make this accusation of another group goes beyond any statement involving pot and kettles.
"I had built myself a fortress of atheism, secure against any attack by irrational faith. And I lived in it, alone."
Ordway wasn't looking for God. She didn't believe He existed. But she began to be drawn to matters of faith.
One reason for her interest, she explains, is that her "naturalistic worldview was inadequate to explain the nature of reality in a coherent way: it could not explain the origin of the universe, nor could it explain morality."
Here it comes, the grossly unfounded and unsupported claim. The "naturalistic worldview was inadequate to explain the nature of reality in a coherent way: it could not explain the origin of the universe, nor could it explain morality." We are supposed to just nod and amen this comment and not look behind it. The naturalistic worldview has in its favor all of observation in any field of inquiry you can choose. When it makes an assertion it is based on evidence and withholds judgment in favor of agnosticism when there is not enough evidence to decide. The origin of the universe has been explained very well back to the singularity of the big bang and no claim of religion can make a better or more convincing explanation. As for morality this statement simply ignores all of secular philosophy on the subject and ignores all of the intensely moral atheists and agnostics.
"On the other hand, the theistic worldview was both consistent and powerfully explanatory: it offered a convincing, rationally consistent, and logical explanation for everything that the naturalistic worldview explained plus all the things that the naturalistic worldview couldn’t."
This is nothing short of a lie. This is not a different point of view, it is patently untrue. The internal text of the bible is not consistent by any measure and theology differs so radically from sect to sect as to make them irreconcilable. It is only convincing if you are willing to suspend all respect for reality, evidence and rational thought and blindly accept that that which flies in the teeth of all honest inquiry.
After a series of conversations with a mentor and exposure to the writings of authors like J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Ordway went from denying God to committing herself to Christ.
"I was startled to find that Christian theism had significantly better explanatory power than atheistic naturalism, in terms of explaining why the world is the way it is, and in accounting for my own experiences within it," she recounted, according to Biola. "Learning more about the Incarnation and about God, the most holy Trinity, has further reinforced my confidence that Christianity really does make sense of the world in a way no other worldview does."
It took a mentor? Funny how free inquiry and logical thought stands on its own, but maybe I am jaded. “Learning more about the Incarnation and about God, the most holy Trinity” I have grave concerns as to whether this constitutes learning. For one thing, mentioning the trinity which is nothing more than a construct of theology and doesn't even occur in the bible rather undermines even the biblical claim to authority.
And the claim that Christianity makes more sense than anything else is a purely subjective and unsupportable claim.
She found that "St. Paul's forthright declaration that Christianity is based on the historical, witnessed events of Christ’s death and resurrection," that "theology and philosophy offered real answers" to her questions and weren't an appeal to blind faith, and that "the history of the Church did not conform to [her] image of the Christian faith as a self-serving, politically useful fiction."
The problem is the Paul's declaration is just plain wrong. There is no historical accuracy at all. Most of the history that does appear in the New Testament is wrong and there is no way the writers of the gospels ever met Jesus or witnessed a thing. They clearly were fabricated after the fact and built off of each other in attempts to close holes the others left.
She had it right and then walked away from the truth.
Her intellectual pride was broken and she was humbled by God's goodness as she began to see herself as a sinner.
This is such a patently religious cliché I shouldn't even waste time refuting it. All I will bother saying is, show me the goodness...
"I don’t 'believe' because I like the idea and want it to be true. I don’t 'believe' because I think Christianity makes sense intellectually (although that was a necessary foundation to my faith). In fact, I wouldn’t say that I 'believe' in God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or that I 'believe' I have a personal relationship with Him: I would say that I know these things to be true," the former atheist emphatically stated in a 2007 blog entry.
Again, this is so programmatic and templated I am not sure if I even believe there ever was a conversion. I just doesn't pass the smell test. It all reads like something made up out of whole cloth to try to convince the already faithful that there is nothing outside the church walls worth looking at. There is no 'knowing' possible in this realm and intellectual sense is one thing it doesn't make.
Ordway currently attends St. Michael's by-the-Sea in Southern California where she says she has grown in her Christian faith. She's hoping her book will help Christians – who may be familiar with the ideas that atheists believe but not understand what it's like to believe those things – in their evangelism.
And here they give away the game. As predicted, this is aimed at the faithful in an attempt to spray paint the church windows lest the congregants have the audacity to look at the world.
Offering some advice to those who approach atheists, she said, "Really, it doesn’t matter whether we like Christianity or not; what matters is, is it true? That approach may not resonate with everyone, but it was what opened the door for me."
Moreover, discipleship is critical, she said.
"I think one of the central elements of my own discipleship so far has been my pastors’ focus on the Cross," she said in the Biola interview. "The way of Jesus is the way of the cross. It is terribly painful to give up one’s sins and self-will, to allow one’s old self to be crucified along with Jesus ... and I have been very grateful to my pastors who acknowledge how hard and painful it can be along this Christian journey. But the way of the cross is also the way of life and peace."
I know that is does no good ultimately to refute this sort of non-sense but I feel compelled to say it anyway. I suppose this is because I wasted so much of my life grovelling before this cross of hers and uttering prayers into empty space. She is right about on thing, “what matters is, is it true?” And the emphatic answer is NO.
Culture|Mon, Aug. 02 2010 08:25 PM EDT
Former Atheist: Christianity Really Does Make Sense
By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter
Holly Ordway was a highly educated atheist who thought Christianity was "a historical curiosity" or "a blemish on modern civilization," or both.
"Smart people don’t become Christians," she thought, according to Biola University.
Her worldview, however, began to change at age 31. She recounts her journey from atheism to Christianity in the recently released Not God’s Type: A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith.
"It is no light matter to meet God after having denied Him all one’s life," she writes in the book. "Coming to Him was only the beginning. I can point to a day and time and place of my conversion, and yet since then I have come to understand that He calls me to a fresh conversion every day."
This is a rather classic example of theist prattle, we have an assertion of the gravity of the matter that is design only to get a head nod and an amen from the faithful while being based on nothing. This is then followed by a non-sense statement that is supposed to sound deep. What does it mean to be called? No one knows or can define it. What is this conversation, is it literal? No one knows or will say or will every question her on it. The reporter just regurgitates the line without asking, you really think you hear god? What exactly did he say?
Ordway, a professor of English and literature at a San Diego-area community college, wasn't raised in any religious faith. She never said a prayer in her life and she never went to a church service. Her exposure to Christianity while growing up was minimal and her few encounters with Christians involved televangelists or hellfire and damnation preachers.
"Religion seemed like a story that people told themselves, and I had no evidence to the contrary," she said in an interview with Biola University, where she is currently studying for her second MA, in Christian Apologetics.
To her, the Bible was a collection of folktales and myths – no different than the stories of Zeus or Cinderella.
"I was a college professor – logical, intellectual, rational – and an atheist," she writes.
Now we get the good atheist credentials to make it sound really plausible, say a few things to shock the faithful into hating the bad atheist that she was and draw scorn on logic, intellect and rational thought. Ok, set up done now lets go for the punch.
Though she knew next to nothing about Christianity, she began to mock Christians and belittle their faith, intelligence and character.
"[I]t was fun to consider myself superior to the unenlightened, superstitious masses, and to make snide comments about Christians," Ordway writes.
She was convinced that faith was by definition irrational.
Evangelical invitations to "come to Jesus and get eternal life" sounded like "believing something irrational on demand to get a prize."
"I thought I knew exactly what faith was, and so I declined to look further," she writes. "Or perhaps I was afraid that there was more to it than I was willing to credit – but I didn’t want to deal with that. Easier by far to read only books by atheists that told me what I wanted to hear – that I was much smarter and intellectually honest and morally superior than the poor, deluded Christians.
Now we get the punch of making atheism out to be smug and self-superior but based on ignorance. Forget the fact that most atheist know more about the bible and theology than Christians do; I suggest you test this assertion by talking to a few atheists. Most are what they are because they sought knowledge and could no longer support faith. Sure, some atheists are self-superior. You get them in any crowd but for a Christian to make this accusation of another group goes beyond any statement involving pot and kettles.
"I had built myself a fortress of atheism, secure against any attack by irrational faith. And I lived in it, alone."
Ordway wasn't looking for God. She didn't believe He existed. But she began to be drawn to matters of faith.
One reason for her interest, she explains, is that her "naturalistic worldview was inadequate to explain the nature of reality in a coherent way: it could not explain the origin of the universe, nor could it explain morality."
Here it comes, the grossly unfounded and unsupported claim. The "naturalistic worldview was inadequate to explain the nature of reality in a coherent way: it could not explain the origin of the universe, nor could it explain morality." We are supposed to just nod and amen this comment and not look behind it. The naturalistic worldview has in its favor all of observation in any field of inquiry you can choose. When it makes an assertion it is based on evidence and withholds judgment in favor of agnosticism when there is not enough evidence to decide. The origin of the universe has been explained very well back to the singularity of the big bang and no claim of religion can make a better or more convincing explanation. As for morality this statement simply ignores all of secular philosophy on the subject and ignores all of the intensely moral atheists and agnostics.
"On the other hand, the theistic worldview was both consistent and powerfully explanatory: it offered a convincing, rationally consistent, and logical explanation for everything that the naturalistic worldview explained plus all the things that the naturalistic worldview couldn’t."
This is nothing short of a lie. This is not a different point of view, it is patently untrue. The internal text of the bible is not consistent by any measure and theology differs so radically from sect to sect as to make them irreconcilable. It is only convincing if you are willing to suspend all respect for reality, evidence and rational thought and blindly accept that that which flies in the teeth of all honest inquiry.
After a series of conversations with a mentor and exposure to the writings of authors like J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Ordway went from denying God to committing herself to Christ.
"I was startled to find that Christian theism had significantly better explanatory power than atheistic naturalism, in terms of explaining why the world is the way it is, and in accounting for my own experiences within it," she recounted, according to Biola. "Learning more about the Incarnation and about God, the most holy Trinity, has further reinforced my confidence that Christianity really does make sense of the world in a way no other worldview does."
It took a mentor? Funny how free inquiry and logical thought stands on its own, but maybe I am jaded. “Learning more about the Incarnation and about God, the most holy Trinity” I have grave concerns as to whether this constitutes learning. For one thing, mentioning the trinity which is nothing more than a construct of theology and doesn't even occur in the bible rather undermines even the biblical claim to authority.
And the claim that Christianity makes more sense than anything else is a purely subjective and unsupportable claim.
She found that "St. Paul's forthright declaration that Christianity is based on the historical, witnessed events of Christ’s death and resurrection," that "theology and philosophy offered real answers" to her questions and weren't an appeal to blind faith, and that "the history of the Church did not conform to [her] image of the Christian faith as a self-serving, politically useful fiction."
The problem is the Paul's declaration is just plain wrong. There is no historical accuracy at all. Most of the history that does appear in the New Testament is wrong and there is no way the writers of the gospels ever met Jesus or witnessed a thing. They clearly were fabricated after the fact and built off of each other in attempts to close holes the others left.
She had it right and then walked away from the truth.
Her intellectual pride was broken and she was humbled by God's goodness as she began to see herself as a sinner.
This is such a patently religious cliché I shouldn't even waste time refuting it. All I will bother saying is, show me the goodness...
"I don’t 'believe' because I like the idea and want it to be true. I don’t 'believe' because I think Christianity makes sense intellectually (although that was a necessary foundation to my faith). In fact, I wouldn’t say that I 'believe' in God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or that I 'believe' I have a personal relationship with Him: I would say that I know these things to be true," the former atheist emphatically stated in a 2007 blog entry.
Again, this is so programmatic and templated I am not sure if I even believe there ever was a conversion. I just doesn't pass the smell test. It all reads like something made up out of whole cloth to try to convince the already faithful that there is nothing outside the church walls worth looking at. There is no 'knowing' possible in this realm and intellectual sense is one thing it doesn't make.
Ordway currently attends St. Michael's by-the-Sea in Southern California where she says she has grown in her Christian faith. She's hoping her book will help Christians – who may be familiar with the ideas that atheists believe but not understand what it's like to believe those things – in their evangelism.
And here they give away the game. As predicted, this is aimed at the faithful in an attempt to spray paint the church windows lest the congregants have the audacity to look at the world.
Offering some advice to those who approach atheists, she said, "Really, it doesn’t matter whether we like Christianity or not; what matters is, is it true? That approach may not resonate with everyone, but it was what opened the door for me."
Moreover, discipleship is critical, she said.
"I think one of the central elements of my own discipleship so far has been my pastors’ focus on the Cross," she said in the Biola interview. "The way of Jesus is the way of the cross. It is terribly painful to give up one’s sins and self-will, to allow one’s old self to be crucified along with Jesus ... and I have been very grateful to my pastors who acknowledge how hard and painful it can be along this Christian journey. But the way of the cross is also the way of life and peace."
I know that is does no good ultimately to refute this sort of non-sense but I feel compelled to say it anyway. I suppose this is because I wasted so much of my life grovelling before this cross of hers and uttering prayers into empty space. She is right about on thing, “what matters is, is it true?” And the emphatic answer is NO.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Morality and Its Origins
I had a comment on my last blog entry that the reader wished I had dealt with the basis of morality. This was not the subject of the last post and would not have been apropos but I will try to take a stab at it here.
The reason for this even being a subject of discussion is the fact that religion has arrogated to itself the basis for human morality. I primarily pick on Christianity as it is the religious system I am most familiar with, having been raised in it. The assumption is this, the bible teaches us how to be moral and without it as a foundation there is no morality. This is, to steal a phrase from Douglas Adams, a load of foetid dingos kidneys.
Morality is nothing more or less than a set of behaviours that allow us to live together in society. Does this definition tend toward moral relativism and declare no absolutes? No, it does not. There are certain moral rules that are inherent in human societies and if ignored destroy the fabric of society. Taboos against murder, rape, incest and theft are examples. These are not religious rules, they are common sense rules for social animals living in an ordered community. Violating them undermines the security of other members of the community. Violation of these rules also violates what I believe to be the basic foundation of morality - empathy and compassion.
The claim that the bible is the basis of morality is absurd. If you actually read the bible you will come to a few unavoidable conclusions, that god as described in the old testament is a viscous psychopath and that the new testament tries very hard to tip toe around the cruelty and caprice of the old testament god without actually refuting it. In the old testament, god orders his people to commit genocide on numerous occasions, sanctions the taking of sexual slaves as spoils of war, orders women to marry their rapists, demands the killing children and teenagers, sanctions the rape of women to save the dignity of male guests, and personally kills entire populations not only of whole cities but supposedly of the entire world. This just scratches the surface of god's villainy in the old testament and I didn't even get out of the Pentateuch. He called David a man after his own heart after David had multiple wives, committed murder and committed adultery. I suppose for a god that is capable of all the horrible actions attributed to him, a man such as David would be just his sort. See a woman you want, murder her husband and take her; why not, this is mild compared to burning entire cities full of innocent children.
This is the book that we are told is the basis for our morality. This is the book that is held up as the foundation for all right action. No, any morality that is actually claimed by followers of the bible is done in opposition to the bible, by ignoring the sections that urge evil behaviour. If the bible is truly the measure for morality, even for Christians, they would be demanding the legal right to murder witches, stone their own disobedient children, murder anyone that doesn't follow their own sect, demand the right to own slaves and to keep as concubines the virgin daughters of their victims for this is the morality the old testament condones.
The new testament, people will shriek, is a whole new game. The harshness of the old testament was necessary then but Jesus brought in new rules. Hmmm, let's see. Jesus said that he did not come to over turn the law but to fulfil it. He at one point declared that you had to follow the law to the letter plus his new program of poverty and meekness and impossible love for all. He then goes on to tell us that we are to hate our parents and abandon our families and follow him (how this is to be done while obeying the commandment to honour father and mother is utterly beyond rational grasp), and all this before introducing the worst and most vile horror of all, the concept of hell. We now have an eternal torture chamber where, if you take the rules seriously, about 99% of all humanity will be subject to horrors and pain beyond imagining for the crime of not believing in the god that created the hell... but were probably created predestined to this hell anyway so believing doesn't matter...
My point in this rant is to show that the morality supposedly based on the bible is no morality at all. The very god that supposedly is the basis for morality, were his actions and encouraged actions removed form the bible and put before any modern human as a template, would cause revulsion. Our native moral sentiments recoil at the notion of murder and rape and genocide and the abandonment of family and of eternal punishment. Christians impose their own native morality on the bible by ignoring the horrors of it and by constructing theological structures outside of it to rationalize and explain away the evils in it. To then turn around and try to claim that that which has to be mostly ignored is the foundation is absurd at best.
So, where does this leave us? Morality is something that just exists in humans. We have a social sense that evolved in us. Is it absolute in fine detail? No. There are constantly shifting lines of what is and isn't acceptable in a society but the basics remain the static. The big taboos remain and compassion and empathy reign. There will always be those who violate the rules of society. There will always be criminals and sociopaths. We don't need a book of violent and capricious savagery to teach us to be human. All books like the bible do is justify in the minds of criminals and sociopaths their behaviour. The bible makes a great foundation for antisocial behaviour.
Want to burn women at the stake and feel good about it? I got just the book.
The reason for this even being a subject of discussion is the fact that religion has arrogated to itself the basis for human morality. I primarily pick on Christianity as it is the religious system I am most familiar with, having been raised in it. The assumption is this, the bible teaches us how to be moral and without it as a foundation there is no morality. This is, to steal a phrase from Douglas Adams, a load of foetid dingos kidneys.
Morality is nothing more or less than a set of behaviours that allow us to live together in society. Does this definition tend toward moral relativism and declare no absolutes? No, it does not. There are certain moral rules that are inherent in human societies and if ignored destroy the fabric of society. Taboos against murder, rape, incest and theft are examples. These are not religious rules, they are common sense rules for social animals living in an ordered community. Violating them undermines the security of other members of the community. Violation of these rules also violates what I believe to be the basic foundation of morality - empathy and compassion.
The claim that the bible is the basis of morality is absurd. If you actually read the bible you will come to a few unavoidable conclusions, that god as described in the old testament is a viscous psychopath and that the new testament tries very hard to tip toe around the cruelty and caprice of the old testament god without actually refuting it. In the old testament, god orders his people to commit genocide on numerous occasions, sanctions the taking of sexual slaves as spoils of war, orders women to marry their rapists, demands the killing children and teenagers, sanctions the rape of women to save the dignity of male guests, and personally kills entire populations not only of whole cities but supposedly of the entire world. This just scratches the surface of god's villainy in the old testament and I didn't even get out of the Pentateuch. He called David a man after his own heart after David had multiple wives, committed murder and committed adultery. I suppose for a god that is capable of all the horrible actions attributed to him, a man such as David would be just his sort. See a woman you want, murder her husband and take her; why not, this is mild compared to burning entire cities full of innocent children.
This is the book that we are told is the basis for our morality. This is the book that is held up as the foundation for all right action. No, any morality that is actually claimed by followers of the bible is done in opposition to the bible, by ignoring the sections that urge evil behaviour. If the bible is truly the measure for morality, even for Christians, they would be demanding the legal right to murder witches, stone their own disobedient children, murder anyone that doesn't follow their own sect, demand the right to own slaves and to keep as concubines the virgin daughters of their victims for this is the morality the old testament condones.
The new testament, people will shriek, is a whole new game. The harshness of the old testament was necessary then but Jesus brought in new rules. Hmmm, let's see. Jesus said that he did not come to over turn the law but to fulfil it. He at one point declared that you had to follow the law to the letter plus his new program of poverty and meekness and impossible love for all. He then goes on to tell us that we are to hate our parents and abandon our families and follow him (how this is to be done while obeying the commandment to honour father and mother is utterly beyond rational grasp), and all this before introducing the worst and most vile horror of all, the concept of hell. We now have an eternal torture chamber where, if you take the rules seriously, about 99% of all humanity will be subject to horrors and pain beyond imagining for the crime of not believing in the god that created the hell... but were probably created predestined to this hell anyway so believing doesn't matter...
My point in this rant is to show that the morality supposedly based on the bible is no morality at all. The very god that supposedly is the basis for morality, were his actions and encouraged actions removed form the bible and put before any modern human as a template, would cause revulsion. Our native moral sentiments recoil at the notion of murder and rape and genocide and the abandonment of family and of eternal punishment. Christians impose their own native morality on the bible by ignoring the horrors of it and by constructing theological structures outside of it to rationalize and explain away the evils in it. To then turn around and try to claim that that which has to be mostly ignored is the foundation is absurd at best.
So, where does this leave us? Morality is something that just exists in humans. We have a social sense that evolved in us. Is it absolute in fine detail? No. There are constantly shifting lines of what is and isn't acceptable in a society but the basics remain the static. The big taboos remain and compassion and empathy reign. There will always be those who violate the rules of society. There will always be criminals and sociopaths. We don't need a book of violent and capricious savagery to teach us to be human. All books like the bible do is justify in the minds of criminals and sociopaths their behaviour. The bible makes a great foundation for antisocial behaviour.
