We are all creatures that are made to worship something. If we don’t worship and venerate God, we tend to worship and venerate our favorite sports team, girl, celebrity, car, career, and/or bank account. Believing the object of your worship exists is a great first step but has very little to do with the actual worship and veneration itself.
When it comes to worshiping the God revealed to us in the Bible, we are (1) called to tell others of God’s greatness as well as (2) tell Him directly. Telling others about the object of your veneration or worship has got to be the most natural thing for beings like ourselves.
(1) For an example, let’s just look at a young man who has a souped-up hot-rod of a car that he works on constantly. This young man has purchased every after-market accessory he can afford, from an aluminum radiator, nitrous tank, and twin tailpipes to a supercharger and an ear-splitting stereo system. I can guarantee that this car will be a big part of this young man’s conversations to all of his friends, acquaintances, and any stranger who will listen to him. He doesn’t tell others of his object of worship and veneration because he is obligated to do so, but because it is the natural outpouring of his affections. I’d argue that no happiness is complete until we express it to others. Let’s say you saw a great ballgame on TV one evening that comes down to the last 5 seconds and your local team wins. You’d almost feel a compulsion to talk to your friends about the nail-biting final points around the coffee pot the next morning. This wouldn’t come from some sort of coercion, but it’d be the most natural overflow.
Now, I’m not drawing a direct parallel between a tricked-out car or a ballgame with God, but rather I’m offering a lesser to greater argument. If a people are pleased with cars and sports they spend their time, money and attention on, how much more would Followers of Jesus be pleased with the author, and king of all the universe especially if they understand that this monarch takes personal interest them? How much more would such a worshiper and venerator of God want to tell others about Him?
(2) Not only is it natural and necessary to tell everyone you know about the object of your veneration, it is also natural and necessary to tell the object itself, so long as it’s a personal being that can understand. I have known people who actually talk to their beloved cars, but usually this is the kind of thing they do in front of other people for a laugh. Such attention is not proper to give to impersonal things like cars, or bank accounts, but when the object of your worship and veneration is a celebrity, or your loved one, things are different.
For a man who worships or venerates a celebrity, he’ll try to get close to the star to get an autograph, for instance. It’s not that he really cares about a signature on a piece of paper, but it’s more of an excuse to talk to this person he thinks so much of.
Now think of a young couple who are very much in love and plan to be married in a month after a long engagement. Further, let’s assume they’ve been separated for a long period and see each other again for the first time in two months. On their meeting, would you expect the young woman to do anything less than tell her fiancé how much she loves him and how much she has missed him? Wouldn’t be strange and unnatural to do otherwise? Such expression of adoration and affection are once again the natural outpouring of what is in the heart. Now again, I’m using the lesser to greater argument. If a fan can’t help but want to tell a celebrity how much he likes him, and an engaged couple can’t help but express their love to one another, how much more should a Christ follower want to tell his beloved Heavenly Father (or “Abba,” which means “daddy” in Aramaic) how much he loves Him?
We all worship something in this life. We may not participate in formal worship services or light candles, but we all inevitably worship and venerate the thing that pleases us most in life. With this desire for worship being a basic part of human nature, the question is: “Are you worshiping the right thing?” If we were created for a purpose and if the God of the Bible exists, then it turns out that He is the only proper object of worship and veneration. It would turn out that if we really were designed this way, our worshiping of Him would be the most natural, not to mention pleasurable experience of all. I am told the famous atheist, Ayn Rand once said, “Admiration is the rarest and best of pleasures.” On this note I agree with her wholeheartedly.
if the G-d of the Bible exists, then it turns out that He is the only proper object of worship and veneration.
Could you please elaborate on this? I do not want to make assumptions about what you mean. Why does it “turn out” like this?
Is it simply Deuteronomy 5:6 and Colossians 3:5 (etc, etc)?
Mark,
What?
Barry
We are all creatures that are made to worship something. If we don’t worship and venerate God, we tend to worship and venerate our favorite sports team, girl, celebrity, car, career, and/or bank account.
Umm…say what now? If I won’t worship the God you say created everything, what makes you think I would worship anything else? Or is it just that you can’t wrap your mind around the concept of there simply not being some uniform “Central Deity” to someone’s life? I really must take issue with your premise here.
(1) For an example, let’s just look at a young man who has a souped-up hot-rod of a car that he works on constantly. This young man has purchased every after-market accessory he can afford, from an aluminum radiator, nitrous tank, and twin tailpipes to a supercharger and an ear-splitting stereo system. I can guarantee that this car will be a big part of this young man’s conversations to all of his friends, acquaintances, and any stranger who will listen to him. He doesn’t tell others of his object of worship and veneration because he is obligated to do so, but because it is the natural outpouring of his affections. I’d argue that no happiness is complete until we express it to others. Let’s say you saw a great ballgame on TV one evening that comes down to the last 5 seconds and your local team wins. You’d almost feel a compulsion to talk to your friends about the nail-biting final points around the coffee pot the next morning. This wouldn’t come from some sort of coercion, but it’d be the most natural overflow.