Want to burn women at the stake and feel good about it? I got just the book.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Questions I sometimes get asked...
There are several questions that, as a vocal atheist, one inevitably gets asked. To avoid setting up straw men I will not get overly specific and I also have no intention of being comprehensive. I am going to address two basic questions here that come up repeatedly. Regardless of wording or tone, these questions boil down to this; why are you so anti-religion and why do you hate God?
The second question is easily disposed of thus, I do not. I do not believe that there is a god to hate. As I do not hate the tooth fairy, so I do not hate god. It is an absurd question.
The first question however does demand a bit more attention. Why am I so anti-religion? There are several facets to this answer. In short, it is false, it allows humans to justify vile behaviors and it retards growth of knowledge and understanding.
Religion is false. Religion attempts to make real claims as to the nature of the universe. It does so based not on observation and experience but on revelation made to an individual or group. (I am aware that there are religions that are more philosophical forms than revelations but lets put that aside for the moment) These revelations are invariable at odds with history and science. If we accept the revelation we disregard the observable nature of things, be it the age of the earth and the fossil record, the vastness and expansion of the universe or our own origins. Revelation demands that we place ourselves in a position of central importance in this 'creation'. There is no evidence in biology, geology, astronomy or any other branch of study to support the claims of revelation.
Religion allows humans to justify vile behaviors. Need I submit any evidence beyond the rubble of ground zero in New York? How about the ruins of the Khobar Towers or the bombing of PanAM 103? What about the crusades and witch trials or the bombing or abortion clinics? How about the ritual mutilation of infants all over the world or the oppression of women and homosexuals? It is hard to find a clear example of suffering inflicted by one group on another that does not, at its root, have religion motivating it. There are at the time of writing 38 wars going on around the globe. 36 of them are religious in nature or motivation. Religious groups and regimes are constantly at war to convert or punish or just eliminate those who disagree with them.
Religion retards growth of knowledge and understanding. What motivation is there to investigate the universe and probe the fabric of reality if we take it for granted that all things come from god and there is nothing to learn beyond holy writ? All progress in human knowledge has been gained not with religion but despite it, usually in the face or persecution and torment. It is only because religion has lost its coercive power in certain times and places that we have what we have today. All modern advances in technology, medicine and life quality are had against the pull of religion. Religion is now actively seeking the return to the squalor and ignorance of the middle ages; the jihadist bent on murdering anyone who doesn't follow Islam's 15th century ideals and the Christian fundamentalist trying to crush stem cell research, ban abortions and undermine separate church and state are just two sides of the same coin. No good comes of looking backward to old books that are not even internally consistent.
I could go on and elaborate more on each section but I think I made my points.
The second question is easily disposed of thus, I do not. I do not believe that there is a god to hate. As I do not hate the tooth fairy, so I do not hate god. It is an absurd question.
The first question however does demand a bit more attention. Why am I so anti-religion? There are several facets to this answer. In short, it is false, it allows humans to justify vile behaviors and it retards growth of knowledge and understanding.
Religion is false. Religion attempts to make real claims as to the nature of the universe. It does so based not on observation and experience but on revelation made to an individual or group. (I am aware that there are religions that are more philosophical forms than revelations but lets put that aside for the moment) These revelations are invariable at odds with history and science. If we accept the revelation we disregard the observable nature of things, be it the age of the earth and the fossil record, the vastness and expansion of the universe or our own origins. Revelation demands that we place ourselves in a position of central importance in this 'creation'. There is no evidence in biology, geology, astronomy or any other branch of study to support the claims of revelation.
Religion allows humans to justify vile behaviors. Need I submit any evidence beyond the rubble of ground zero in New York? How about the ruins of the Khobar Towers or the bombing of PanAM 103? What about the crusades and witch trials or the bombing or abortion clinics? How about the ritual mutilation of infants all over the world or the oppression of women and homosexuals? It is hard to find a clear example of suffering inflicted by one group on another that does not, at its root, have religion motivating it. There are at the time of writing 38 wars going on around the globe. 36 of them are religious in nature or motivation. Religious groups and regimes are constantly at war to convert or punish or just eliminate those who disagree with them.
Religion retards growth of knowledge and understanding. What motivation is there to investigate the universe and probe the fabric of reality if we take it for granted that all things come from god and there is nothing to learn beyond holy writ? All progress in human knowledge has been gained not with religion but despite it, usually in the face or persecution and torment. It is only because religion has lost its coercive power in certain times and places that we have what we have today. All modern advances in technology, medicine and life quality are had against the pull of religion. Religion is now actively seeking the return to the squalor and ignorance of the middle ages; the jihadist bent on murdering anyone who doesn't follow Islam's 15th century ideals and the Christian fundamentalist trying to crush stem cell research, ban abortions and undermine separate church and state are just two sides of the same coin. No good comes of looking backward to old books that are not even internally consistent.
I could go on and elaborate more on each section but I think I made my points.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Ruminations on the cause of a persistent facial expression observed on a person of passing aquaintence
Andrew stood middle distance from the center of activity and the corner of the room, not separate but not mingling, his face utterly blank and expressionless, his eyes dead and empty as blighted ponds. The sound of someone calling his name slowly penetrated and he turned to see everyone in the room looking at him and Big Dave, the youth pastor saying, “Here’s our song leader kids. He’s gonna lead you in a few your favorites. Won’t that be fun?” Andrew turned and bounded happily to the center of the room with a smile and a boisterous call to the children, to a casual observer a happy bubbly person. He clapped and sang with the children and moved with extreme animation for 24 and a half minutes until he was sweating visibly through his Fishing for Jesus Summer Camp tee shirt and his hair was wet and running down his cheeks. He then walked back to his position between the center and the corner and switched off, sliding back into a deep funk behind a blank exterior. No one in the room noticed or cared, their attention focused on the activities of the children.
Andrew Jason Screwturn Jr, the only child of Andrew Sr and Emily Elizabeth Friddle, his high school sweet heart, was the baby that was supposed to save their marriage. This was a hollow and cynical joke that his parents stayed together just long enough to firmly imprint on his consciousness. They then split up in a way you couldn’t call amicable in the furthest reaches of hell. They spent the next ten years passing Andrew back and forth between them like a football, making the only crystal clear impressions of his childhood the facts that he was only wanted to deprive the other and that he was a constant burden to both. He attended every summer camp, weekend retreat, scout camporee and lock-in his parents could find between his school, two churches and local social organizations. The turmoil of the divorce and the financial burdens it place on both warring parties cause repeated relocations and he changed schools numerous times ending up a year ahead here, a year behind there, always the new kid, never fitting anywhere. He had no single childhood friend and only vaguely understood what it meant to have a friend. The camps and the outings his parents used to get him out of their way was the only model he knew, short term servings of friends in a structured environment, planned activities that filled up the time and kept the mind from turning inward. He grew up toward an inevitable future of working and counseling in a summer camps. It was a form of inertia or gravity that sucked him in. He related to every lonely upset child that came along. The songs and activities were written in his brain stem just like walking and talking. The Mountain Harbor YMCA camp and surrounding off season charities became his home after high school, the youngest full time camp counselor in their history, only seventeen. This was his universe, his safety zone and where he returned between semesters of college and where he returned after graduating.
Two weeks before the start of the fall session in 08, Melissa Costaine came to the camp as an activity director. She could not have more utterly destroyed the sanctity of Andrew’s safe haven if she had set out to do so with malice of forethought. She had not done so. She had in fact fallen in love with him from the first; the cruelest stroke of all was the simple truth of this.
Melissa grew up in as normal an American home as could be imagined. A strict but loving mother who pushed her daughter to excel without bullying and a father who doted on her without being soft. There were a few “cracked nuts” on the family tree as her father always put it but they were on the outer limbs and not near the trunk. She knew stability. Emily dated a lot throughout high school and college as any pretty and popular girl would but she never fell in love. She liked them well enough but she was too independent and self possessed to ever actually need anyone in her life.
Her independent spirit and vitality born of a truly normal and stable childhood made her irresistible to men but in the end drove them away. Men have a need to be needed and when it is apparent that they are not needed, most do not have the ability to accept that with grace.
When Melissa met Andrew in the dining hall at Mountain Harbor she felt something alien to her. She actually felt a need and desire to be with him. It was immediate and urgent and she pursued it without reservation and with gusto as she did everything in life.
To Andrew, this was as alien an experience as the feeling was to Melissa. He knew all too well what it was to need another person, to feel the size of that echoing hollowness inside when the need is unmet, to feel it like you can feel the vastness of a cavern though the walls vanish in darkness. He knew need for family, for friends, for lovers, for companionship. The need was why he had stuffed every available moment of life with activity and campers and sing-alongs; why, on the off seasons he volunteered at innumerable charities. The need was also the reason why he could not bring himself to trust anyone, bricking up the windows of his soul with a thousand cynical rebuffs to any serious situation and avoiding intimacy with anyone likely to take a chisel to the mortar, why he surrounded himself with children. The little ones droned on and on in and endless chord that prevented closeness or self-examination.
Melissa Costiane didn’t take a chisel to the mortar, she dynamited it.
There was no defense against her invasion. All of the carefully constructed defenses were ripped down in under a week and Andrew did something he never allowed himself to do, he trusted. Her open and obvious interest and desire to just be with him and the casual flow of conversation that ranged topics from the banal to the deepest intimacy had its inevitable affect. He fell. Hard. The howling spaces of his interior landscape were silted full with layer on layer of experience that ran contrary to his expectations and reinforced the trust he felt until it began to be second nature and the veneer of happy that he wore for so long began to penetrate like stain into wood and he was happy.
For Melissa’s part, she loved him. She couldn’t help herself. He wasn’t exactly an Adonis in his collection of cheesy tee shirts and khaki shorts and sandals, with his slightly excess weight and pale complexion and his uninspiring features. What she found irresistible was his earnest desire to do and be good, to toe that line. She respected him at once, he reminded her of her father while being nothing like the man in any tangible way. She found these things and the defects and fears that he was unable to hide from her as he did from the world at large a compelling combination.
For seven months they spent every possible moment in each other’s company and lived each other’s thoughts. Andrew was out of his mind with happiness and would have ignored the little voice of time honored cynicism that kept saying that a fire stoked too hot burns out, had he even heard it.
The first time Melissa canceled plans on him he disregarded it as just a part of life and forced himself to ignore the gentle breeze through the valley of his interior landscape.
When no tangible thing had changed, but the easy expectation of time spent together was replaced by an unspoken need to ask, he chastised himself for not trusting and for being a paranoid fool. She wouldn’t be like everyone else. She wasn’t like his parents, like the kids at schools or the girls in college. She was Melissa and that was all there was to it. He dragged himself up and forced the ‘happy’ back in place. After all, she was still there. It was only a few things, a few times here and there. But there was that intangible shift. What was it, a momentary flash in her eye, the set of her mouth that said ‘oh god here he goes again’? Even though the words were kind and the result usually as he would have liked, there was that something in the air between them, something he couldn’t put his finger on. Or was it that he was afraid to put his finger on it? He feared he knew and it only added to the gulf widening between them.
Melissa had looked at him one morning and found a little voice in her head mocking him. His earnestness and internal battles that made him him were just too much work. She didn’t want to think or to feel the things that he made her think about or feel. She just wanted to go through life enjoying moment by moment and never examining too deeply. She had no ghosts or tormentors under her mental bed, no skeletons in her closets. To her the past was a series of fond memories peppered with a few wistful losses, not the horror show of recurring nightmares that Andrew’s was. She couldn’t get her mind around it and couldn’t understand why he couldn’t just let it go and live in the moment. She started to find it a burden and a misery. The weight of his past that her presence had so lightened for him was slowly crushing her.
Melissa loved him, the truth if this he had seen in all the experiences they had shared. It cut far more deeply, bruised far more painfully than it could have otherwise when she began making excuses he could see through, avoiding his company. She loved him too much to just end it and walk away; she wanted him, just the lighthearted and non-emotionally demanding part of him. The part she could understand. He loved her too much to confront her about her feelings lest his greatest fears be made real. So they descended into the silence of people who avoid all subjects for fear of broaching the one subject. They argued the petty arguments of people avoiding the one argument. And he cried with nearly suffocating intensity when alone after the first conversation between them that descended to small talk. For her part, she thought it a victory; they had had a pleasant conversation that hadn’t taxed her one bit.
One day in late June Andrew was dealing with a child who reminded him too much of himself at that age, coming from a lonely and broken home; the child and the stress of the lost communication with Melissa was just too much and he sank down deep into the well of his own mind. No one would know it without knowing him well for he hid well but he was hurting badly and the part of his mind that was waiting for Melissa to appear and make it better as she had every time since he had met her was arguing with the part of his mind that cynically pronounced that 'she wouldn’t be there this time'. Not this time. It was one time too many. A third part, the wounded and hurting part, the needing part just kept repeating, ‘I trust her, I trust her, I trust her’.
When Melissa rounded the corner of the hallway leading to the activity center and saw Andrew’s face, she knew he was battling inside with something, probably something about the past and it would take a lot of listening and time. She sighed and turned and slipped away, thankful he hadn’t seen her.
He had.
And he knew in a way even an experienced self-deluder cannot deny that she would not be there this time or any time again. The wind howled down the canyon of his mind, carving out the layers of Melissa laid sediments and turning them into adamantine bricks. He froze in his spot mid way between the center of activity and the corner and listened to the agonized refrain of the wounded, ‘I trusted you, I trusted you, I trusted you’.
And from somewhere deep below the happy mask was handed up and firmly affixed to his face.
It was needed now.
Andrew Jason Screwturn Jr, the only child of Andrew Sr and Emily Elizabeth Friddle, his high school sweet heart, was the baby that was supposed to save their marriage. This was a hollow and cynical joke that his parents stayed together just long enough to firmly imprint on his consciousness. They then split up in a way you couldn’t call amicable in the furthest reaches of hell. They spent the next ten years passing Andrew back and forth between them like a football, making the only crystal clear impressions of his childhood the facts that he was only wanted to deprive the other and that he was a constant burden to both. He attended every summer camp, weekend retreat, scout camporee and lock-in his parents could find between his school, two churches and local social organizations. The turmoil of the divorce and the financial burdens it place on both warring parties cause repeated relocations and he changed schools numerous times ending up a year ahead here, a year behind there, always the new kid, never fitting anywhere. He had no single childhood friend and only vaguely understood what it meant to have a friend. The camps and the outings his parents used to get him out of their way was the only model he knew, short term servings of friends in a structured environment, planned activities that filled up the time and kept the mind from turning inward. He grew up toward an inevitable future of working and counseling in a summer camps. It was a form of inertia or gravity that sucked him in. He related to every lonely upset child that came along. The songs and activities were written in his brain stem just like walking and talking. The Mountain Harbor YMCA camp and surrounding off season charities became his home after high school, the youngest full time camp counselor in their history, only seventeen. This was his universe, his safety zone and where he returned between semesters of college and where he returned after graduating.
Two weeks before the start of the fall session in 08, Melissa Costaine came to the camp as an activity director. She could not have more utterly destroyed the sanctity of Andrew’s safe haven if she had set out to do so with malice of forethought. She had not done so. She had in fact fallen in love with him from the first; the cruelest stroke of all was the simple truth of this.
Melissa grew up in as normal an American home as could be imagined. A strict but loving mother who pushed her daughter to excel without bullying and a father who doted on her without being soft. There were a few “cracked nuts” on the family tree as her father always put it but they were on the outer limbs and not near the trunk. She knew stability. Emily dated a lot throughout high school and college as any pretty and popular girl would but she never fell in love. She liked them well enough but she was too independent and self possessed to ever actually need anyone in her life.
Her independent spirit and vitality born of a truly normal and stable childhood made her irresistible to men but in the end drove them away. Men have a need to be needed and when it is apparent that they are not needed, most do not have the ability to accept that with grace.
When Melissa met Andrew in the dining hall at Mountain Harbor she felt something alien to her. She actually felt a need and desire to be with him. It was immediate and urgent and she pursued it without reservation and with gusto as she did everything in life.
To Andrew, this was as alien an experience as the feeling was to Melissa. He knew all too well what it was to need another person, to feel the size of that echoing hollowness inside when the need is unmet, to feel it like you can feel the vastness of a cavern though the walls vanish in darkness. He knew need for family, for friends, for lovers, for companionship. The need was why he had stuffed every available moment of life with activity and campers and sing-alongs; why, on the off seasons he volunteered at innumerable charities. The need was also the reason why he could not bring himself to trust anyone, bricking up the windows of his soul with a thousand cynical rebuffs to any serious situation and avoiding intimacy with anyone likely to take a chisel to the mortar, why he surrounded himself with children. The little ones droned on and on in and endless chord that prevented closeness or self-examination.
Melissa Costiane didn’t take a chisel to the mortar, she dynamited it.
There was no defense against her invasion. All of the carefully constructed defenses were ripped down in under a week and Andrew did something he never allowed himself to do, he trusted. Her open and obvious interest and desire to just be with him and the casual flow of conversation that ranged topics from the banal to the deepest intimacy had its inevitable affect. He fell. Hard. The howling spaces of his interior landscape were silted full with layer on layer of experience that ran contrary to his expectations and reinforced the trust he felt until it began to be second nature and the veneer of happy that he wore for so long began to penetrate like stain into wood and he was happy.
For Melissa’s part, she loved him. She couldn’t help herself. He wasn’t exactly an Adonis in his collection of cheesy tee shirts and khaki shorts and sandals, with his slightly excess weight and pale complexion and his uninspiring features. What she found irresistible was his earnest desire to do and be good, to toe that line. She respected him at once, he reminded her of her father while being nothing like the man in any tangible way. She found these things and the defects and fears that he was unable to hide from her as he did from the world at large a compelling combination.
For seven months they spent every possible moment in each other’s company and lived each other’s thoughts. Andrew was out of his mind with happiness and would have ignored the little voice of time honored cynicism that kept saying that a fire stoked too hot burns out, had he even heard it.
The first time Melissa canceled plans on him he disregarded it as just a part of life and forced himself to ignore the gentle breeze through the valley of his interior landscape.
When no tangible thing had changed, but the easy expectation of time spent together was replaced by an unspoken need to ask, he chastised himself for not trusting and for being a paranoid fool. She wouldn’t be like everyone else. She wasn’t like his parents, like the kids at schools or the girls in college. She was Melissa and that was all there was to it. He dragged himself up and forced the ‘happy’ back in place. After all, she was still there. It was only a few things, a few times here and there. But there was that intangible shift. What was it, a momentary flash in her eye, the set of her mouth that said ‘oh god here he goes again’? Even though the words were kind and the result usually as he would have liked, there was that something in the air between them, something he couldn’t put his finger on. Or was it that he was afraid to put his finger on it? He feared he knew and it only added to the gulf widening between them.
Melissa had looked at him one morning and found a little voice in her head mocking him. His earnestness and internal battles that made him him were just too much work. She didn’t want to think or to feel the things that he made her think about or feel. She just wanted to go through life enjoying moment by moment and never examining too deeply. She had no ghosts or tormentors under her mental bed, no skeletons in her closets. To her the past was a series of fond memories peppered with a few wistful losses, not the horror show of recurring nightmares that Andrew’s was. She couldn’t get her mind around it and couldn’t understand why he couldn’t just let it go and live in the moment. She started to find it a burden and a misery. The weight of his past that her presence had so lightened for him was slowly crushing her.
Melissa loved him, the truth if this he had seen in all the experiences they had shared. It cut far more deeply, bruised far more painfully than it could have otherwise when she began making excuses he could see through, avoiding his company. She loved him too much to just end it and walk away; she wanted him, just the lighthearted and non-emotionally demanding part of him. The part she could understand. He loved her too much to confront her about her feelings lest his greatest fears be made real. So they descended into the silence of people who avoid all subjects for fear of broaching the one subject. They argued the petty arguments of people avoiding the one argument. And he cried with nearly suffocating intensity when alone after the first conversation between them that descended to small talk. For her part, she thought it a victory; they had had a pleasant conversation that hadn’t taxed her one bit.
One day in late June Andrew was dealing with a child who reminded him too much of himself at that age, coming from a lonely and broken home; the child and the stress of the lost communication with Melissa was just too much and he sank down deep into the well of his own mind. No one would know it without knowing him well for he hid well but he was hurting badly and the part of his mind that was waiting for Melissa to appear and make it better as she had every time since he had met her was arguing with the part of his mind that cynically pronounced that 'she wouldn’t be there this time'. Not this time. It was one time too many. A third part, the wounded and hurting part, the needing part just kept repeating, ‘I trust her, I trust her, I trust her’.
When Melissa rounded the corner of the hallway leading to the activity center and saw Andrew’s face, she knew he was battling inside with something, probably something about the past and it would take a lot of listening and time. She sighed and turned and slipped away, thankful he hadn’t seen her.
He had.
And he knew in a way even an experienced self-deluder cannot deny that she would not be there this time or any time again. The wind howled down the canyon of his mind, carving out the layers of Melissa laid sediments and turning them into adamantine bricks. He froze in his spot mid way between the center of activity and the corner and listened to the agonized refrain of the wounded, ‘I trusted you, I trusted you, I trusted you’.
And from somewhere deep below the happy mask was handed up and firmly affixed to his face.
It was needed now.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Conversation Between an Atheist and a Christian... on-going...
The following conversation began with a blog post and following comments. The post is linked below.
The Conversation is between Paul Kalbach (atheist) and Neil Shenvi (Christian). The last several comments are the beginning of the thread then it moves to email.
http://createcognitivedissonance.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/lunatic-liar-lord-legend-logical-leap-what-evidence-or-logic-is-so-compelling-that-we-are-willing-to-believe-accounts-of-jesus%e2%80%99-miracles-guest-post-by-thor-odhner
From Paul Kalbach
To Neil Shevi
Neil,
You never did answer one thing. How is Joseph’s lineage relevant to Jesus if the virgin birth is true?
I haven’t had time to dig into any of the essays on your website yet.
I get what you are saying about inspiration vs. direct revelation. I was raised in an evangelical Christian family so this is very familiar to me. I have a fundamental problem with this concept however. It allows for an infinitely interpretable text. The Bible can be, and is, used to justify anything. There is no authoritative means of saying which interpretation is correct. You either look at the text literally or subject yourself to all sorts of mental gymnastics to decide which parts to take literally and which parts to view symbolically and which parts to ignore all together. The entire field of theology, regardless of its strain, is a fabrication totally outside of the text of the Bible. I studied a good bit of theology in an earlier phase of life, actually contemplating going to seminary, and I ended up extremely frustrated by all of it. Theology is an entirely man-made framework made to eliminate the contradictions in the Bible. It starts with the assumption that everything in the Bible is correct and thus any failure of the text to live up to this assumption is disregarded. Any theological framework, no matter how convoluted and grandiose is acceptable.
All of the things that I was raised to believe in aren’t in the Bible, they were created by theologians - the doctrine of the trinity, dispensationalism, etc.
Acceptance of any theology over another seems to be a dice roll. Thus, literal interpretation is the only thing that makes sense. This, however forces the text to stand on its own…
I have come to the conclusion that all of the good aspects of the New Testament that people cherry pick and call the teaching of Jesus is nothing more or less than good human ethics. There is nothing to prevent people from living by these ethical standards without a supernatural foundation. I find that I am much more successful at living by good ethical standards since I recognize them as what they are instead of trying to please a God. Why is it not enough to base our ethics on how our actions affect others?
Paul
Form Neil Shenvi
To Paul Kalbach
Hi Paul,
Thanks for e-mailing me. I didn't want to monopolize discussion on the blog.
“You never did answer one thing. How is Joseph's lineage relevant to Jesus if the virgin birth is true?” -PK
Well, I think the relevance is that the Messiah was supposed to come from the house and line of David. Your line of reasoning is that if Jesus were not the biological son of Joseph then Joseph's lineage would be irrelevant. But I'm not sure that's true. Let's say that Joseph were in a direct lineage from David and the virgin birth did occur as the gospels attest. Are you arguing that Matthew and Luke should not have cared at all about Joseph's lineage? That, to me, seems unreasonable. The situtation described in the gospels is that you Jesus was conceived supernaturally, but born into a family that traced its roots to David. I think it is only natural for the biographers of Jesus to see Joseph's Davidic ancestry as significant.
Also, recall that in the ancient world, adopted sons could inherit kingship (Caeser Augustus being a classic example, see http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/augustusbio/a/Augustus.htm). If Joseph were really the heir of David, then wouldn't Jesus as his "adopted" son be the true heir as well? The only way to argue against this succession would be to say "No Jesus, you aren't really the true king of Israel because God, not Joseph, is your true father." That strikes me as a pretty weak argument!
“I have a fundamental problem with this concept however. It allows for
an infinitely interpretable text. The Bible can be, and is, used to justify anything. There is no authoritative means of saying which interpretation is correct. You either look at the text literally or subject yourself to all sorts of mental gymnastics to decide which parts to take literally and which parts to view symbolically and which parts to ignore all together.” -PK
I'm sorry if I implied that any of the Bible should be ignored; I didn't mean to. Most evangelicals would agree that "authorial intent" is the goal of all good exegesis. In other words, everything in the Bible should be taken as the author intented. Usually, it is fairly clear when the author intends something to be taken figuratively (i.e. "I am the gate for the sheep") and when he intends it to be taken literally (i.e. "Jesus got into the boat"). There are passages which are difficult, but I believe that the core message of the Bible is quite clear: Jesus Christ came to suffer and die for our sins and if we put our faith in him, we will be reconciled to God.
“The entire field of theology, regardless of its strain, is a fabrication totally outside of the text of the Bible. I studied a good bit of theology in an earlier phase of life, actually contemplating going to seminary, and I ended up extremely frustrated by all of it. Theology is an entirely man-made framework made to eliminate the contradictions in the Bible. It starts with the assumption that everything in the Bible is correct and thus any failure of the text to live up to this assumption is disregarded. Any theological framework, no matter how convoluted and grandiose is acceptable.” -PK
In one sense, I agree with you. It is always a temptation to let our "theology"
take precedence over the Bible itself. But one of the slogans of the Reformation, which unfortunately is sometimes forgotten, is semper reformanda or "always reforming". We must never let our traditional beliefs pass untested, but hold everything up to the light of God's word.
One other point that is crucial is that "theology" has only one legitimate
purpose: to know and love God better. I myself have a great temptation to learn "good theology" in order to boast about it and feel superior to others. But real "theology" is simply a greater and greater knowledge of a person, Jesus Christ.
“All of the things that I was raised to believe in aren't in the Bible, they were created by theologians - the doctrine of the trinity, dispensationalism, etc.” -PK
I can address these issues specifically, but are they really what is keeping you from Jesus? These issues and many others are the kind of thing that can only be wrestled with on the other side of a personal trust in Christ. What is it in particular that is keeping you from him?
“Acceptance of any theology over another seems to be a dice roll. Thus, literal interpretation is the only thing that makes sense. This, however forces the text to stand on its own.” -PK
See above. If by "literal", you mean a reading that attempts to
understand what the author is conveying, then yes I would agree with a literal reading. But if by "literal" you mean, wooden and literalistic with no account taken of context or genre, then I would disagree.
“I have come to the conclusion that all of the good aspects of the New Testament that people cherry pick and call the teaching of Jesus is nothing more or less than good human ethics. There is nothing to prevent people from living by these ethical standards without a supernatural foundation. I find that I am much more successful at living by good ethical standards since I recognize them as what they are instead of trying to please a God. Why is it not enough to base our ethics on how our actions affect others?” -PK
Could I suggest that this might be a misunderstanding of the core
message of the Bible? The Bible is not primarily a list of rules that God tells us to keep so that we can go to heaven. The Bible is primilarly the story of God's intervention in history to rescue people who because of sin have broken
all his rules, are destroying themselves and others, and who apart from his
intervention are doomed to eternal destruction. The gospel is "good news", not "good advice"! Yes, the world would be much better if everyone lived according to Jesus' teachings. But do you? Do I? Do you love God with all your heart and
love your neighbor as yourself, which Jesus said is the essence of God's law? I certainly don't! The Bible is actually good news of what God has done for us. It says: Jesus was mocked and flogged and crucufied for miserable, hopeless, wicked, hard-hearted people like you; trust in him. This is why, in Jesus' day, the prostitutes and tax collectors followed and loved Jesus and why the religious people hated him. The righteous have no need of a savior. But the sinners and the outcasts do.
Anyway, I apologize for the sermonizing; I tend to get excited. I would love to
continue this conversation and to answer your questions as best I can.
-Neil
From Paul Kalbach
To Neil Shenvi
“Well, I think the relevance is that the Messiah was supposed to come from the house and line of David. Your line of reasoning is that if Jesus were not the biological son of Joseph then Joseph's lineage would be irrelevant. But I'm not sure that's true. Let's say that Joseph were in a direct lineage from David and the virgin birth did occur as the gospels attest. Are you arguing that Matthew and Luke should not have cared at all about Joseph's lineage? That, to me, seems unreasonable. The situtation described in the gospels is that you Jesus was conceived supernaturally, but born into a family that traced its roots to David. I think it is only natural for the biographers of Jesus to see Joseph's Davidic ancestry as significant.
Also, recall that in the ancient world, adopted sons could inherit kingship (Caeser Augustus being a classic example, see http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/augustusbio/a/Augustus.htm). If Joseph were really the heir of David, then wouldn't Jesus as his "adopted" son be the true heir as well? The only way to argue against this succession would be to say "No Jesus, you aren't really the true king of Israel because God, not Joseph, is your true father." That strikes me as a pretty weak argument!” -NS
I will grant you the adoption point. I always read this as establishing Jesus' actual lineage. I am not comfortable with the adoption line but I will grant it as viable.
“I'm sorry if I implied that any of the Bible should be ignored; I didn't mean to. Most evangelicals would agree that "authorial intent" is the goal of all good exegesis. In other words, everything in the Bible should be taken as the author intented. Usually, it is fairly clear when the author intends something to be taken figuratively (i.e. "I am the gate for the sheep") and when he intends it to be taken literally (i.e. "Jesus got into the boat"). There are passages which are difficult, but I believe that the core message of the Bible is quite clear: Jesus Christ came to suffer and die for our sins and if we put our faith in him, we will be reconciled to God.” -NS
There are parts of the bible that need to be ignored. The only reason that Christianity today is not the same threat to peace as Islam is that parts of it are ignored. Thankfully no one (in the west at least) is living by 'do not suffer a witch to live' or all the minutia of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Both of those books are riddled with exhortations to commit genocide and every form of intolerance.
“In one sense, I agree with you. It is always a temptation to let our "theology" take precedence over the Bible itself. But one of the slogans of the Reformation, which unfortunately is sometimes forgotten, is semper reformanda or "always reforming". We must never let our traditional beliefs pass untested, but hold everything up to the light of God's word. One other point that is crucial is that "theology" has only one legitimate purpose: to know and love God better. I myself have a great temptation to learn "good theology" in order to boast about it and feel superior to others. But real theology" is simply a greater and greater knowledge of a person, Jesus Christ.” -NS
Even if this is the best approach to theology, is has to be noted that people direct their lives in accordance with theology. If it is always changing and striving, even with the best of motives, people are building on a changing platform. The bible is put forward as the ultimate source or morality and goodness but the theology surrounding it leads to horrible evils. (if you escape theology and go with rigid literalism it gets even worse) I don't have to go into detail on the crusades, witch trials, southern segregation (which was based on protestant beliefs) or the complicity of the Catholic church with fascism in the 20th century. Theology gives people a platform to rationalize anything they want and have god on their side. I have a problem with protestantism for the simple reason the it has no orthodoxy to temper the horrors that people can derive from the text. Without orthodoxy, how can anyone condemn Fred Phelps or David Koresh. You can't without appealing to a humanist ethical stance that has nothing to do with the bible. Every theology is equally justified.
“I can address these issues specifically, but are they really what is keeping you from Jesus? These issues and many others are the kind of thing that can only be wrestled with on the other side of a personal trust in Christ. What is it in particular that is keeping you from him?” –NS
I tried for years to believe and beat myself up constantly with the guilt that is inherent in the doctrine of original sin (something that morally offends me). I grew tired of not living my life and feeling condemned and defective all the time. When I finally listened to the little voice that kept saying 'its all made up, there is no god to worry about' I felt like a huge weight was lifted. I have never been happier or more free. My natural ethical impulse to just be good to others and be honest aren't tainted by groveling before a god who sets standards no human can meet.
So, no these specific issues are not 'keeping me from Jesus'. Its the lack of evidence (what to me means the untruth of it all) and the groveling nature of worshiping anything or anyone that offends me. I have never understood why god, if he exists, would want or need constant subservient worship. I seems arrogant and insecure. Not to mention abusive to the psyche of those doing the worshiping.
“Could I suggest that this might be a misunderstanding of the core
message of the Bible? The Bible is not primarily a list of rules that God tells us to keep so that we can go to heaven. The Bible is primarily the story of God's intervention in history to rescue people who because of sin have broken all his rules, are destroying themselves and others, and who apart from his intervention
are doomed to eternal destruction. The gospel is "good news", not "good advice"! Yes, the world would be much better if everyone lived according to Jesus' teachings. But do you? Do I? Do you love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself, which Jesus said is the essence of God's law? I certainly don't! The Bible is actually good news of what God has done for us. It says: Jesus was mocked and flogged and crucufied for miserable, hopeless, wicked, hard-hearted people like you; trust in him. This is why, in Jesus' day, the prostitutes and tax collectors followed and loved Jesus
and why the religious people hated him. The righteous have no need of a savior. But the sinners and the outcasts do.” -NS
I have to disagree on several points. Firstly, the bible is a list of rules. There are thousands of things to do and not to do with the threat of eternal torture always hanging over the head of the reader. As for the statement 'the righteous have no need of a savior' the bible clearly says that all fall short and no one meets the criteria on their own. The threat of hell is always there for everyone, even in the new testament.
This gets to one of my biggest problems with all of it. If god exists and is as he is billed (a huge theological assumption that cannot be backed up logically - even if you take the regression to prime mover arguments as true they imply nothing of the omniscience, omnipotence etc) then he created everything including satan and fallen angel and imperfect humans. You cannot remove the responsibility for all the evil that exists from the creator. If that creator has foreknowledge and the power to prevent evil then he has the responsibility to do so. If he fails to do so then he is complicit. If he has the foreknowledge but not the power then he isn't omnipotent. If he has the power but not the foreknowledge then he isn't omniscient.
You can make all the arguments that you wish about free will but that doesn't escape the immoral sadism of the idea of hell. It is nothing short of sick. If god is so perfect that he cannot be in the presence of evil then he cannot be omnipresent because evil exists now. And there is no argument that I have ever heard that justifies the eternal torture. Simply uncreating the being would serve to save god from having to slum with the imperfect. It would do it better than a 'lake of fire' Once again, the omniscient thing.
All of this might seem silly and it is... it all is silly to the extreme. If there is a god, we have no way of knowing the definites of what it even means, how to define it. The bible, regardless of your theological tradition, tries to do just that, define god and give you a list of rules, always under the threat of eternal torture. I find it all rather offensive.
“Anyway, I apologize for the sermonizing; I tend to get excited. I
would love to continue this conversation and to answer your questions as best I can.” -NS
I find these subjects no end of interesting. I lost what was a real faith, now I find it fascinating from another perspective... I am interested in what people believe and why and what means they use to justify those beliefs.
From Neil Shenvi
To Paul Kalbach
“Even if this is the best approach to theology, is has to be noted that
people direct their lives in accordance with theology. If it is always
changing and striving, even with the best of motives, people are building on
a changing platform. The bible is put forward as the ultimate source or
morality and goodness but the theology surrounding it leads to horrible
evils. (if you escape theology and go with rigid literalism it gets even
worse) I don't have to go into detail on the crusades, witch trials,
southern segregation (which was based on protestant beliefs) or the
complicity of the Catholic church with fascism in the 20th century. Theology
gives people a platform to rationalize anything they want and have god on
their side. I have a problem with protestantism for the simple reason the it
has no orthodoxy to temper the horrors that people can derive from the text.
Without orthodoxy, how can anyone condemn Fred Phelps or David Koresh. You
can't without appealing to a humanist ethical stance that has nothing to do
with the bible. Every theology is equally justified.” -PK
I think the lesson of history is that human beings will rationalize whatever
they want from whatever their worldview, be it Christianity, Buddhism or
atheism. The atrocities committed in the name of Christ are horrific, but they
stand in utter contradiction to the very religion they espouse. Jesus calls us
to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who mistreat
us. I agree that human beings will "explain away" these passages in order to
achieve their selfish ends. But that does not reflect on the character of
Jesus but rather on the character of the people themselves.
In contrast, many of the atrocities committed by, say, the Nazi or Stalinist
regimes were entirely consistent with the idealogies of their leaders. I am
glad that you believe in loving one's neighbor, but as an atheist, on what
basis do you do so? To criticize the Crusades or the Holocaust or Jim Crow, we
need some vantage point of absolute morality from which we can evaluate all
three as evil. But within secular humanist worldview, there is no such vantage
point. We as human beings have no more intrinsic worth than a chair and we
evolved through the strong killing off the weak. How can I claim that it is
now wrong for the strong to kill off the weak? If morality is socially
constructed, then on what basis can I condemn people in some other society who
are perfectly content with their current system of morality, even if I dislike
it?
Regarding the Old Testament laws and the conquest of Canaan, I agree that these
are difficult issues. But I always turn back to Jesus himself and his
teaching. If Jesus could read the Old Testament and see a God of love, mercy
and compassion and if Jesus himself is in fact that same God of the Old
Testament, then I may still not understand some of the difficult passages in
the Old Testament, but I can trust that they do not contradict God's character
as revealed in Jesus.
“I tried for years to believe and beat myself up constantly with the guilt that is inherent in the
doctrine of original sin (something that morally offends me). I grew tired of not living my life and feeling condemned and defective all the time.” -PK
But doesn't the gospel say something entirely different? The gospel says that
Jesus completely and finally dealt with sin on the cross so that we can be
completely and permanently forgiven: "there is no condemnation for those who
are in Christ". If we constantly feel guilty and condemned, we have only
grasped the Law of God, which does indeed show us our sinfulness. But we
haven't yet grasped the good news of what Jesus has done for us, taking away
all of our guilt and shame and condemnation because he himself was treated as
guilty and shamed and condemned.
“So, no these specific issues are not 'keeping me from Jesus'. Its the lack
of evidence (what to me means the untruth of it all) and the groveling
nature of worshiping anything or anyone that offends me. I have never
understood why god, if he exists, would want or need constant subservient
worship. I seems arrogant and insecure. Not to mention abusive to the psyche
of those doing the worshiping..” -PK
It's interesting that you bring this issue up, because it's true that every
other religion sees us as bringing something to God that he needs: honor,
worship, respect, obedience. But doesn't Christianity say the opposite: that
salvation is all of grace, completely free? God doesn't need us to worship
him. He doesn't need us to love him. He doesn't need to save us. He does so
purely out of love and grace. It is the very graciousness of salvation that
makes me want to worship him. Seeing how great my debt was and how God didn't
owe me anything but hell, and then seeing him bear that debt himself and give
me heaven, makes me want to praise him!
“I have to disagree on several points. Firstly, the bible is a list of rules.
There are thousands of things to do and not to do with the threat of eternal
torture always hanging over the head of the reader. As for the statement
'the righteous have no need of a savior' the bible clearly says that all
fall short and no one meets the criteria on their own. The threat of hell is
always there for everyone, even in the new testament.” -PK
When I said 'the righteous have no need of a savior' I was thinking of Jesus'
statement in Mark 2:17, when he pointed out that those who think they are
righteous think they have no need of a savior. A religious person typically
approaches God like this: "God, I am not perfect, but I'm pretty good. At
least, I'm a lot better than so-and-so. Therefore, I deserve your blessing." This is the attitude that Jesus condemned over and over in the gospels. It
takes the Law of God to show us that we are not "pretty good"; in fact, we are
filled with selfishness, pride, and hatred and are constantly breaking God's
commands to love him supremely and to love our fellow human beings. Until we
are humbled by God's law and shown how far short we fall, we will never be
ready or even willing to accept the grace that Jesus offers us.
“This gets to one of my biggest problems with all of it. If god exists and is
as he is billed (a huge theological assumption that cannot be backed up
logically - even if you take the regression to prime mover arguments as true
they imply nothing of the omniscience, omnipotence etc) then he created
everything including satan and fallen angel and imperfect humans. You cannot
remove the responsibility for all the evil that exists from the creator. If
that creator has foreknowledge and the power to prevent evil then he has the
responsibility to do so. If he fails to do so then he is complicit. If he
has the foreknowledge but not the power then he isn't omnipotent. If he has
the power but not the foreknowledge then he isn't omniscient.
You can make all the arguments that you wish about free will but that
doesn't escape the immoral sadism of the idea of hell. It is nothing short
of sick. If god is so perfect that he cannot be in the presence of evil then
he cannot be omnipresent because evil exists now. And there is no argument
that I have ever heard that justifies the eternal torture. Simply uncreating
the being would serve to save god from having to slum with the imperfect. It
would do it better than a 'lake of fire' Once again, the omniscient thing.