Um….that’s not the same as worship, by a long shot….I really like the Persona series for the Playstation game console, but I don’t worship it. I really like philosophy, as well, but I don’t worship it. I like Bad Religion (the band), but I don’t worship them. I also like strawberry ice cream, like, a lot, and I don’t worship that either.
If that’s all you have to your case, then I’m afraid it’s DOA as usual….
We all worship something in this life. We may not participate in formal worship services or light candles, but we all inevitably worship and venerate the thing that pleases us most in life.
Ah, I see….it’s soundbyte time. Sorry, I don’t have any good ones on me today, so I guess I’m stuck using this argument here instead; if you want to re-define “worship” so that it simply means, “take great interest in,” then by all means, go ahead. But the fact of the matter is that you render the word useless when you start applying it haphazardly in just any old scenario (i.e. “I spend a lot of time working on a car, so that means I worship it”).
As you say it, it’s a lesser argument attempting to support a larger one….but the problem is, the scope is quite different. That’s inherent in the definitions of “admire” and “worship;” they’re vastly different degrees. If you try to say they’re the same, then you’re making it impossible to define what you say is your relationship with God. Would you say it’s the same thing as “worshipping” a car? Would you say that someone with a great interest in cars gives their car the same exact amount of dedication to the car as you say you do yo Yahweh? If so, then I think you need to pull out a dictionary and look up “worship” and “admire;” a person who loves cars does not look to a car when he’s faced with a difficult choice; a person who loves movies does not look to a movie to tell him what he should hold valuable. I think it’s insulting to anyone (and I’m surprised that you don’t feel just a little insulted, yourself) to compare worshipping God to loving a spouse, or working on a car, or liking a sports team. They’re not just different degrees; they’re completely different kinds of love.
That’s why I’ll never understand Christian extremism….this idea that there is only one kind of “love,” and that you must hold more of it for some god than for any other person or thing on the earth, that you must essentially hate everything else in comparison to this god. I simply cannot do that, nor do I wish to.
P.S.
It would turn out that if we really were designed this way, our worshiping of Him would be the most natural, not to mention pleasurable experience of all.
Well, there you go! That proves He doesn’t exist, if you’re correct, because I have taken no pleasure whatsoever in worshipping this “God.”
And now, I sit back and wait for someone to invoke the NTS argument once again….
That’s a good question, Luke. I suppose I should have phrased that statement a bit more succinctly. I should have said that we should worship God alone, although we may properly “venerate” other things if you define veneration as showing devoted deferential honor to : regard as worthy of great honor.
I prefaced the statement as a contingent statement. Of course if the God of the Bible does not exist, then it wouldn’t matter if we worshiped Him. If He does exist, we should worship Him alone partly because we are told to do so in the passages you’ve mentioned, but also because idolatry self-delusion. At the end of the day, believing lies we tell ourselves is the worst type of deception.
In Isaiah 44, we see a depiction of a man who cuts down a tree. With part of the wood he makes a fire to cook his food and with the other part he carves an idol to worship and call his god. In vs. 20 it says “Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?”
Worshiping idols made out of wood is somewhat out of fashion today, instead we tend to worship the kind made out of metal, brick, or even incorrect mental images.
If this God of the Bible is actually the reigning king of the universe, it turns out we are really short-changing ourselves when we fashion our idols in our own personal carpenter shop.
By the way, Luke, why do you hyphenate the word “God” into “G-d?”
Mark,
(I hope you do not mind my referring to you by your first name, I do not know your title. No disrespect is intended.)
I do not want to come off as argumentative, I am simply trying to understand your post a bit better. I hope you will have some patience with me.
You say:
I suppose I should have phrased that statement a bit more succinctly.
but I am actually seeking more information, not less. I will return to this in a bit though.
although we may properly “venerate” other things if you define veneration as showing devoted deferential honor to : regard as worthy of great honor.
It seems as though you’re proving Tim’s point here. Take your example of the couple which is soon to be married. Now suppose that they both worship G-d. You have now said that they should worship G-d alone. So are you saying that they should behave differently than what you have described, or are you admitting that what you described is not actually worship? Instead, it is simply ‘veneration.’ Isn’t the behavior of the young man toward his car simply veneration, by your own definition, as well? Does this not do great damage to the case you are laying out in your original post?