All of this might seem silly and it is... it all is silly to the extreme. If
there is a god, we have no way of knowing the definites of what it even
means, how to define it. The bible, regardless of your theological
tradition, tries to do just that, define god and give you a list of rules,
always under the threat of eternal torture. I find it all rather offensive.” -PK
Again, I also struggle with the doctrine of hell, but I always turn back to
Jesus. Looking at Jesus' life I cannot help but see his meekness, gentleness,
love and compassion. And yet Jesus himself talked about the reality of hell
more than anyone else in the Bible. I think what troubles us is that we think
that if hell exists, then God must not be good. But the person of Christ
reassures me that God is indeed good and I can rest in that fact.
One important point to note is that one of the key elements of hell, in fact in
my mind the very thing that makes it hell, is the fact that those in hell are
cast out of God's presence. Human beings were made to love God and rejoice in
all that he has done for us. Therefore, to be cast out of God's presence is to
lose everything that is good and beautiful and desirable. But don't you see
that by denying God's existence and living apart from him, we are essentially
choosing hell every moment of the day? It is only God's mercy and compassion
that he is not giving us what we are implicitly demanding every second of our
lives. Instead of the question 'why would God send us to hell?', perhaps a
better quesiton is 'why are we choosing hell every day of our lives? Why do we
so desperately want to be without God?'
Paul, it sounds to me like you are rejecting what you perceive as a bitter,
legalistic, hypocritical religion based on the experiences you've had. But
what if Christianity is actually something different entirely?
Have you ever heard of the book The Reason for God by Tim Keller? I'd highly
recommend it. In fact, I have several copies and if you send me your address,
I will mail you one as an early Christmas/holiday present.
From Paul Kalbach
To Neil Shenvi
Neil,
“I think the lesson of history is that human beings will rationalize whatever
they want from whatever their worldview, be it Christianity, Buddhism or
atheism. The atrocities committed in the name of Christ are horrific, but they
stand in utter contradiction to the very religion they espouse. Jesus calls us
to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who mistreat
us. I agree that human beings will "explain away" these passages in order to
achieve their selfish ends. But that does not reflect on the character of
Jesus but rather on the character of the people themselves.” -NS
I agree, humans will justify any form of atrocity. A point I was trying to make earlier about theology is that you cannot say ‘they stand in utter contradiction to the very religion they espouse’. Without an orthodoxy build on some definite foundation how can you say that they are violating the spirit of the thing? On what to you stand that is superior to them?
You say that Jesus ‘calls us to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who mistreat us’. Fine, there are such verses but what of the other side of Jesus? Do passages like Mat 10:14-15 or Mark 6:11 not bother you? A street preacher walks into your town and starts declaring something like a weird twist on an old religion and if you and all your cohabitants don’t agree with him, the retribution will be worse than the wholesale murder of an entire population. This sort of caprice is very Old Testament.
Or Mat 10:34-38 – Love me more than your own parents or children or I will destroy you. If you don’t you aren’t worthy. This is not meekness and love. This is a handbook for abusive relationships
Or Mat 18:24-35 where there is no good guy in this story. The lord in this scenario is kind until he finds out that the kindness wasn’t passed on, he then has the servant tortured. What sort of moral teaching is that?
Do not verses like Mark 3:29 not go against the idea of once and for all salvation that Protestants teach and lean toward the Catholic interpretation where a sin can condemn you even after believing?
I could go on but these are a few starting at the top
“In contrast, many of the atrocities committed by, say, the Nazi or Stalinist
regimes were entirely consistent with the idealogies of their leaders.” -NS
The things done by Hitler were consistent with his deranged beliefs in Arian superiority, a twisted form of social Darwinism and a virulent hatred of the Jews that was built and informed by his Catholicism (which he never renounced and proclaimed to the end), Stalin did what he did based on Marxism not atheism.
“I am glad that you believe in loving one's neighbor, but as an atheist, on what
basis do you do so? To criticize the Crusades or the Holocaust or Jim Crow, we
need some vantage point of absolute morality from which we can evaluate all
three as evil. But within secular humanist worldview, there is no such vantage
point. We as human beings have no more intrinsic worth than a chair and we
evolved through the strong killing off the weak. How can I claim that it is
now wrong for the strong to kill off the weak? If morality is socially
constructed, then on what basis can I condemn people in some other society who
are perfectly content with their current system of morality, even if I dislike
it?” -NS
This is an old argument that gets trotted out every time the subject comes up; the slippery slope, the fear that without a supreme overlord saying so, there is no basis for morality. This has been dealt with handily by many writers far better than I can. If you have read the “God Delusion”, “The End of Faith” and “God is not Great”, and I am guessing you probably have, you know that this argument doesn’t hold water. Aside from the afore-mentioned books (and I only mention them because I read them recently and they are current and well known) there are lots of books on ethics. I don’t think that such basic moral principles as not committing murder, theft, rape etc are based on the bible. These are basic human things that we all feel are wrong and must feel are wrong to able to live together in a society. The violation of such ethical positions imposes suffering on others and violates their own personal rights of self determination. I think that these basic principles of ethics were worked into religion early on and had the god angle imposed on them to make them stronger. There will always be people who are willing to break the social contract and act outside of the ethical realm but they are the minority. As populations grow and become denser, the more of these people there are and more opportunities there are for them to cause harm. I don’t think it is a coincidence that organized religion and priesthoods sprang up in conjunction with increased populations and agriculture.
“Regarding the Old Testament laws and the conquest of Canaan, I agree that these
are difficult issues. But I always turn back to Jesus himself and his teaching. If Jesus could read the Old Testament and see a God of love, mercy and compassion and if Jesus himself is in fact that same God of the Old Testament, then I may still not understand some of the difficult passages in the Old Testament, but I can trust that they do not contradict God's character
as revealed in Jesus.” -NS
Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is that the stories of the Old Testament are an oral tradition of self aggrandizement by a primitive tribe of herdsman who worshipped power and anything that brought themselves out on top. I don’t see how you can reconcile the orders to commit genocide and in certain cases to take all the women as sex slaves (you can try to plaster over the cracks but telling an army to put all men and elderly and children to the sword, burn the city and take the virgins for your selves only means one thing). Especially if you believe the Jesus is all love and compassion… something I have not been convinced of.
“But doesn't the gospel say something entirely different? The gospel says that
Jesus completely and finally dealt with sin on the cross so that we can be
completely and permanently forgiven: "there is no condemnation for those who
are in Christ". If we constantly feel guilty and condemned, we have only
grasped the Law of God, which does indeed show us our sinfulness. But we
haven't yet grasped the good news of what Jesus has done for us, taking away
all of our guilt and shame and condemnation because he himself was treated as
guilty and shamed and condemned. “ -NS
I was taught that you didn’t lose your salvation per say but you fell out of fellowship and had to confess to even be able to pray and be heard. I spent all my time confessing because every single thought and deed was sinful in some way. It wasn’t a fear of damnation, I had the smug conviction of the evangelical that I was superior and saved; it was fear of being less than I was supposed to be and ending up in the trailer park of heaven as it were.
“It's interesting that you bring this issue up, because it's true that every
other religion sees us as bringing something to God that he needs: honor,
worship, respect, obedience. But doesn't Christianity say the opposite: that
salvation is all of grace, completely free? God doesn't need us to worship
him. He doesn't need us to love him. He doesn't need to save us. He does so
purely out of love and grace. It is the very graciousness of salvation that
makes me want to worship him. Seeing how great my debt was and how God didn't
owe me anything but hell, and then seeing him bear that debt himself and give
me heaven, makes me want to praise him!” -NS
Back to one of my main objections; why the need for salvation if we are only what god created us to be. We are born without our consent, innocent of all things by any just standard and yet told we are worthless and condemned and must rely on the grace of one who created the entire game to begin with. If god knows beforehand that any one individual is going to reject him and he cannot tolerate this, don’t create them. Otherwise he is creating them with no other purpose than to condemn them. This is sick beyond words. Imagine that you can create a race of lesser being over which you have total control and once created they have free minds and wills and an eternal essence. Now hide from them completely. Then leak a few arcane things about yourself to a small group of ignorant and illiterate individuals in a remote area over a few hundred years and rely on oral tradition and various languages to collect these tidbits together. Now demand that every one of them everywhere even before the revelations and in places where it will never reach have to believe in you and by name or you will torture their essence for all eternity.
How fair and gracious is that? Would you be worthy of worship?
“When I said 'the righteous have no need of a savior' I was thinking of Jesus' statement in Mark 2:17, when he pointed out that those who think they are righteous think they have no need of a savior. A religious person typically approaches God like this: "God, I am not perfect, but I'm pretty good. At least, I'm a lot better than so-and-so. Therefore, I deserve your blessing." This is the attitude that Jesus condemned over and over in the gospels. It takes the Law of God to show us that we are not "pretty good"; in fact, we are filled with selfishness, pride, and hatred and are constantly breaking God's commands to love him supremely and to love our fellow human beings. Until we are humbled by God's law and shown how far short we fall, we will never be ready or even willing to accept the grace that Jesus offers us.” -NS
And isn’t pretty good good enough? Why do we mere mammals need to prostrate ourselves and humble ourselves? Why do we need to love that which we cannot see feel hear or touch supremely? Why would he even demand it? I refer back to my previous statement about abusive relationships. All you have to do is look objectively at the mental games religious people play with themselves to see how insidious this is. Look at any cult and you see it concentrated. Any misfortune or failing is put down to I didn’t work hard enough, I am being tested or the devil is attacking me; never squarely facing the reality of a situation. Any good fortune is a blessing and sign they are on the right track. It is never analyzed that while it is imagined that god is intervening to give you all 5 bingo numbers at the church social he is letting 15000 Bangladeshis die in a flood.
“Again, I also struggle with the doctrine of hell, but I always turn back to
Jesus. Looking at Jesus' life I cannot help but see his meekness, gentleness,
love and compassion. And yet Jesus himself talked about the reality of hell
more than anyone else in the Bible. I think what troubles us is that we think
that if hell exists, then God must not be good. But the person of Christ
reassures me that God is indeed good and I can rest in that fact.” -NS
I cannot live with this paradox. I cannot square claims of goodness and meekness and love with a willingness to cause pain and misery and despair.
“One important point to note is that one of the key elements of hell, in fact in
my mind the very thing that makes it hell, is the fact that those in hell are
cast out of God's presence. Human beings were made to love God and rejoice in
all that he has done for us. Therefore, to be cast out of God's presence is to
lose everything that is good and beautiful and desirable. But don't you see
that by denying God's existence and living apart from him, we are essentially
choosing hell every moment of the day? It is only God's mercy and compassion
that he is not giving us what we are implicitly demanding every second of our
lives. Instead of the question 'why would God send us to hell?', perhaps a
better quesiton is 'why are we choosing hell every day of our lives? Why do we
so desperately want to be without God?'” -NS
I don’t choose hell. I chose life. I chose to live my life in the here and now and not spend all my time here worrying about something that no one even knows if it exists. As I have said, I am happier now than I ever was trying to be a Christian.
“Paul, it sounds to me like you are rejecting what you perceive as a bitter, legalistic, hypocritical religion based on the experiences you've had. But what if Christianity is actually something different entirely?” -NS
If Christianity is something different, why are Christians not living it? That is like saying, well you reject a bicycle as a viable way to commute to work because of the distance and the weather and the conditions but what if a bicycle is actually something different? You still have to deal with the facts that it is pedal powered, open to the weather and gives you a great chance of getting killed by large trucks but what if it weren’t. What if it were warm and dry and crash resistant… You can tell yourself it is one thing but if the tangible assets are another, what does it mean? You may look at the words and find a great meaning and it may fill you up and inspire you to be a good person, I am glad it does. I read the same words and I see the bicycle.
“Have you ever heard of the book The Reason for God by Tim Keller? I'd highly
recommend it. In fact, I have several copies and if you send me your address,
I will mail you one as an early Christmas/holiday present.” -NS
Have not heard of this particular book… sure, . Pick one of the books I mentioned earlier that you haven’t read or let me pick another one… I’ll send you that one… I’ll read yours if you read mine.
From Neil Shenvi
To Paul Kalbach
“I agree, humans will justify any form of atrocity. A point I was trying to make earlier about theology is that you cannot say 'they stand in utter contradiction to the very religion they espouse'. Without an orthodoxy build on some definite foundation how can you say that they are violating the spirit of the thing? On what to you stand that is superior to them?” -PK
Well, it's not some vague spirit of Christianity that they are violating, but the direct commands of Jesus in Scripture.
“You say that Jesus 'calls us to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who mistreat us'. Fine, there are such verses but what of the other side of Jesus? Do passages like Mat 10:14-15 or Mark 6:11 not bother you? A street preacher walks into your town and starts declaring something like a weird twist on an old religion and if you and all your cohabitants don't agree with him, the retribution will be worse than the wholesale murder of an entire population. This sort of caprice is very Old Testament.
Or Mat 10:34-38 - Love me more than your own parents or children or I will destroy you. If you don't you aren't worthy. This is not meekness and love.
This is a handbook for abusive relationships
Or Mat 18:24-35 where there is no good guy in this story. The lord in
this scenario is kind until he finds out that the kindness wasn't
passed on, he then has the servant tortured. What sort of moral teaching is that?” -PK
These passages point to what commentators have always noticed about Jesus'
teaching. On the one hand, his moral teaching is undeniably beautiful and his character is full of compassion, but on the other hand he makes these outlandish claims about himself and requires every human being to choose whether we are with him or against him. If we want to come to Jesus as a good moral teacher, I agree that these commands are wildly offensive and megalomaniacal. But that's the point! We can't come to Jesus as only a moral teacher. He commands us to treat him and love him as God himself (above everything else, our work, our family and even our own life). Either he is God, and then these commands are completely reasonable, or he is not and he is a lunatic and a megalomaniac.
Regarding many of these hard teachings, I think the question is whether we recognize that our relationship to God ought to supersede all others. If a stranger comes to me and rebukes me for not loving him more than I love Derek Jeter, my favorite baseball player, I would dismiss him as a nutcase. But if my wife comes to me and rebukes me for not loving her more than Derek Jeter, I would hang my head in shame because she is right; the relationship that I have with my wife ought to supersede all other relationships. Similarly, what relationship ought we to have with the God who created us, who sustains us every moment of the day, and who has given us every good gift and pleasure that we enjoy? Isn't loving him supremely the only appropriate response we can make?
If Jesus was God, then his commands are simply expressions of the first
commandment: have no other gods before me.
“Do not verses like Mark 3:29 not go against the idea of once and for all salvation that Protestants teach and lean toward the Catholic interpretation where a sin can condemn you even after believing?” -PK
Although commentators disagree what Jesus is referring to, I think the most consistent explanation is that the sin that Jesus is describing is a rejection of his person and his work as satanic. If anyone does reject Jesus in this way, I think it is clear that they are not a Christian (doesn't being a Christian mean recognizing Jesus person and his work as that of God himself?).
If that's the case, how is it possible for a Christian to commit this sin? As to whether a non-Christian can commit this sin and thereby put himself outside the reach of God's forgiveness, I'm not sure. Looking at the rest of Scripture, it seems that God accepts anyone who truly repents. My concern would be that someone who is convinced that Jesus is from Satan will never repent and therefore will never be forgiven.
“I could go on but these are a few starting at the top” -PK
Paul, it seems like you are going through the Scriptures trying to find all of the difficult and confusing passages you can. But why not start with what is clear? There are certainly confusing things in the Bible (the Bible itself says so! See 2 Pet. 3:16), but read almost any book in the New Testament (maybe in Jude or Philemon it is slightly less obvious) and the main message is
clear: Jesus is God who came to die for our sins and by faith in him we can have eternal life. If my salvation depended on understanding everything in the Bible, I personally would be hopeless. There are plenty of passages in the Bible that I don't understand and probably many more that I currently misunderstand. But being a Christian does not mean understanding everything in the Bible; it means trusting in the salvation that comes through Christ.
“This is an old argument that gets trotted out every time the subject comes up; the slippery slope, the fear that without a supreme overlord saying so, there is no basis for morality.” -PK
It is not a fear that without God we will stop behaving morally. I think it is quite possible to be an atheist and to behave morally. I think the objection is much deeper. Without God as the source of absolutes, how do we define what is moral and what is not or even what is "good" and what is "not good"? You could appeal to morality as the set of laws that leads to a stable society or the continuation of civilization, but the Mayans had a stable society for thousands of years that included ritual human sacrifice. Why would you call this society "brutal" and "immoral"?
You could appeal to morality as the innate sense that human beings have evolved for fair play, or the behavior dictated by our conscience, but serial killers may not experience any pangs of conscience over their actions. Why would you call their behavior "wrong" if our consciences are what determine morality?
Why is it wrong to impose suffering on others or to violate their personal rights and self-determination? If we are merely over-evolved animals, where did this moral judgement you are making come from? Is it wrong for rats to steal each others' food or to eat their young, or for the dominant gorilla to surpress the others? Why does morality suddenly and uniquely applicable to one particular class of primates? And why is the univeral morality you advocate so similar to the Judeo-Christian ethic of "love your neighbor" rather than the Nietzchean ethic of "will to power" or the Norse ethic of "strength and honor"?
“I was taught that you didn't lose your salvation per say but you fell out of fellowship and had to confess to even be able to pray and be heard. I spent all my time confessing because every single thought and deed was sinful in some way. It wasn't a fear of damnation, I had the smug conviction of the evangelical that I was superior and saved; it was fear of being less than I was supposed to be and ending up in the trailer park of heaven as it were.” -PK
I sympathize with your experience. I know what it is like to feel (in my opinion, quite rightly) that every one of my thoughts and deeds are sinful.
But the biblical solution is unique. It is not to deny this fact as any other religion would require us to do in order to obtain any kind of peace. Rather the Bible says: stop looking to yourself and look to Him. Your problem is that you still think that your salvation or your relationship with God depends on you, on your merit, on your obedience, on your purity. Christians need to not only repent of their sins, but of their damnable good deeds, their efforts to please God and obtain merit on their own rather than trusting solely in his grace and forgivenss in Jesus. As the old hymn says: "Lay your deadly doing down, down at Jesus' feet. Stand in Him and Him alone, gloriously complete".
“Have not heard of this particular book. sure, . Pick one of the books I mentioned earlier that you haven't read or let me pick another one. I'll send you that one. I'll read yours if you read mine.” -PK
Why don't I read "The End of Faith", since I have heard others recommend it?
I'll mail you "The Reason for God"; it should arrive shortly.
-Neil
From Paul Kalbach
To Neil Shenvi
“Well, it's not some vague spirit of Christianity that they are violating, but
the direct commands of Jesus in Scripture.” -NS
My contentions was and is - according to which interpretation? It's hard to find any two people who completely agree on what is or isn't 'commanded'. There are sects preaching that god wants you to be rich and others swearing you have to be poor to be saved. They both have passages on their side. You can claim almost anything is directly commanded or forbidden. I definitely like the teachings that Jesus is all peace and love and mercy better than the 'I come with a sword' Jesus but by what standard do you say those who read things that way are wrong? Thus my point about orthodoxy...
“These passages point to what commentators have always noticed about Jesus'
teaching. On the one hand, his moral teaching is undeniably beautiful and his
character is full of compassion, but on the other hand he makes these
outlandish claims about himself and requires every human being to choose
whether we are with him or against him. If we want to come to Jesus as a good
moral teacher, I agree that these commands are wildly offensive and
megalomaniacal. But that's the point! We can't come to Jesus as only a moral
teacher. He commands us to treat him and love him as God himself (above
everything else, our work, our family and even our own life). Either he is
God, and then these commands are completely reasonable, or he is not and he is
a lunatic and a megalomaniac.”-NS
This argument has been around for a long time and I think it was credited to C S Lewis originally. As many commentators have pointed out, this sets up a false dilemma. There is a third option, he could have been truly mistaken. He may well have been sane yet took some personal religious experience to heart and believed himself the son of god. I am approaching this from the outside though...
“Regarding many of these hard teachings, I think the question is whether we
recognize that our relationship to God ought to supersede all others. If a
stranger comes to me and rebukes me for not loving him more than I love Derek
Jeter, my favorite baseball player, I would dismiss him as a nutcase. But if
my wife comes to me and rebukes me for not loving her more than Derek Jeter, I
would hang my head in shame because she is right; the relationship that I have
with my wife ought to supersede all other relationships. Similarly, what
relationship ought we to have with the God who created us, who sustains us
every moment of the day, and who has given us every good gift and pleasure that
we enjoy? Isn't loving him supremely the only appropriate response we can make?
If Jesus was God, then his commands are simply expressions of the first
commandment: have no other gods before me.” -NS
My wife is in my life, a constant presence and a person with needs and feelings to whom I have real and present obligations. I have never seen, felt, heard or had any experience of god in any way. No one has ever been able to provide me with a single piece of evidence for his existence that could not be more easily explained through science or observation. Even when I was a devoted church goer, I felt silly praying because I w staling to myself. No one ever answered in any tangible way. I had a sever car wreck and people said it was a miracle and god saved my life etc etc. Funny, the EMTs and the trauma surgeon that put me back together didn't think anything was unusual. All the claims were from people who believed and wanted it to be a miracle. I felt nothing, I never lost consciousness, I saw no tunnels and heard no voices. I was also troubled to think that a god would intervene for me and let far better people than myself be hurt or die. My own brother, devout to the ultimate degree, lived his life for Christ, died at 28 of heart failure after running a charity marathon. I was a binge drinking, pot smoking idiot at that age.
Do not verses like Mark 3:29 not go against the idea of once and for all
salvation that Protestants teach and lean toward the Catholic interpretation
where a sin can condemn you even after believing?
“Although commentators disagree what Jesus is referring to, I think the most
consistent explanation is that the sin that Jesus is describing is a rejection
of his person and his work as satanic. If anyone does reject Jesus in this
way, I think it is clear that they are not a Christian (doesn't being a
Christian mean recognizing Jesus person and his work as that of God himself?).
If that's the case, how is it possible for a Christian to commit this sin? As
to whether a non-Christian can commit this sin and thereby put himself outside
the reach of God's forgiveness, I'm not sure. Looking at the rest of
Scripture, it seems that God accepts anyone who truly repents. My concern
would be that someone who is convinced that Jesus is from Satan will never
repent and therefore will never be forgiven.” -NS
What of someone who truly believes for years or decades, then loses their faith utterly and decides that the holy spirit is an imaginary friend?
“Paul, it seems like you are going through the Scriptures trying to find all of
the difficult and confusing passages you can. But why not start with what is
clear? There are certainly confusing things in the Bible (the Bible itself
says so! See 2 Pet. 3:16), but read almost any book in the New Testament
(maybe in Jude or Philemon it is slightly less obvious) and the main message is
clear: Jesus is God who came to die for our sins and by faith in him we can have
eternal life. If my salvation depended on understanding everything in the
Bible, I personally would be hopeless. There are plenty of passages in the
Bible that I don't understand and probably many more that I currently
misunderstand. But being a Christian does not mean understanding everything in
the Bible; it means trusting in the salvation that comes through Christ.” -NS
I am not trying to single out the difficulties, it is consistent or it isn't. It is true or it isn't. God cannot advocate vile things and still get a pass and be called just. You can't have it both ways. This is part of what I was saying about theology. Theology recognizes the internal inconsistencies and builds a framework outside to reconcile them. I just don't see any clear way of reconciling rational thought, observation, and natural causes with scripture. No system of theology does a good job of this. I would love to see one grand unifying theory that brought together all the wants and desires of the human heart and the impersonal reality of the universe. I just don't see it happening.
It doesn't help when you have things like Christians pushing to teach their religious views in the schools and trying to #justify it with pathetic pseudo-science...
“It is not a fear that without God we will stop behaving morally. I think it is
quite possible to be an atheist and to behave morally. I think the objection
is much deeper. Without God as the source of absolutes, how do we define what
is moral and what is not or even what is "good" and what is "not good"? You
could appeal to morality as the set of laws that leads to a stable society or
the continuation of civilization, but the Mayans had a stable society for
thousands of years that included ritual human sacrifice. Why would you call
this society "brutal" and "immoral"?” -NS
Very simple. Ask the sacrifice. I don't need a mandate from god to know brutality when I see it and even it I believed in god and was appalled by this and in that instance was handed absolute proof of god's non-existence would it change my stance? No it would not, it is based on human suffering and the destruction of the human right to self determination. You ignore the fact that without a belief in their gods, which you do not believe in, none of this cruelty would have occurred.
“You could appeal to morality as the innate sense that human beings have evolved
for fair play, or the behavior dictated by our conscience, but serial killers
may not experience any pangs of conscience over their actions. Why would you
call their behavior "wrong" if our consciences are what determine morality?
Why is it wrong to impose suffering on others or to violate their personal
rights and self-determination? If we are merely over-evolved animals, where
did this moral judgement you are making come from? Is it wrong for rats to
steal each others' food or to eat their young, or for the dominant gorilla to
surpress the others? Why does morality suddenly and uniquely applicable to one
particular class of primates? And why is the univeral morality you advocate so
similar to the Judeo-Christian ethic of "love your neighbor" rather than the
Nietzchean ethic of "will to power" or the Norse ethic of "strength and honor"?” -NS
The fact that another has a will and a self awareness and an ability to understand and anticipate pain is reason enough. How far down the evolutionary tree does our moral obligation go? I don't know. I wouldn't kill a chimp, gorilla, bonobo, dolphin or elephant. Why? They have all demonstrated self awareness. Do I hold them all on the same moral level with humans? No, but that may be my failing. I err on the side of compassion and life.
Austin Cline said it well: (Quoted from http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophybranches/p/Ethics.htm)
Myth:
Without God, atheists have no reason to behavior morally. What's the point of being moral is there is no God?
Response:
The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism out there. It comes up in a variety of forms, but all of them are based on the assumption that the only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a reason reject atheism and convert to Christianity.
First, it must be noted that there is no logical connection between this argument's premises and conclusion — it's not a valid argument. Even if we accept that it's true that there is no point in being moral if there is no God, this wouldn't be an argument against atheism in the sense of showing that atheism isn't true, rational, or justified. It wouldn't provide any reason to think that theism generally or Christianity in particular is likely true. It is logically possible that there is no God and that we have no good reasons to behave morally. At most this is a pragmatic reason to adopt some theistic religion, but we'd be doing so on the basis of its supposed usefulness, not because we think it's really true, and this would be contrary to what theistic religions normally teach.
Human Suffering & Morality
There is also a serious but rarely noted problem with this myth in that it assumes that it doesn't matter that more people are happy and fewer people suffer if God does not exist. Consider that carefully for a moment: this myth can only be espoused by someone who doesn't consider either their happiness or their suffering to be especially important unless their god tells them to care. If you are happy, they don't necessarily care. If you suffer, they don't necessarily care. All that matters is whether that happiness or that suffering occurs in the context of the existence of their God or not. If it does, then presumably that happiness and that suffering serve some purpose and so that's OK — otherwise, they're irrelevant.
If a person only refrains from killing because they believe they are so ordered, and the suffering that murder would cause is irrelevant, then what happens when that person starts to think that they have new orders to actually go out and kill? Because the suffering of the victims was never a dispositive issue, what would stop them? This strikes me as an indication that a person is sociopathic. It is, after all, a key characteristic of sociopaths that they are unable to empathize with the feelings of others and, hence, aren't especially concerned if others suffer. I not only reject the assumption that God is necessary to making morality relevant as being illogical, I also reject the implication that the happiness and suffering of others isn't very important as being immoral itself.
Theism & Morality
Now religious theists are certainly entitled to insist that, without orders, they have no good reason to refrain from rape and murder or to help people in need — if the actual suffering of others is completely irrelevant to them, then we should all hope that they continue to believe that they are receiving divine orders to be "good." However irrational or unfounded theism may be, it's preferable that people hold on to these beliefs than that they go around acting on their genuine and sociopathic attitudes. The rest of us, however, are under no obligation to accept the same premises as they — and it probably wouldn't be a good idea to try. If the rest of us are able to behave morally without orders or threats from gods, then we should continue to do so and not be dragged down to others' level.
Morally speaking, it really shouldn't matter whether any gods exist or not — the happiness and suffering of others should play an important role in our decision making either way. The existence of this or that god could, in theory, also have an impact upon our decisions — it all really depends upon how this "god" is defined. When you get right down to it, though, the existence of a god can't make it right to cause people suffering or make it wrong to cause people to be more happy. If a person is not a sociopath and is genuinely moral, such that the happiness and suffering of others really matters to them, then neither the presence nor absence of any gods will fundamentally change anything for them in terms of moral decisions.
The Point of Morality?
So what's the point of being moral if God doesn't exist? It's the same "point" that people should acknowledge if God does exist: because the happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to us such that we should seek, whenever possible, to increase their happiness and decrease their suffering. It's also the "point" that morality is required for human social structures and human communities to survive at all. Neither the presence nor the absence of any gods can change this, and while religious theists may find that their beliefs impact their moral decisions, they cannot claim that their beliefs are prerequisites for making any moral decisions at all.
“I sympathize with your experience. I know what it is like to feel (in my
opinion, quite rightly) that every one of my thoughts and deeds are sinful.
But the biblical solution is unique. It is not to deny this fact as any other
religion would require us to do in order to obtain any kind of peace. Rather
the Bible says: stop looking to yourself and look to Him. Your problem is that
you still think that your salvation or your relationship with God depends on
you, on your merit, on your obedience, on your purity. Christians need to not
only repent of their sins, but of their damnable good deeds, their efforts to
please God and obtain merit on their own rather than trusting solely in his
grace and forgivenss in Jesus. As the old hymn says: "Lay your deadly doing
down, down at Jesus' feet. Stand in Him and Him alone, gloriously complete".”- NS
Why? This is an area that I have always had trouble with. Glossing over the self-deprecation of thinking that all of your thoughts and deeds are sinful and the -I don't get it - argument (no offense intended, but that is how it reads), let's look at the whole idea that 'he did all the work'. How can the sacrifice of one person willing or not have anything to do #with the guilt of another? It can't. It is a bizarre claim, a human equivalent of the animal sacrifices of the old testament and those were a primitive form of sympathetic magic where people felt bad about something they would as the local god to forgive them and kill something else. Thankfully this isn't currently being done in any wide-spread means. I just don't see the rational basis for it but if you reject this piece of theology it undermines the whole inverse which is the claim that the human race inherited its sinfulness from Adam; another claim I find deeply offensive. How can anyone be guilty of that which they didn't do and how can any god worthy of the name be so sadistic as to impute the blame? (Not to even mention the fact the is this were true, god would be responsible for the original creation, the free will that committed it, the imputation and the sustainment of the system (if it is transmitted via the semen as the Catholics say))
It might be noted that this guilt by blood is repeated over and over in the bible, sins being visited upon the sons to the 10th generation etc and is also the basis for the Church's venerable charge of deicide against the Jews (one of Hitler's justifications and a main reason the Vatican supported his regime.)
To Paul Kalbach
From Neil Shenvi
“My contention was and is - according to which interpretation? It's hard to find any two people who completely agree on what is or isn't 'commanded'.There are sects preaching that god wants you to be rich and others swearing you have to be poor to be saved. They both have passages on their side. You can claim almost anything is directly commanded or forbidden. I definitely like the teachings that Jesus is all peace and love and mercy better than the 'I come with a sword' Jesus but by what standard do you say those who read things that way are wrong? Thus my point about orthodoxy...” -PK
There are certainly issues on which Christians disagree, but I am always amazed at how I can pick up a copy of Luther's writings or Calvin's or Spurgeon's and find them just as relevant and heart-warming as if they were written a year ago rather than centuries ago. Despite the differences between Christians, there is a solid core of truth running through Scripture and through the history of the church that Christians have always affirmed. The core of the gospel is simply Christ crucified: Jesus dying on the cross to pay for our sins and raised to life for our justification. It certainly is a tragedy that Christians disagree on (and often flagrantly violate) the commands of Jesus. But using this as a reason to reject Jesus would be tragic.
“This argument has been around for a long time and I think it was credited to C S Lewis originally. As many commentators #have pointed out, this sets up a false dilemma. There is a third option, he could have been truly mistaken. He may well #have been sane yet took some personal religious experience to heart and believed himself the son of god. I am #approaching this from the outside though...” -PK
This same argument was actually raised on Create Cognitive Dissonance.
Thor, a fellow reader, argued that his grandfather claimed to speak to dead relatives, but was neither a liar nor a lunatic - merely honestly mistaken. Here's my response:
I agree that it is possible to hold some unconventional beliefs without immediately being classifiable as a liar or a lunatic. For instance, many people have claimed that God is speaking to them and have still led fairly normal, moral, coherent lives. However, I think this argument is simply not applicable in the case of Jesus if we examine seriously the claims he made.
If a man were to merely claim that he had received personal messages from God, it would be possible that he was merely mildly and harmlessly mistaken. But what if that man also claimed to be able to forgive sin (Mk. 2:1-12, Mt. 9:2-8, Lk. 5:18-26, John 8:1-11) claimed that a personal relationship with him was the only way to know God (Matt. 11:27, Lk. 10:22, Jn. 14:6), claimed that he could heal the sick and raise the dead (Matt. 11:5, Lk. 7:22, Jn. 5:28-30), claimed to have preexisted from all eternity (Lk. 10:18, Jn. 8:57-58), claimed that our love for him must be greater than our love for our mother or father or children (Lk. 14:26), claimed that we must love him more than our own life (Mt. 10:37, Lk. 14:27), claimed that our eternal destiny depended entirely on our response to him (Lk. 12:8, Jn. 5:24), claimed that he would rise from the grave three days after being crucified (Mt. 16:21, Mk. 10:34, Jn. 2:19), and claimed that he would return at the end of time to judge all of humanity (Mt. 19:28, Matt.
25:31-46, Jn. 5:28-30)?
Jesus taught an ethic of love, forgiveness and moral purity which is undeniably beautiful. He demonstrated a compassion and tender mercy for the poor, the sinful and the outcast that no one can deny. And yet the same Jesus also made the startling claims to divinity and made demands on our ultimate allegiance that superseded family, culture and nationality. Note that none of these are claims that Jesus made only once or twice; these are claims that are recorded in all of the gospels multiple times and run through all of his teaching. Given these claims, I think the Lord, Liar, Lunatic trilemma is absolutely appropriate, all the more so given the Jewish culture in which Jesus lived.
Thor, do you really think that if Jesus indeed said the things recorded in Scripture that it is possible to classify him as mildly mistaken but harmless and morally neutral? If you don’t think he said the things recorded in the New Testament, what evidence do you have for this belief?
Note also that the LLL trilemma does not appeal at all to Jesus’ deeds. If we could determine that Jesus actually did perform miracles, it might imply that the Lord option is more likely. But the trilemma does not actually make any claim about which answer is true; it merely circumscribes the range of acceptable answers to three: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.
I think the power of the LLL argument is seen in how desperate we are to escape it. We would much rather believe that these sayings were invented by Jesus’
followers, because then we can escape the force of his call on our lives. But I think this option is historically untenable. Given his gentleness and moral purity, very few people can bring themselves to call Jesus a liar or a lunatic.
To me, the most plausible option, the only option that can truly make sense both of Jesus’ extraordinary claims and also Jesus’ gentleness, goodness, mercy, tenderness and love is that he was telling the truth: He is Lord and God and Savior.
“What of someone who truly believes for years or decades, then loses their faith utterly and decides that the holy spirit is an imaginary friend?” -PK
They certainly are running an awful risk. If they do not repent, then all there is left for them is judgment and condemnation. But if they are worried that they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit by their unbelief, why not repent? As the author of Hebrew writes, speaking of those who are tempted to turn away from Christ, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." Paul, if God is calling to you, do not harden your heart. He calls you out of love. You may not have another chance.
-Neil
To Neil Shenvi
From Paul Kalbach
“There are certainly issues on which Christians disagree, but I am always amazed
at how I can pick up a copy of Luther's writings or Calvin's or Spurgeon's and
find them just as relevant and heart-warming as if they were written a year ago rather than centuries ago. Despite the differences between Christians, there is a solid core of truth running through Scripture and through the history of the
church that Christians have always affirmed. The core of the gospel is simply
Christ crucified: Jesus dying on the cross to pay for our sins and raised to
life for our justification. It certainly is a tragedy that Christians disagree on (and often flagrantly violate) the commands of Jesus. But using this as a
reason to reject Jesus would be tragic.” -NS
This still doesn’t answer my question. What standard do you use to determine what is a misinterpretation or violation? Those with whom you disagree will defend their positions from scripture. You have already established a dislike for strict literalism. So by what standard?
Even this basic message doesn’t answer the objections I raised earlier about the injustice of it all. The condemnation from which salvation is deemed necessary is nothing we have done. We as humans are said to be condemned from birth (and if you are Presbyterian, eternal past). I don’t reject Christ on the basis of Christian disagreement. I have a fundamental problem with being told that I am evil and unworthy regardless on my actions and intentions and will be tortured for all eternity if I don’t accept the grace being offered by the one who set up the entire system. It is a cosmic Stockholm syndrome to me.
“This same argument was actually raised on Create Cognitive Dissonance.
Thor, a fellow reader, argued that his grandfather claimed to speak to dead relatives, but was neither a liar nor a lunatic - merely honestly mistaken. Here's my response: (see above)” -NS
All I can really reply to this is to say that I disagree with your assessment. The simplest and most rational response to any extraordinary claim is skepticism. Claims of divinity and an ability to forgive transgressions that are unrelated to oneself are certainly extraordinary though not unique. I am not going to go into the details of the religions of the day but if memory serves, he was the 9th one born of a virgin, offspring of god, resurrected etc. I don’t see why these things should be seen as unique underpinnings of the story and I have said before how I do not agree that the morality teaching stands alone. I need more evidence and proof.
“They certainly are running an awful risk. If they do not repent, then
all there is left for them is judgment and condemnation. But if they are worried that they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit by their unbelief, why not repent?
As the author of Hebrew writes, speaking of those who are tempted to turn away from Christ, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." Paul, if
God is calling to you, do not harden your heart. He calls you out of love. You may not have another chance.” –NS
Well you answered my question, does the bible, in your opinion, say that you can lose your salvation once it is attained by denying the holy spirit? I asked because of the differing theological views. The Catholics say that you have to die in a state of friendship with god, some say that salvation is a one way door and once in you can’t lose it, and Calvinists think they will be alone in heaven with god(each individual one apparently).
I do have to say that this sort of view irritates me. You talk of god’s love and gentleness and compassion etc etc yet you think that he is willing and just to judge and condemn anyone who doesn’t buy what to me is a poorly supported and poorly constructed fabric about which the faithful cannot even agree.
If you don’t object I would like to arrange this entire conversation in order and post it on my blog… address removed of course
To Paul Kalbach
From Neil Shenvi
“I don't reject Christ on the basis of Christian disagreement. I have a
fundamental problem with being told that I am evil and unworthy regardless on my actions and intentions and will be tortured for all eternity if I don't accept the grace being offered by the one who set up the entire system. It is a cosmic Stockholm syndrome to me.” -PK
I'm saddened that you are rejecting Christ for this reason, because it means that you have actually understood the gospel and are rejecting it. Paul, you are a sinner and so am I. You and I have both hurt people: our friends through our manipulativeness, our family through our selfishness, the poor and needy through our neglect, and ultimately God himself through our rejection of him. I know it is in our nature to pretend that we are ok, that we're pretty good people, but it simply isn't true. If you ever come to a point where you are ready to admit that you are a sinner in need of saving, God has promised to accept you.
“All I can really reply to this is to say that I disagree with your
assessment. The simplest and most rational response to any
extraordinary claim is skepticism. Claims of divinity and an ability
to forgive transgressions that are unrelated to oneself are certainly
extraordinary though not unique. I am not going to go into the details
of the religions of the day but if memory serves, he was the 9th one
born of a virgin, offspring of god, resurrected etc. I don't see why
these things should be seen as unique underpinnings of the story and I
have said before how I do not agree that the morality teaching stands alone. I need more evidence and proof.” -PK
Perhaps the book I'm sending will help.
“Well you answered my question, does the bible, in your opinion, say that you can lose your salvation once it is attained by denying the holy spirit? I asked because of the differing theological views. The Catholics say that you have to die in a state of friendship with god, some say that salvation is a one way
door and once in you can't lose it, and Calvinists think they will be alone in heaven with god(each individual one apparently). I do have to say that this sort of view irritates me. You talk of god's love and gentleness and compassion etc etc yet you think that he is willing and just to judge and condemn anyone who doesn't buy what to me is a poorly supported and poorly constructed fabric about which the faithful cannot even agree.” -PK
For the record, I do not believe that a person who has truly been born again through a true faith in Christ will ever lose their salvation. But the Bible is very clear that many people may profess to have faith in Jesus and show by their actions that they do not have real faith in Jesus. But to those who "used to be Christian" and to those who have never claimed to be Christian, the message is still the same: repent of your sins and trust in Christ an you will be forgiven. Paul, from your own account of your time as a Christian, it seems that you never really understood or beleived in your own sinfulness and need of a savior. I think this is the key issue in all of your doubts.
“If you don't object I would like to arrange this entire conversation
in order and post it on my blog. address removed of course.”-PK
You're welcome to post all or any of our conversation. I will continue praying for you. If you're interested, one of the sermons I preached might be of particular interest to you. The text was Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Listen to it and see if it helps you.
http://trinity-baptist.org/sermons/2009.08.30.pm.mp3
-Neil
The Conversation is between Paul Kalbach (atheist) and Neil Shenvi (Christian). The last several comments are the beginning of the thread then it moves to email.
http://createcognitivedissonance.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/lunatic-liar-lord-legend-logical-leap-what-evidence-or-logic-is-so-compelling-that-we-are-willing-to-believe-accounts-of-jesus%e2%80%99-miracles-guest-post-by-thor-odhner
From Paul Kalbach
To Neil Shevi
Neil,
You never did answer one thing. How is Joseph’s lineage relevant to Jesus if the virgin birth is true?
I haven’t had time to dig into any of the essays on your website yet.
I get what you are saying about inspiration vs. direct revelation. I was raised in an evangelical Christian family so this is very familiar to me. I have a fundamental problem with this concept however. It allows for an infinitely interpretable text. The Bible can be, and is, used to justify anything. There is no authoritative means of saying which interpretation is correct. You either look at the text literally or subject yourself to all sorts of mental gymnastics to decide which parts to take literally and which parts to view symbolically and which parts to ignore all together. The entire field of theology, regardless of its strain, is a fabrication totally outside of the text of the Bible. I studied a good bit of theology in an earlier phase of life, actually contemplating going to seminary, and I ended up extremely frustrated by all of it. Theology is an entirely man-made framework made to eliminate the contradictions in the Bible. It starts with the assumption that everything in the Bible is correct and thus any failure of the text to live up to this assumption is disregarded. Any theological framework, no matter how convoluted and grandiose is acceptable.
All of the things that I was raised to believe in aren’t in the Bible, they were created by theologians - the doctrine of the trinity, dispensationalism, etc.
Acceptance of any theology over another seems to be a dice roll. Thus, literal interpretation is the only thing that makes sense. This, however forces the text to stand on its own…
I have come to the conclusion that all of the good aspects of the New Testament that people cherry pick and call the teaching of Jesus is nothing more or less than good human ethics. There is nothing to prevent people from living by these ethical standards without a supernatural foundation. I find that I am much more successful at living by good ethical standards since I recognize them as what they are instead of trying to please a God. Why is it not enough to base our ethics on how our actions affect others?
Paul
Form Neil Shenvi
To Paul Kalbach
Hi Paul,
Thanks for e-mailing me. I didn't want to monopolize discussion on the blog.
“You never did answer one thing. How is Joseph's lineage relevant to Jesus if the virgin birth is true?” -PK
Well, I think the relevance is that the Messiah was supposed to come from the house and line of David. Your line of reasoning is that if Jesus were not the biological son of Joseph then Joseph's lineage would be irrelevant. But I'm not sure that's true. Let's say that Joseph were in a direct lineage from David and the virgin birth did occur as the gospels attest. Are you arguing that Matthew and Luke should not have cared at all about Joseph's lineage? That, to me, seems unreasonable. The situtation described in the gospels is that you Jesus was conceived supernaturally, but born into a family that traced its roots to David. I think it is only natural for the biographers of Jesus to see Joseph's Davidic ancestry as significant.
Also, recall that in the ancient world, adopted sons could inherit kingship (Caeser Augustus being a classic example, see http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/augustusbio/a/Augustus.htm). If Joseph were really the heir of David, then wouldn't Jesus as his "adopted" son be the true heir as well? The only way to argue against this succession would be to say "No Jesus, you aren't really the true king of Israel because God, not Joseph, is your true father." That strikes me as a pretty weak argument!
“I have a fundamental problem with this concept however. It allows for
an infinitely interpretable text. The Bible can be, and is, used to justify anything. There is no authoritative means of saying which interpretation is correct. You either look at the text literally or subject yourself to all sorts of mental gymnastics to decide which parts to take literally and which parts to view symbolically and which parts to ignore all together.” -PK
I'm sorry if I implied that any of the Bible should be ignored; I didn't mean to. Most evangelicals would agree that "authorial intent" is the goal of all good exegesis. In other words, everything in the Bible should be taken as the author intented. Usually, it is fairly clear when the author intends something to be taken figuratively (i.e. "I am the gate for the sheep") and when he intends it to be taken literally (i.e. "Jesus got into the boat"). There are passages which are difficult, but I believe that the core message of the Bible is quite clear: Jesus Christ came to suffer and die for our sins and if we put our faith in him, we will be reconciled to God.
“The entire field of theology, regardless of its strain, is a fabrication totally outside of the text of the Bible. I studied a good bit of theology in an earlier phase of life, actually contemplating going to seminary, and I ended up extremely frustrated by all of it. Theology is an entirely man-made framework made to eliminate the contradictions in the Bible. It starts with the assumption that everything in the Bible is correct and thus any failure of the text to live up to this assumption is disregarded. Any theological framework, no matter how convoluted and grandiose is acceptable.” -PK
In one sense, I agree with you. It is always a temptation to let our "theology"
take precedence over the Bible itself. But one of the slogans of the Reformation, which unfortunately is sometimes forgotten, is semper reformanda or "always reforming". We must never let our traditional beliefs pass untested, but hold everything up to the light of God's word.
One other point that is crucial is that "theology" has only one legitimate
purpose: to know and love God better. I myself have a great temptation to learn "good theology" in order to boast about it and feel superior to others. But real "theology" is simply a greater and greater knowledge of a person, Jesus Christ.
“All of the things that I was raised to believe in aren't in the Bible, they were created by theologians - the doctrine of the trinity, dispensationalism, etc.” -PK
I can address these issues specifically, but are they really what is keeping you from Jesus? These issues and many others are the kind of thing that can only be wrestled with on the other side of a personal trust in Christ. What is it in particular that is keeping you from him?
“Acceptance of any theology over another seems to be a dice roll. Thus, literal interpretation is the only thing that makes sense. This, however forces the text to stand on its own.” -PK
See above. If by "literal", you mean a reading that attempts to
understand what the author is conveying, then yes I would agree with a literal reading. But if by "literal" you mean, wooden and literalistic with no account taken of context or genre, then I would disagree.
“I have come to the conclusion that all of the good aspects of the New Testament that people cherry pick and call the teaching of Jesus is nothing more or less than good human ethics. There is nothing to prevent people from living by these ethical standards without a supernatural foundation. I find that I am much more successful at living by good ethical standards since I recognize them as what they are instead of trying to please a God. Why is it not enough to base our ethics on how our actions affect others?” -PK
Could I suggest that this might be a misunderstanding of the core
message of the Bible? The Bible is not primarily a list of rules that God tells us to keep so that we can go to heaven. The Bible is primilarly the story of God's intervention in history to rescue people who because of sin have broken
all his rules, are destroying themselves and others, and who apart from his
intervention are doomed to eternal destruction. The gospel is "good news", not "good advice"! Yes, the world would be much better if everyone lived according to Jesus' teachings. But do you? Do I? Do you love God with all your heart and
love your neighbor as yourself, which Jesus said is the essence of God's law? I certainly don't! The Bible is actually good news of what God has done for us. It says: Jesus was mocked and flogged and crucufied for miserable, hopeless, wicked, hard-hearted people like you; trust in him. This is why, in Jesus' day, the prostitutes and tax collectors followed and loved Jesus and why the religious people hated him. The righteous have no need of a savior. But the sinners and the outcasts do.
Anyway, I apologize for the sermonizing; I tend to get excited. I would love to
continue this conversation and to answer your questions as best I can.
-Neil
From Paul Kalbach
To Neil Shenvi
“Well, I think the relevance is that the Messiah was supposed to come from the house and line of David. Your line of reasoning is that if Jesus were not the biological son of Joseph then Joseph's lineage would be irrelevant. But I'm not sure that's true. Let's say that Joseph were in a direct lineage from David and the virgin birth did occur as the gospels attest. Are you arguing that Matthew and Luke should not have cared at all about Joseph's lineage? That, to me, seems unreasonable. The situtation described in the gospels is that you Jesus was conceived supernaturally, but born into a family that traced its roots to David. I think it is only natural for the biographers of Jesus to see Joseph's Davidic ancestry as significant.
Also, recall that in the ancient world, adopted sons could inherit kingship (Caeser Augustus being a classic example, see http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/augustusbio/a/Augustus.htm). If Joseph were really the heir of David, then wouldn't Jesus as his "adopted" son be the true heir as well? The only way to argue against this succession would be to say "No Jesus, you aren't really the true king of Israel because God, not Joseph, is your true father." That strikes me as a pretty weak argument!” -NS
I will grant you the adoption point. I always read this as establishing Jesus' actual lineage. I am not comfortable with the adoption line but I will grant it as viable.
“I'm sorry if I implied that any of the Bible should be ignored; I didn't mean to. Most evangelicals would agree that "authorial intent" is the goal of all good exegesis. In other words, everything in the Bible should be taken as the author intented. Usually, it is fairly clear when the author intends something to be taken figuratively (i.e. "I am the gate for the sheep") and when he intends it to be taken literally (i.e. "Jesus got into the boat"). There are passages which are difficult, but I believe that the core message of the Bible is quite clear: Jesus Christ came to suffer and die for our sins and if we put our faith in him, we will be reconciled to God.” -NS
There are parts of the bible that need to be ignored. The only reason that Christianity today is not the same threat to peace as Islam is that parts of it are ignored. Thankfully no one (in the west at least) is living by 'do not suffer a witch to live' or all the minutia of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Both of those books are riddled with exhortations to commit genocide and every form of intolerance.
“In one sense, I agree with you. It is always a temptation to let our "theology" take precedence over the Bible itself. But one of the slogans of the Reformation, which unfortunately is sometimes forgotten, is semper reformanda or "always reforming". We must never let our traditional beliefs pass untested, but hold everything up to the light of God's word. One other point that is crucial is that "theology" has only one legitimate purpose: to know and love God better. I myself have a great temptation to learn "good theology" in order to boast about it and feel superior to others. But real theology" is simply a greater and greater knowledge of a person, Jesus Christ.” -NS
Even if this is the best approach to theology, is has to be noted that people direct their lives in accordance with theology. If it is always changing and striving, even with the best of motives, people are building on a changing platform. The bible is put forward as the ultimate source or morality and goodness but the theology surrounding it leads to horrible evils. (if you escape theology and go with rigid literalism it gets even worse) I don't have to go into detail on the crusades, witch trials, southern segregation (which was based on protestant beliefs) or the complicity of the Catholic church with fascism in the 20th century. Theology gives people a platform to rationalize anything they want and have god on their side. I have a problem with protestantism for the simple reason the it has no orthodoxy to temper the horrors that people can derive from the text. Without orthodoxy, how can anyone condemn Fred Phelps or David Koresh. You can't without appealing to a humanist ethical stance that has nothing to do with the bible. Every theology is equally justified.
“I can address these issues specifically, but are they really what is keeping you from Jesus? These issues and many others are the kind of thing that can only be wrestled with on the other side of a personal trust in Christ. What is it in particular that is keeping you from him?” –NS
I tried for years to believe and beat myself up constantly with the guilt that is inherent in the doctrine of original sin (something that morally offends me). I grew tired of not living my life and feeling condemned and defective all the time. When I finally listened to the little voice that kept saying 'its all made up, there is no god to worry about' I felt like a huge weight was lifted. I have never been happier or more free. My natural ethical impulse to just be good to others and be honest aren't tainted by groveling before a god who sets standards no human can meet.
So, no these specific issues are not 'keeping me from Jesus'. Its the lack of evidence (what to me means the untruth of it all) and the groveling nature of worshiping anything or anyone that offends me. I have never understood why god, if he exists, would want or need constant subservient worship. I seems arrogant and insecure. Not to mention abusive to the psyche of those doing the worshiping.
“Could I suggest that this might be a misunderstanding of the core
message of the Bible? The Bible is not primarily a list of rules that God tells us to keep so that we can go to heaven. The Bible is primarily the story of God's intervention in history to rescue people who because of sin have broken all his rules, are destroying themselves and others, and who apart from his intervention
are doomed to eternal destruction. The gospel is "good news", not "good advice"! Yes, the world would be much better if everyone lived according to Jesus' teachings. But do you? Do I? Do you love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself, which Jesus said is the essence of God's law? I certainly don't! The Bible is actually good news of what God has done for us. It says: Jesus was mocked and flogged and crucufied for miserable, hopeless, wicked, hard-hearted people like you; trust in him. This is why, in Jesus' day, the prostitutes and tax collectors followed and loved Jesus
and why the religious people hated him. The righteous have no need of a savior. But the sinners and the outcasts do.” -NS
I have to disagree on several points. Firstly, the bible is a list of rules. There are thousands of things to do and not to do with the threat of eternal torture always hanging over the head of the reader. As for the statement 'the righteous have no need of a savior' the bible clearly says that all fall short and no one meets the criteria on their own. The threat of hell is always there for everyone, even in the new testament.
This gets to one of my biggest problems with all of it. If god exists and is as he is billed (a huge theological assumption that cannot be backed up logically - even if you take the regression to prime mover arguments as true they imply nothing of the omniscience, omnipotence etc) then he created everything including satan and fallen angel and imperfect humans. You cannot remove the responsibility for all the evil that exists from the creator. If that creator has foreknowledge and the power to prevent evil then he has the responsibility to do so. If he fails to do so then he is complicit. If he has the foreknowledge but not the power then he isn't omnipotent. If he has the power but not the foreknowledge then he isn't omniscient.
You can make all the arguments that you wish about free will but that doesn't escape the immoral sadism of the idea of hell. It is nothing short of sick. If god is so perfect that he cannot be in the presence of evil then he cannot be omnipresent because evil exists now. And there is no argument that I have ever heard that justifies the eternal torture. Simply uncreating the being would serve to save god from having to slum with the imperfect. It would do it better than a 'lake of fire' Once again, the omniscient thing.
All of this might seem silly and it is... it all is silly to the extreme. If there is a god, we have no way of knowing the definites of what it even means, how to define it. The bible, regardless of your theological tradition, tries to do just that, define god and give you a list of rules, always under the threat of eternal torture. I find it all rather offensive.
“Anyway, I apologize for the sermonizing; I tend to get excited. I
would love to continue this conversation and to answer your questions as best I can.” -NS
I find these subjects no end of interesting. I lost what was a real faith, now I find it fascinating from another perspective... I am interested in what people believe and why and what means they use to justify those beliefs.
From Neil Shenvi
To Paul Kalbach
“Even if this is the best approach to theology, is has to be noted that
people direct their lives in accordance with theology. If it is always
changing and striving, even with the best of motives, people are building on
a changing platform. The bible is put forward as the ultimate source or
morality and goodness but the theology surrounding it leads to horrible
evils. (if you escape theology and go with rigid literalism it gets even
worse) I don't have to go into detail on the crusades, witch trials,
southern segregation (which was based on protestant beliefs) or the
complicity of the Catholic church with fascism in the 20th century. Theology
gives people a platform to rationalize anything they want and have god on
their side. I have a problem with protestantism for the simple reason the it
has no orthodoxy to temper the horrors that people can derive from the text.
Without orthodoxy, how can anyone condemn Fred Phelps or David Koresh. You
can't without appealing to a humanist ethical stance that has nothing to do
with the bible. Every theology is equally justified.” -PK
I think the lesson of history is that human beings will rationalize whatever
they want from whatever their worldview, be it Christianity, Buddhism or
atheism. The atrocities committed in the name of Christ are horrific, but they
stand in utter contradiction to the very religion they espouse. Jesus calls us
to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who mistreat
us. I agree that human beings will "explain away" these passages in order to
achieve their selfish ends. But that does not reflect on the character of
Jesus but rather on the character of the people themselves.
In contrast, many of the atrocities committed by, say, the Nazi or Stalinist
regimes were entirely consistent with the idealogies of their leaders. I am
glad that you believe in loving one's neighbor, but as an atheist, on what
basis do you do so? To criticize the Crusades or the Holocaust or Jim Crow, we
need some vantage point of absolute morality from which we can evaluate all
three as evil. But within secular humanist worldview, there is no such vantage
point. We as human beings have no more intrinsic worth than a chair and we
evolved through the strong killing off the weak. How can I claim that it is
now wrong for the strong to kill off the weak? If morality is socially
constructed, then on what basis can I condemn people in some other society who
are perfectly content with their current system of morality, even if I dislike
it?
Regarding the Old Testament laws and the conquest of Canaan, I agree that these
are difficult issues. But I always turn back to Jesus himself and his
teaching. If Jesus could read the Old Testament and see a God of love, mercy
and compassion and if Jesus himself is in fact that same God of the Old
Testament, then I may still not understand some of the difficult passages in
the Old Testament, but I can trust that they do not contradict God's character
as revealed in Jesus.
“I tried for years to believe and beat myself up constantly with the guilt that is inherent in the
doctrine of original sin (something that morally offends me). I grew tired of not living my life and feeling condemned and defective all the time.” -PK
But doesn't the gospel say something entirely different? The gospel says that
Jesus completely and finally dealt with sin on the cross so that we can be
completely and permanently forgiven: "there is no condemnation for those who
are in Christ". If we constantly feel guilty and condemned, we have only
grasped the Law of God, which does indeed show us our sinfulness. But we
haven't yet grasped the good news of what Jesus has done for us, taking away
all of our guilt and shame and condemnation because he himself was treated as
guilty and shamed and condemned.
“So, no these specific issues are not 'keeping me from Jesus'. Its the lack
of evidence (what to me means the untruth of it all) and the groveling
nature of worshiping anything or anyone that offends me. I have never
understood why god, if he exists, would want or need constant subservient
worship. I seems arrogant and insecure. Not to mention abusive to the psyche
of those doing the worshiping..” -PK
It's interesting that you bring this issue up, because it's true that every
other religion sees us as bringing something to God that he needs: honor,
worship, respect, obedience. But doesn't Christianity say the opposite: that
salvation is all of grace, completely free? God doesn't need us to worship
him. He doesn't need us to love him. He doesn't need to save us. He does so
purely out of love and grace. It is the very graciousness of salvation that
makes me want to worship him. Seeing how great my debt was and how God didn't
owe me anything but hell, and then seeing him bear that debt himself and give
me heaven, makes me want to praise him!
“I have to disagree on several points. Firstly, the bible is a list of rules.
There are thousands of things to do and not to do with the threat of eternal
torture always hanging over the head of the reader. As for the statement
'the righteous have no need of a savior' the bible clearly says that all
fall short and no one meets the criteria on their own. The threat of hell is
always there for everyone, even in the new testament.” -PK
When I said 'the righteous have no need of a savior' I was thinking of Jesus'
statement in Mark 2:17, when he pointed out that those who think they are
righteous think they have no need of a savior. A religious person typically
approaches God like this: "God, I am not perfect, but I'm pretty good. At
least, I'm a lot better than so-and-so. Therefore, I deserve your blessing." This is the attitude that Jesus condemned over and over in the gospels. It
takes the Law of God to show us that we are not "pretty good"; in fact, we are
filled with selfishness, pride, and hatred and are constantly breaking God's
commands to love him supremely and to love our fellow human beings. Until we
are humbled by God's law and shown how far short we fall, we will never be
ready or even willing to accept the grace that Jesus offers us.
“This gets to one of my biggest problems with all of it. If god exists and is
as he is billed (a huge theological assumption that cannot be backed up
logically - even if you take the regression to prime mover arguments as true
they imply nothing of the omniscience, omnipotence etc) then he created
everything including satan and fallen angel and imperfect humans. You cannot
remove the responsibility for all the evil that exists from the creator. If
that creator has foreknowledge and the power to prevent evil then he has the
responsibility to do so. If he fails to do so then he is complicit. If he
has the foreknowledge but not the power then he isn't omnipotent. If he has
the power but not the foreknowledge then he isn't omniscient.
You can make all the arguments that you wish about free will but that
doesn't escape the immoral sadism of the idea of hell. It is nothing short
of sick. If god is so perfect that he cannot be in the presence of evil then
he cannot be omnipresent because evil exists now. And there is no argument
that I have ever heard that justifies the eternal torture. Simply uncreating
the being would serve to save god from having to slum with the imperfect. It
would do it better than a 'lake of fire' Once again, the omniscient thing.
All of this might seem silly and it is... it all is silly to the extreme. If
there is a god, we have no way of knowing the definites of what it even
means, how to define it. The bible, regardless of your theological
tradition, tries to do just that, define god and give you a list of rules,
always under the threat of eternal torture. I find it all rather offensive.” -PK
Again, I also struggle with the doctrine of hell, but I always turn back to
Jesus. Looking at Jesus' life I cannot help but see his meekness, gentleness,
love and compassion. And yet Jesus himself talked about the reality of hell
more than anyone else in the Bible. I think what troubles us is that we think
that if hell exists, then God must not be good. But the person of Christ
reassures me that God is indeed good and I can rest in that fact.
One important point to note is that one of the key elements of hell, in fact in
my mind the very thing that makes it hell, is the fact that those in hell are
cast out of God's presence. Human beings were made to love God and rejoice in
all that he has done for us. Therefore, to be cast out of God's presence is to
lose everything that is good and beautiful and desirable. But don't you see
that by denying God's existence and living apart from him, we are essentially
choosing hell every moment of the day? It is only God's mercy and compassion
that he is not giving us what we are implicitly demanding every second of our
lives. Instead of the question 'why would God send us to hell?', perhaps a
better quesiton is 'why are we choosing hell every day of our lives? Why do we
so desperately want to be without God?'
Paul, it sounds to me like you are rejecting what you perceive as a bitter,
legalistic, hypocritical religion based on the experiences you've had. But
what if Christianity is actually something different entirely?
Have you ever heard of the book The Reason for God by Tim Keller? I'd highly
recommend it. In fact, I have several copies and if you send me your address,
I will mail you one as an early Christmas/holiday present.
From Paul Kalbach
To Neil Shenvi
Neil,
“I think the lesson of history is that human beings will rationalize whatever
they want from whatever their worldview, be it Christianity, Buddhism or
atheism. The atrocities committed in the name of Christ are horrific, but they
stand in utter contradiction to the very religion they espouse. Jesus calls us
to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who mistreat
us. I agree that human beings will "explain away" these passages in order to
achieve their selfish ends. But that does not reflect on the character of
Jesus but rather on the character of the people themselves.” -NS
I agree, humans will justify any form of atrocity. A point I was trying to make earlier about theology is that you cannot say ‘they stand in utter contradiction to the very religion they espouse’. Without an orthodoxy build on some definite foundation how can you say that they are violating the spirit of the thing? On what to you stand that is superior to them?
You say that Jesus ‘calls us to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who mistreat us’. Fine, there are such verses but what of the other side of Jesus? Do passages like Mat 10:14-15 or Mark 6:11 not bother you? A street preacher walks into your town and starts declaring something like a weird twist on an old religion and if you and all your cohabitants don’t agree with him, the retribution will be worse than the wholesale murder of an entire population. This sort of caprice is very Old Testament.
Or Mat 10:34-38 – Love me more than your own parents or children or I will destroy you. If you don’t you aren’t worthy. This is not meekness and love. This is a handbook for abusive relationships
Or Mat 18:24-35 where there is no good guy in this story. The lord in this scenario is kind until he finds out that the kindness wasn’t passed on, he then has the servant tortured. What sort of moral teaching is that?
Do not verses like Mark 3:29 not go against the idea of once and for all salvation that Protestants teach and lean toward the Catholic interpretation where a sin can condemn you even after believing?
I could go on but these are a few starting at the top
“In contrast, many of the atrocities committed by, say, the Nazi or Stalinist
regimes were entirely consistent with the idealogies of their leaders.” -NS
The things done by Hitler were consistent with his deranged beliefs in Arian superiority, a twisted form of social Darwinism and a virulent hatred of the Jews that was built and informed by his Catholicism (which he never renounced and proclaimed to the end), Stalin did what he did based on Marxism not atheism.
“I am glad that you believe in loving one's neighbor, but as an atheist, on what
basis do you do so? To criticize the Crusades or the Holocaust or Jim Crow, we
need some vantage point of absolute morality from which we can evaluate all
three as evil. But within secular humanist worldview, there is no such vantage
point. We as human beings have no more intrinsic worth than a chair and we
evolved through the strong killing off the weak. How can I claim that it is
now wrong for the strong to kill off the weak? If morality is socially
constructed, then on what basis can I condemn people in some other society who
are perfectly content with their current system of morality, even if I dislike
it?” -NS
This is an old argument that gets trotted out every time the subject comes up; the slippery slope, the fear that without a supreme overlord saying so, there is no basis for morality. This has been dealt with handily by many writers far better than I can. If you have read the “God Delusion”, “The End of Faith” and “God is not Great”, and I am guessing you probably have, you know that this argument doesn’t hold water. Aside from the afore-mentioned books (and I only mention them because I read them recently and they are current and well known) there are lots of books on ethics. I don’t think that such basic moral principles as not committing murder, theft, rape etc are based on the bible. These are basic human things that we all feel are wrong and must feel are wrong to able to live together in a society. The violation of such ethical positions imposes suffering on others and violates their own personal rights of self determination. I think that these basic principles of ethics were worked into religion early on and had the god angle imposed on them to make them stronger. There will always be people who are willing to break the social contract and act outside of the ethical realm but they are the minority. As populations grow and become denser, the more of these people there are and more opportunities there are for them to cause harm. I don’t think it is a coincidence that organized religion and priesthoods sprang up in conjunction with increased populations and agriculture.
“Regarding the Old Testament laws and the conquest of Canaan, I agree that these
are difficult issues. But I always turn back to Jesus himself and his teaching. If Jesus could read the Old Testament and see a God of love, mercy and compassion and if Jesus himself is in fact that same God of the Old Testament, then I may still not understand some of the difficult passages in the Old Testament, but I can trust that they do not contradict God's character
as revealed in Jesus.” -NS
Occam’s razor, the simplest explanation is that the stories of the Old Testament are an oral tradition of self aggrandizement by a primitive tribe of herdsman who worshipped power and anything that brought themselves out on top. I don’t see how you can reconcile the orders to commit genocide and in certain cases to take all the women as sex slaves (you can try to plaster over the cracks but telling an army to put all men and elderly and children to the sword, burn the city and take the virgins for your selves only means one thing). Especially if you believe the Jesus is all love and compassion… something I have not been convinced of.
“But doesn't the gospel say something entirely different? The gospel says that
Jesus completely and finally dealt with sin on the cross so that we can be
completely and permanently forgiven: "there is no condemnation for those who
are in Christ". If we constantly feel guilty and condemned, we have only
grasped the Law of God, which does indeed show us our sinfulness. But we
haven't yet grasped the good news of what Jesus has done for us, taking away
all of our guilt and shame and condemnation because he himself was treated as
guilty and shamed and condemned. “ -NS
I was taught that you didn’t lose your salvation per say but you fell out of fellowship and had to confess to even be able to pray and be heard. I spent all my time confessing because every single thought and deed was sinful in some way. It wasn’t a fear of damnation, I had the smug conviction of the evangelical that I was superior and saved; it was fear of being less than I was supposed to be and ending up in the trailer park of heaven as it were.
“It's interesting that you bring this issue up, because it's true that every
other religion sees us as bringing something to God that he needs: honor,
worship, respect, obedience. But doesn't Christianity say the opposite: that
salvation is all of grace, completely free? God doesn't need us to worship
him. He doesn't need us to love him. He doesn't need to save us. He does so
purely out of love and grace. It is the very graciousness of salvation that
makes me want to worship him. Seeing how great my debt was and how God didn't
owe me anything but hell, and then seeing him bear that debt himself and give
me heaven, makes me want to praise him!” -NS
Back to one of my main objections; why the need for salvation if we are only what god created us to be. We are born without our consent, innocent of all things by any just standard and yet told we are worthless and condemned and must rely on the grace of one who created the entire game to begin with. If god knows beforehand that any one individual is going to reject him and he cannot tolerate this, don’t create them. Otherwise he is creating them with no other purpose than to condemn them. This is sick beyond words. Imagine that you can create a race of lesser being over which you have total control and once created they have free minds and wills and an eternal essence. Now hide from them completely. Then leak a few arcane things about yourself to a small group of ignorant and illiterate individuals in a remote area over a few hundred years and rely on oral tradition and various languages to collect these tidbits together. Now demand that every one of them everywhere even before the revelations and in places where it will never reach have to believe in you and by name or you will torture their essence for all eternity.
How fair and gracious is that? Would you be worthy of worship?
“When I said 'the righteous have no need of a savior' I was thinking of Jesus' statement in Mark 2:17, when he pointed out that those who think they are righteous think they have no need of a savior. A religious person typically approaches God like this: "God, I am not perfect, but I'm pretty good. At least, I'm a lot better than so-and-so. Therefore, I deserve your blessing." This is the attitude that Jesus condemned over and over in the gospels. It takes the Law of God to show us that we are not "pretty good"; in fact, we are filled with selfishness, pride, and hatred and are constantly breaking God's commands to love him supremely and to love our fellow human beings. Until we are humbled by God's law and shown how far short we fall, we will never be ready or even willing to accept the grace that Jesus offers us.” -NS
And isn’t pretty good good enough? Why do we mere mammals need to prostrate ourselves and humble ourselves? Why do we need to love that which we cannot see feel hear or touch supremely? Why would he even demand it? I refer back to my previous statement about abusive relationships. All you have to do is look objectively at the mental games religious people play with themselves to see how insidious this is. Look at any cult and you see it concentrated. Any misfortune or failing is put down to I didn’t work hard enough, I am being tested or the devil is attacking me; never squarely facing the reality of a situation. Any good fortune is a blessing and sign they are on the right track. It is never analyzed that while it is imagined that god is intervening to give you all 5 bingo numbers at the church social he is letting 15000 Bangladeshis die in a flood.
“Again, I also struggle with the doctrine of hell, but I always turn back to
Jesus. Looking at Jesus' life I cannot help but see his meekness, gentleness,
love and compassion. And yet Jesus himself talked about the reality of hell
more than anyone else in the Bible. I think what troubles us is that we think
that if hell exists, then God must not be good. But the person of Christ
reassures me that God is indeed good and I can rest in that fact.” -NS
I cannot live with this paradox. I cannot square claims of goodness and meekness and love with a willingness to cause pain and misery and despair.
“One important point to note is that one of the key elements of hell, in fact in
my mind the very thing that makes it hell, is the fact that those in hell are
cast out of God's presence. Human beings were made to love God and rejoice in
all that he has done for us. Therefore, to be cast out of God's presence is to
lose everything that is good and beautiful and desirable. But don't you see
that by denying God's existence and living apart from him, we are essentially
choosing hell every moment of the day? It is only God's mercy and compassion
that he is not giving us what we are implicitly demanding every second of our
lives. Instead of the question 'why would God send us to hell?', perhaps a
better quesiton is 'why are we choosing hell every day of our lives? Why do we
so desperately want to be without God?'” -NS
I don’t choose hell. I chose life. I chose to live my life in the here and now and not spend all my time here worrying about something that no one even knows if it exists. As I have said, I am happier now than I ever was trying to be a Christian.
“Paul, it sounds to me like you are rejecting what you perceive as a bitter, legalistic, hypocritical religion based on the experiences you've had. But what if Christianity is actually something different entirely?” -NS
If Christianity is something different, why are Christians not living it? That is like saying, well you reject a bicycle as a viable way to commute to work because of the distance and the weather and the conditions but what if a bicycle is actually something different? You still have to deal with the facts that it is pedal powered, open to the weather and gives you a great chance of getting killed by large trucks but what if it weren’t. What if it were warm and dry and crash resistant… You can tell yourself it is one thing but if the tangible assets are another, what does it mean? You may look at the words and find a great meaning and it may fill you up and inspire you to be a good person, I am glad it does. I read the same words and I see the bicycle.
“Have you ever heard of the book The Reason for God by Tim Keller? I'd highly
recommend it. In fact, I have several copies and if you send me your address,
I will mail you one as an early Christmas/holiday present.” -NS
Have not heard of this particular book… sure, . Pick one of the books I mentioned earlier that you haven’t read or let me pick another one… I’ll send you that one… I’ll read yours if you read mine.
From Neil Shenvi
To Paul Kalbach
“I agree, humans will justify any form of atrocity. A point I was trying to make earlier about theology is that you cannot say 'they stand in utter contradiction to the very religion they espouse'. Without an orthodoxy build on some definite foundation how can you say that they are violating the spirit of the thing? On what to you stand that is superior to them?” -PK
Well, it's not some vague spirit of Christianity that they are violating, but the direct commands of Jesus in Scripture.
“You say that Jesus 'calls us to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, and pray for those who mistreat us'. Fine, there are such verses but what of the other side of Jesus? Do passages like Mat 10:14-15 or Mark 6:11 not bother you? A street preacher walks into your town and starts declaring something like a weird twist on an old religion and if you and all your cohabitants don't agree with him, the retribution will be worse than the wholesale murder of an entire population. This sort of caprice is very Old Testament.
Or Mat 10:34-38 - Love me more than your own parents or children or I will destroy you. If you don't you aren't worthy. This is not meekness and love.
This is a handbook for abusive relationships
Or Mat 18:24-35 where there is no good guy in this story. The lord in
this scenario is kind until he finds out that the kindness wasn't
passed on, he then has the servant tortured. What sort of moral teaching is that?” -PK
These passages point to what commentators have always noticed about Jesus'
teaching. On the one hand, his moral teaching is undeniably beautiful and his character is full of compassion, but on the other hand he makes these outlandish claims about himself and requires every human being to choose whether we are with him or against him. If we want to come to Jesus as a good moral teacher, I agree that these commands are wildly offensive and megalomaniacal. But that's the point! We can't come to Jesus as only a moral teacher. He commands us to treat him and love him as God himself (above everything else, our work, our family and even our own life). Either he is God, and then these commands are completely reasonable, or he is not and he is a lunatic and a megalomaniac.
Regarding many of these hard teachings, I think the question is whether we recognize that our relationship to God ought to supersede all others. If a stranger comes to me and rebukes me for not loving him more than I love Derek Jeter, my favorite baseball player, I would dismiss him as a nutcase. But if my wife comes to me and rebukes me for not loving her more than Derek Jeter, I would hang my head in shame because she is right; the relationship that I have with my wife ought to supersede all other relationships. Similarly, what relationship ought we to have with the God who created us, who sustains us every moment of the day, and who has given us every good gift and pleasure that we enjoy? Isn't loving him supremely the only appropriate response we can make?
If Jesus was God, then his commands are simply expressions of the first
commandment: have no other gods before me.
“Do not verses like Mark 3:29 not go against the idea of once and for all salvation that Protestants teach and lean toward the Catholic interpretation where a sin can condemn you even after believing?” -PK
Although commentators disagree what Jesus is referring to, I think the most consistent explanation is that the sin that Jesus is describing is a rejection of his person and his work as satanic. If anyone does reject Jesus in this way, I think it is clear that they are not a Christian (doesn't being a Christian mean recognizing Jesus person and his work as that of God himself?).
If that's the case, how is it possible for a Christian to commit this sin? As to whether a non-Christian can commit this sin and thereby put himself outside the reach of God's forgiveness, I'm not sure. Looking at the rest of Scripture, it seems that God accepts anyone who truly repents. My concern would be that someone who is convinced that Jesus is from Satan will never repent and therefore will never be forgiven.
“I could go on but these are a few starting at the top” -PK
Paul, it seems like you are going through the Scriptures trying to find all of the difficult and confusing passages you can. But why not start with what is clear? There are certainly confusing things in the Bible (the Bible itself says so! See 2 Pet. 3:16), but read almost any book in the New Testament (maybe in Jude or Philemon it is slightly less obvious) and the main message is
clear: Jesus is God who came to die for our sins and by faith in him we can have eternal life. If my salvation depended on understanding everything in the Bible, I personally would be hopeless. There are plenty of passages in the Bible that I don't understand and probably many more that I currently misunderstand. But being a Christian does not mean understanding everything in the Bible; it means trusting in the salvation that comes through Christ.
“This is an old argument that gets trotted out every time the subject comes up; the slippery slope, the fear that without a supreme overlord saying so, there is no basis for morality.” -PK
It is not a fear that without God we will stop behaving morally. I think it is quite possible to be an atheist and to behave morally. I think the objection is much deeper. Without God as the source of absolutes, how do we define what is moral and what is not or even what is "good" and what is "not good"? You could appeal to morality as the set of laws that leads to a stable society or the continuation of civilization, but the Mayans had a stable society for thousands of years that included ritual human sacrifice. Why would you call this society "brutal" and "immoral"?
You could appeal to morality as the innate sense that human beings have evolved for fair play, or the behavior dictated by our conscience, but serial killers may not experience any pangs of conscience over their actions. Why would you call their behavior "wrong" if our consciences are what determine morality?
Why is it wrong to impose suffering on others or to violate their personal rights and self-determination? If we are merely over-evolved animals, where did this moral judgement you are making come from? Is it wrong for rats to steal each others' food or to eat their young, or for the dominant gorilla to surpress the others? Why does morality suddenly and uniquely applicable to one particular class of primates? And why is the univeral morality you advocate so similar to the Judeo-Christian ethic of "love your neighbor" rather than the Nietzchean ethic of "will to power" or the Norse ethic of "strength and honor"?
“I was taught that you didn't lose your salvation per say but you fell out of fellowship and had to confess to even be able to pray and be heard. I spent all my time confessing because every single thought and deed was sinful in some way. It wasn't a fear of damnation, I had the smug conviction of the evangelical that I was superior and saved; it was fear of being less than I was supposed to be and ending up in the trailer park of heaven as it were.” -PK
I sympathize with your experience. I know what it is like to feel (in my opinion, quite rightly) that every one of my thoughts and deeds are sinful.
But the biblical solution is unique. It is not to deny this fact as any other religion would require us to do in order to obtain any kind of peace. Rather the Bible says: stop looking to yourself and look to Him. Your problem is that you still think that your salvation or your relationship with God depends on you, on your merit, on your obedience, on your purity. Christians need to not only repent of their sins, but of their damnable good deeds, their efforts to please God and obtain merit on their own rather than trusting solely in his grace and forgivenss in Jesus. As the old hymn says: "Lay your deadly doing down, down at Jesus' feet. Stand in Him and Him alone, gloriously complete".
“Have not heard of this particular book. sure, . Pick one of the books I mentioned earlier that you haven't read or let me pick another one. I'll send you that one. I'll read yours if you read mine.” -PK
Why don't I read "The End of Faith", since I have heard others recommend it?
I'll mail you "The Reason for God"; it should arrive shortly.
-Neil
From Paul Kalbach
To Neil Shenvi
“Well, it's not some vague spirit of Christianity that they are violating, but
the direct commands of Jesus in Scripture.” -NS
My contentions was and is - according to which interpretation? It's hard to find any two people who completely agree on what is or isn't 'commanded'. There are sects preaching that god wants you to be rich and others swearing you have to be poor to be saved. They both have passages on their side. You can claim almost anything is directly commanded or forbidden. I definitely like the teachings that Jesus is all peace and love and mercy better than the 'I come with a sword' Jesus but by what standard do you say those who read things that way are wrong? Thus my point about orthodoxy...
“These passages point to what commentators have always noticed about Jesus'
teaching. On the one hand, his moral teaching is undeniably beautiful and his
character is full of compassion, but on the other hand he makes these
outlandish claims about himself and requires every human being to choose
whether we are with him or against him. If we want to come to Jesus as a good
moral teacher, I agree that these commands are wildly offensive and
megalomaniacal. But that's the point! We can't come to Jesus as only a moral
teacher. He commands us to treat him and love him as God himself (above
everything else, our work, our family and even our own life). Either he is
God, and then these commands are completely reasonable, or he is not and he is
a lunatic and a megalomaniac.”-NS
This argument has been around for a long time and I think it was credited to C S Lewis originally. As many commentators have pointed out, this sets up a false dilemma. There is a third option, he could have been truly mistaken. He may well have been sane yet took some personal religious experience to heart and believed himself the son of god. I am approaching this from the outside though...
“Regarding many of these hard teachings, I think the question is whether we
recognize that our relationship to God ought to supersede all others. If a
stranger comes to me and rebukes me for not loving him more than I love Derek
Jeter, my favorite baseball player, I would dismiss him as a nutcase. But if
my wife comes to me and rebukes me for not loving her more than Derek Jeter, I
would hang my head in shame because she is right; the relationship that I have
with my wife ought to supersede all other relationships. Similarly, what
relationship ought we to have with the God who created us, who sustains us
every moment of the day, and who has given us every good gift and pleasure that
we enjoy? Isn't loving him supremely the only appropriate response we can make?
If Jesus was God, then his commands are simply expressions of the first
commandment: have no other gods before me.” -NS
My wife is in my life, a constant presence and a person with needs and feelings to whom I have real and present obligations. I have never seen, felt, heard or had any experience of god in any way. No one has ever been able to provide me with a single piece of evidence for his existence that could not be more easily explained through science or observation. Even when I was a devoted church goer, I felt silly praying because I w staling to myself. No one ever answered in any tangible way. I had a sever car wreck and people said it was a miracle and god saved my life etc etc. Funny, the EMTs and the trauma surgeon that put me back together didn't think anything was unusual. All the claims were from people who believed and wanted it to be a miracle. I felt nothing, I never lost consciousness, I saw no tunnels and heard no voices. I was also troubled to think that a god would intervene for me and let far better people than myself be hurt or die. My own brother, devout to the ultimate degree, lived his life for Christ, died at 28 of heart failure after running a charity marathon. I was a binge drinking, pot smoking idiot at that age.
Do not verses like Mark 3:29 not go against the idea of once and for all
salvation that Protestants teach and lean toward the Catholic interpretation
where a sin can condemn you even after believing?
“Although commentators disagree what Jesus is referring to, I think the most
consistent explanation is that the sin that Jesus is describing is a rejection
of his person and his work as satanic. If anyone does reject Jesus in this
way, I think it is clear that they are not a Christian (doesn't being a
Christian mean recognizing Jesus person and his work as that of God himself?).
If that's the case, how is it possible for a Christian to commit this sin? As
to whether a non-Christian can commit this sin and thereby put himself outside
the reach of God's forgiveness, I'm not sure. Looking at the rest of
Scripture, it seems that God accepts anyone who truly repents. My concern
would be that someone who is convinced that Jesus is from Satan will never
repent and therefore will never be forgiven.” -NS
What of someone who truly believes for years or decades, then loses their faith utterly and decides that the holy spirit is an imaginary friend?
“Paul, it seems like you are going through the Scriptures trying to find all of
the difficult and confusing passages you can. But why not start with what is
clear? There are certainly confusing things in the Bible (the Bible itself
says so! See 2 Pet. 3:16), but read almost any book in the New Testament
(maybe in Jude or Philemon it is slightly less obvious) and the main message is
clear: Jesus is God who came to die for our sins and by faith in him we can have
eternal life. If my salvation depended on understanding everything in the
Bible, I personally would be hopeless. There are plenty of passages in the
Bible that I don't understand and probably many more that I currently
misunderstand. But being a Christian does not mean understanding everything in
the Bible; it means trusting in the salvation that comes through Christ.” -NS
I am not trying to single out the difficulties, it is consistent or it isn't. It is true or it isn't. God cannot advocate vile things and still get a pass and be called just. You can't have it both ways. This is part of what I was saying about theology. Theology recognizes the internal inconsistencies and builds a framework outside to reconcile them. I just don't see any clear way of reconciling rational thought, observation, and natural causes with scripture. No system of theology does a good job of this. I would love to see one grand unifying theory that brought together all the wants and desires of the human heart and the impersonal reality of the universe. I just don't see it happening.
It doesn't help when you have things like Christians pushing to teach their religious views in the schools and trying to #justify it with pathetic pseudo-science...
“It is not a fear that without God we will stop behaving morally. I think it is
quite possible to be an atheist and to behave morally. I think the objection
is much deeper. Without God as the source of absolutes, how do we define what
is moral and what is not or even what is "good" and what is "not good"? You
could appeal to morality as the set of laws that leads to a stable society or
the continuation of civilization, but the Mayans had a stable society for
thousands of years that included ritual human sacrifice. Why would you call
this society "brutal" and "immoral"?” -NS
Very simple. Ask the sacrifice. I don't need a mandate from god to know brutality when I see it and even it I believed in god and was appalled by this and in that instance was handed absolute proof of god's non-existence would it change my stance? No it would not, it is based on human suffering and the destruction of the human right to self determination. You ignore the fact that without a belief in their gods, which you do not believe in, none of this cruelty would have occurred.
“You could appeal to morality as the innate sense that human beings have evolved
for fair play, or the behavior dictated by our conscience, but serial killers
may not experience any pangs of conscience over their actions. Why would you
call their behavior "wrong" if our consciences are what determine morality?
Why is it wrong to impose suffering on others or to violate their personal
rights and self-determination? If we are merely over-evolved animals, where
did this moral judgement you are making come from? Is it wrong for rats to
steal each others' food or to eat their young, or for the dominant gorilla to
surpress the others? Why does morality suddenly and uniquely applicable to one
particular class of primates? And why is the univeral morality you advocate so
similar to the Judeo-Christian ethic of "love your neighbor" rather than the
Nietzchean ethic of "will to power" or the Norse ethic of "strength and honor"?” -NS
The fact that another has a will and a self awareness and an ability to understand and anticipate pain is reason enough. How far down the evolutionary tree does our moral obligation go? I don't know. I wouldn't kill a chimp, gorilla, bonobo, dolphin or elephant. Why? They have all demonstrated self awareness. Do I hold them all on the same moral level with humans? No, but that may be my failing. I err on the side of compassion and life.
Austin Cline said it well: (Quoted from http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophybranches/p/Ethics.htm)
Myth:
Without God, atheists have no reason to behavior morally. What's the point of being moral is there is no God?
Response:
The idea that atheists have no reason to be moral without a god or religion may be the most popular and repeated myth about atheism out there. It comes up in a variety of forms, but all of them are based on the assumption that the only valid source of morality is a theistic religion, preferably the religion of the speaker which is usually Christianity. Thus without Christianity, people cannot live moral lives. This is supposed to be a reason reject atheism and convert to Christianity.
First, it must be noted that there is no logical connection between this argument's premises and conclusion — it's not a valid argument. Even if we accept that it's true that there is no point in being moral if there is no God, this wouldn't be an argument against atheism in the sense of showing that atheism isn't true, rational, or justified. It wouldn't provide any reason to think that theism generally or Christianity in particular is likely true. It is logically possible that there is no God and that we have no good reasons to behave morally. At most this is a pragmatic reason to adopt some theistic religion, but we'd be doing so on the basis of its supposed usefulness, not because we think it's really true, and this would be contrary to what theistic religions normally teach.
Human Suffering & Morality
There is also a serious but rarely noted problem with this myth in that it assumes that it doesn't matter that more people are happy and fewer people suffer if God does not exist. Consider that carefully for a moment: this myth can only be espoused by someone who doesn't consider either their happiness or their suffering to be especially important unless their god tells them to care. If you are happy, they don't necessarily care. If you suffer, they don't necessarily care. All that matters is whether that happiness or that suffering occurs in the context of the existence of their God or not. If it does, then presumably that happiness and that suffering serve some purpose and so that's OK — otherwise, they're irrelevant.
If a person only refrains from killing because they believe they are so ordered, and the suffering that murder would cause is irrelevant, then what happens when that person starts to think that they have new orders to actually go out and kill? Because the suffering of the victims was never a dispositive issue, what would stop them? This strikes me as an indication that a person is sociopathic. It is, after all, a key characteristic of sociopaths that they are unable to empathize with the feelings of others and, hence, aren't especially concerned if others suffer. I not only reject the assumption that God is necessary to making morality relevant as being illogical, I also reject the implication that the happiness and suffering of others isn't very important as being immoral itself.
Theism & Morality
Now religious theists are certainly entitled to insist that, without orders, they have no good reason to refrain from rape and murder or to help people in need — if the actual suffering of others is completely irrelevant to them, then we should all hope that they continue to believe that they are receiving divine orders to be "good." However irrational or unfounded theism may be, it's preferable that people hold on to these beliefs than that they go around acting on their genuine and sociopathic attitudes. The rest of us, however, are under no obligation to accept the same premises as they — and it probably wouldn't be a good idea to try. If the rest of us are able to behave morally without orders or threats from gods, then we should continue to do so and not be dragged down to others' level.
Morally speaking, it really shouldn't matter whether any gods exist or not — the happiness and suffering of others should play an important role in our decision making either way. The existence of this or that god could, in theory, also have an impact upon our decisions — it all really depends upon how this "god" is defined. When you get right down to it, though, the existence of a god can't make it right to cause people suffering or make it wrong to cause people to be more happy. If a person is not a sociopath and is genuinely moral, such that the happiness and suffering of others really matters to them, then neither the presence nor absence of any gods will fundamentally change anything for them in terms of moral decisions.
The Point of Morality?
So what's the point of being moral if God doesn't exist? It's the same "point" that people should acknowledge if God does exist: because the happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to us such that we should seek, whenever possible, to increase their happiness and decrease their suffering. It's also the "point" that morality is required for human social structures and human communities to survive at all. Neither the presence nor the absence of any gods can change this, and while religious theists may find that their beliefs impact their moral decisions, they cannot claim that their beliefs are prerequisites for making any moral decisions at all.
“I sympathize with your experience. I know what it is like to feel (in my
opinion, quite rightly) that every one of my thoughts and deeds are sinful.
But the biblical solution is unique. It is not to deny this fact as any other
religion would require us to do in order to obtain any kind of peace. Rather
the Bible says: stop looking to yourself and look to Him. Your problem is that
you still think that your salvation or your relationship with God depends on
you, on your merit, on your obedience, on your purity. Christians need to not
only repent of their sins, but of their damnable good deeds, their efforts to
please God and obtain merit on their own rather than trusting solely in his
grace and forgivenss in Jesus. As the old hymn says: "Lay your deadly doing
down, down at Jesus' feet. Stand in Him and Him alone, gloriously complete".”- NS
Why? This is an area that I have always had trouble with. Glossing over the self-deprecation of thinking that all of your thoughts and deeds are sinful and the -I don't get it - argument (no offense intended, but that is how it reads), let's look at the whole idea that 'he did all the work'. How can the sacrifice of one person willing or not have anything to do #with the guilt of another? It can't. It is a bizarre claim, a human equivalent of the animal sacrifices of the old testament and those were a primitive form of sympathetic magic where people felt bad about something they would as the local god to forgive them and kill something else. Thankfully this isn't currently being done in any wide-spread means. I just don't see the rational basis for it but if you reject this piece of theology it undermines the whole inverse which is the claim that the human race inherited its sinfulness from Adam; another claim I find deeply offensive. How can anyone be guilty of that which they didn't do and how can any god worthy of the name be so sadistic as to impute the blame? (Not to even mention the fact the is this were true, god would be responsible for the original creation, the free will that committed it, the imputation and the sustainment of the system (if it is transmitted via the semen as the Catholics say))
It might be noted that this guilt by blood is repeated over and over in the bible, sins being visited upon the sons to the 10th generation etc and is also the basis for the Church's venerable charge of deicide against the Jews (one of Hitler's justifications and a main reason the Vatican supported his regime.)
To Paul Kalbach
From Neil Shenvi
“My contention was and is - according to which interpretation? It's hard to find any two people who completely agree on what is or isn't 'commanded'.There are sects preaching that god wants you to be rich and others swearing you have to be poor to be saved. They both have passages on their side. You can claim almost anything is directly commanded or forbidden. I definitely like the teachings that Jesus is all peace and love and mercy better than the 'I come with a sword' Jesus but by what standard do you say those who read things that way are wrong? Thus my point about orthodoxy...” -PK
There are certainly issues on which Christians disagree, but I am always amazed at how I can pick up a copy of Luther's writings or Calvin's or Spurgeon's and find them just as relevant and heart-warming as if they were written a year ago rather than centuries ago. Despite the differences between Christians, there is a solid core of truth running through Scripture and through the history of the church that Christians have always affirmed. The core of the gospel is simply Christ crucified: Jesus dying on the cross to pay for our sins and raised to life for our justification. It certainly is a tragedy that Christians disagree on (and often flagrantly violate) the commands of Jesus. But using this as a reason to reject Jesus would be tragic.
“This argument has been around for a long time and I think it was credited to C S Lewis originally. As many commentators #have pointed out, this sets up a false dilemma. There is a third option, he could have been truly mistaken. He may well #have been sane yet took some personal religious experience to heart and believed himself the son of god. I am #approaching this from the outside though...” -PK
This same argument was actually raised on Create Cognitive Dissonance.
Thor, a fellow reader, argued that his grandfather claimed to speak to dead relatives, but was neither a liar nor a lunatic - merely honestly mistaken. Here's my response:
I agree that it is possible to hold some unconventional beliefs without immediately being classifiable as a liar or a lunatic. For instance, many people have claimed that God is speaking to them and have still led fairly normal, moral, coherent lives. However, I think this argument is simply not applicable in the case of Jesus if we examine seriously the claims he made.
If a man were to merely claim that he had received personal messages from God, it would be possible that he was merely mildly and harmlessly mistaken. But what if that man also claimed to be able to forgive sin (Mk. 2:1-12, Mt. 9:2-8, Lk. 5:18-26, John 8:1-11) claimed that a personal relationship with him was the only way to know God (Matt. 11:27, Lk. 10:22, Jn. 14:6), claimed that he could heal the sick and raise the dead (Matt. 11:5, Lk. 7:22, Jn. 5:28-30), claimed to have preexisted from all eternity (Lk. 10:18, Jn. 8:57-58), claimed that our love for him must be greater than our love for our mother or father or children (Lk. 14:26), claimed that we must love him more than our own life (Mt. 10:37, Lk. 14:27), claimed that our eternal destiny depended entirely on our response to him (Lk. 12:8, Jn. 5:24), claimed that he would rise from the grave three days after being crucified (Mt. 16:21, Mk. 10:34, Jn. 2:19), and claimed that he would return at the end of time to judge all of humanity (Mt. 19:28, Matt.
25:31-46, Jn. 5:28-30)?
Jesus taught an ethic of love, forgiveness and moral purity which is undeniably beautiful. He demonstrated a compassion and tender mercy for the poor, the sinful and the outcast that no one can deny. And yet the same Jesus also made the startling claims to divinity and made demands on our ultimate allegiance that superseded family, culture and nationality. Note that none of these are claims that Jesus made only once or twice; these are claims that are recorded in all of the gospels multiple times and run through all of his teaching. Given these claims, I think the Lord, Liar, Lunatic trilemma is absolutely appropriate, all the more so given the Jewish culture in which Jesus lived.
Thor, do you really think that if Jesus indeed said the things recorded in Scripture that it is possible to classify him as mildly mistaken but harmless and morally neutral? If you don’t think he said the things recorded in the New Testament, what evidence do you have for this belief?
Note also that the LLL trilemma does not appeal at all to Jesus’ deeds. If we could determine that Jesus actually did perform miracles, it might imply that the Lord option is more likely. But the trilemma does not actually make any claim about which answer is true; it merely circumscribes the range of acceptable answers to three: Liar, Lunatic, or Lord.
I think the power of the LLL argument is seen in how desperate we are to escape it. We would much rather believe that these sayings were invented by Jesus’
followers, because then we can escape the force of his call on our lives. But I think this option is historically untenable. Given his gentleness and moral purity, very few people can bring themselves to call Jesus a liar or a lunatic.
To me, the most plausible option, the only option that can truly make sense both of Jesus’ extraordinary claims and also Jesus’ gentleness, goodness, mercy, tenderness and love is that he was telling the truth: He is Lord and God and Savior.
“What of someone who truly believes for years or decades, then loses their faith utterly and decides that the holy spirit is an imaginary friend?” -PK
They certainly are running an awful risk. If they do not repent, then all there is left for them is judgment and condemnation. But if they are worried that they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit by their unbelief, why not repent? As the author of Hebrew writes, speaking of those who are tempted to turn away from Christ, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." Paul, if God is calling to you, do not harden your heart. He calls you out of love. You may not have another chance.
-Neil
To Neil Shenvi
From Paul Kalbach
“There are certainly issues on which Christians disagree, but I am always amazed
at how I can pick up a copy of Luther's writings or Calvin's or Spurgeon's and
find them just as relevant and heart-warming as if they were written a year ago rather than centuries ago. Despite the differences between Christians, there is a solid core of truth running through Scripture and through the history of the
church that Christians have always affirmed. The core of the gospel is simply
Christ crucified: Jesus dying on the cross to pay for our sins and raised to
life for our justification. It certainly is a tragedy that Christians disagree on (and often flagrantly violate) the commands of Jesus. But using this as a
reason to reject Jesus would be tragic.” -NS
This still doesn’t answer my question. What standard do you use to determine what is a misinterpretation or violation? Those with whom you disagree will defend their positions from scripture. You have already established a dislike for strict literalism. So by what standard?
Even this basic message doesn’t answer the objections I raised earlier about the injustice of it all. The condemnation from which salvation is deemed necessary is nothing we have done. We as humans are said to be condemned from birth (and if you are Presbyterian, eternal past). I don’t reject Christ on the basis of Christian disagreement. I have a fundamental problem with being told that I am evil and unworthy regardless on my actions and intentions and will be tortured for all eternity if I don’t accept the grace being offered by the one who set up the entire system. It is a cosmic Stockholm syndrome to me.
“This same argument was actually raised on Create Cognitive Dissonance.
Thor, a fellow reader, argued that his grandfather claimed to speak to dead relatives, but was neither a liar nor a lunatic - merely honestly mistaken. Here's my response: (see above)” -NS
All I can really reply to this is to say that I disagree with your assessment. The simplest and most rational response to any extraordinary claim is skepticism. Claims of divinity and an ability to forgive transgressions that are unrelated to oneself are certainly extraordinary though not unique. I am not going to go into the details of the religions of the day but if memory serves, he was the 9th one born of a virgin, offspring of god, resurrected etc. I don’t see why these things should be seen as unique underpinnings of the story and I have said before how I do not agree that the morality teaching stands alone. I need more evidence and proof.
“They certainly are running an awful risk. If they do not repent, then
all there is left for them is judgment and condemnation. But if they are worried that they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit by their unbelief, why not repent?
As the author of Hebrew writes, speaking of those who are tempted to turn away from Christ, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." Paul, if
God is calling to you, do not harden your heart. He calls you out of love. You may not have another chance.” –NS
Well you answered my question, does the bible, in your opinion, say that you can lose your salvation once it is attained by denying the holy spirit? I asked because of the differing theological views. The Catholics say that you have to die in a state of friendship with god, some say that salvation is a one way door and once in you can’t lose it, and Calvinists think they will be alone in heaven with god(each individual one apparently).
I do have to say that this sort of view irritates me. You talk of god’s love and gentleness and compassion etc etc yet you think that he is willing and just to judge and condemn anyone who doesn’t buy what to me is a poorly supported and poorly constructed fabric about which the faithful cannot even agree.
If you don’t object I would like to arrange this entire conversation in order and post it on my blog… address removed of course
To Paul Kalbach
From Neil Shenvi
“I don't reject Christ on the basis of Christian disagreement. I have a
fundamental problem with being told that I am evil and unworthy regardless on my actions and intentions and will be tortured for all eternity if I don't accept the grace being offered by the one who set up the entire system. It is a cosmic Stockholm syndrome to me.” -PK
I'm saddened that you are rejecting Christ for this reason, because it means that you have actually understood the gospel and are rejecting it. Paul, you are a sinner and so am I. You and I have both hurt people: our friends through our manipulativeness, our family through our selfishness, the poor and needy through our neglect, and ultimately God himself through our rejection of him. I know it is in our nature to pretend that we are ok, that we're pretty good people, but it simply isn't true. If you ever come to a point where you are ready to admit that you are a sinner in need of saving, God has promised to accept you.
“All I can really reply to this is to say that I disagree with your
assessment. The simplest and most rational response to any
extraordinary claim is skepticism. Claims of divinity and an ability
to forgive transgressions that are unrelated to oneself are certainly
extraordinary though not unique. I am not going to go into the details
of the religions of the day but if memory serves, he was the 9th one
born of a virgin, offspring of god, resurrected etc. I don't see why
these things should be seen as unique underpinnings of the story and I
have said before how I do not agree that the morality teaching stands alone. I need more evidence and proof.” -PK
Perhaps the book I'm sending will help.
“Well you answered my question, does the bible, in your opinion, say that you can lose your salvation once it is attained by denying the holy spirit? I asked because of the differing theological views. The Catholics say that you have to die in a state of friendship with god, some say that salvation is a one way
door and once in you can't lose it, and Calvinists think they will be alone in heaven with god(each individual one apparently). I do have to say that this sort of view irritates me. You talk of god's love and gentleness and compassion etc etc yet you think that he is willing and just to judge and condemn anyone who doesn't buy what to me is a poorly supported and poorly constructed fabric about which the faithful cannot even agree.” -PK
For the record, I do not believe that a person who has truly been born again through a true faith in Christ will ever lose their salvation. But the Bible is very clear that many people may profess to have faith in Jesus and show by their actions that they do not have real faith in Jesus. But to those who "used to be Christian" and to those who have never claimed to be Christian, the message is still the same: repent of your sins and trust in Christ an you will be forgiven. Paul, from your own account of your time as a Christian, it seems that you never really understood or beleived in your own sinfulness and need of a savior. I think this is the key issue in all of your doubts.
“If you don't object I would like to arrange this entire conversation
in order and post it on my blog. address removed of course.”-PK
You're welcome to post all or any of our conversation. I will continue praying for you. If you're interested, one of the sermons I preached might be of particular interest to you. The text was Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. Listen to it and see if it helps you.
http://trinity-baptist.org/sermons/2009.08.30.pm.mp3
-Neil
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)