As Tim pointed out (and it is an excellent point I believe), when the young man with the car is, say, trapped in a burning building, he is not going to “pray” that his car will get him out of it, as one might pray to G-d. These are distinctly different things, and it seems you have admitted that in the follow-up post.
if He does exist, we should worship Him alone partly because we are told to do so
But is this truly a good reason in your opinion? If I tell my daughter, for example, that she must “worship” me and make an animal sacrifice to me weekly, or she will be severely punished, would she be right in doing what I ask? Is that sufficient reason? I have the power over her to enforce my will, so is she right if she follows what I say (not in a sense of self-interest and preservation, but in a larger sense of what you consider right and wrong)?
but also because idolatry self-delusion
I recognize this reasoning, which is the reason I referenced Paul’s letter as well. I think this is a complex issue though. In Luke 12:22, Jesus says “Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on.” If I do worry about what I will eat and plan for my family’s future nutritional needs, am I committing idolatry, in your view? At the very least I am not following what Jesus asked me to do, correct?
Worshiping idols made out of wood is somewhat out of fashion today, instead we tend to worship the kind made out of metal, brick, or even incorrect mental images.
So can a Christian (a true Christian) own a home or have anything? Or must a true Christian listen to Jesus (“Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old” also from Luke 12) and sell possessions to give to the poor?
I apologize if this seems tangential, but I think these issues were brought up in your post. Can the young man with the car truly be a Christian, for example? If so, why, for one he is probably unwilling to sell the car to give alms. If he is unwilling to even listen to Jesus, how could he possibly begin to worship Him? If not, then where is the line? Is it because the car is worth $20,000 or maybe because his house is 2,000 sq. ft. or more? Can a Christian venerate or worship or even value (I assume we will clarify these terms so we understand each other properly) anything that we would consider a possession or anything having monetary value?
I suppose the purpose of my question was to clarify the point of your original post. The post is titled “Why worship G-d if He Actually Exists” but doesn’t really answer that question. It simply makes the statement ” it turns out that He is the only proper object of worship and veneration.” You have now said that it is because we are told to do so, and because idolatry (which is in the end another way of saying that we are not worshiping Him) is deception. Could you please elaborate on this? To simply say that G-d exists and has said that one should worship Him is not really much of an answer, I’m afraid. I exist, if I said that you should worship me, would you? (Yes, I know that I am not all powerful, but if that is your answer then you are essentially saying that we should worship G-d because He is powerful. If this is the case I refer you back to the example asking my daughter to worship me.)
I suppose I am looking for some deeper reason. A deeper answer to the question you lay out in the title… Surely there must be something more than:
Why Worship G-d if He Actually Exists?
Because He said you should.
By the way, Luke, why do you hyphenate the word “God” into “G-d?”
I suppose I could ask “why don’t you?”
This is a slightly complex question, but I will answer it honestly, so I will have to use a few more lines of text, sorry.
Deuteronomy 12:3-4 says:
Ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the L-ord your G-d.
It is simply a Jewish tradition, though not followed by all Jews. I do not really know why it has not been adopted by most Christians, but it hasn’t. I will quote wikipedia, because I am told it knows all: “From this verse it is understood that one should not erase the name of G-d. The general rabbinic opinion is that this only applies to the sacred Hebrew names of G-d — but not to the word “G-d” in English or any other language. Even among Jews who consider it unnecessary, many nonetheless write the name “G-d” in this way out of respect, and to avoid erasing G-d’s name even in a non-forbidden way.”
The quotation sums up my motivations for doing so, it is simply out of respect. (Though the “general rabbinic opinion is that this only applies to the sacred Hebrew names of G-d” not all agree with that general opinion.”)
I also want to be clear and say that I am not myself Jewish, it is simply out of respect to those who might be put in a difficult situation by receiving something from me containing the full word.
Or maybe I’m just weird….
“If He does exist, we should worship Him alone partly because we are told to do so in the passages you’ve mentioned”
That’s no answer. You might as well say that if Satan exists we should worship him because he tells us to.
Why is God worthy of worship, and Satan is not? Is it because God is more powerful? Well that’s just a ‘might is right’ argument. Hitler is more powerful than Gandhi, does that mean he is more worthy of respect?
To Tim D., Luke and Andrew,
You guys ask a lot of good questions and I’m afraid that if I answered them all giving appropriate space, I’d wear out your eyes, not to mention use all my spare time, which is a bit sparse at the moment. I’ll do my best to answer the key questions involved and feel free to show me if they are not the key issues. And Luke, it’s fine that you call me by my first name, as I have a couple of titles, but don’t use them personally and don’t require that they are used by others.
It seems that most of the misunderstanding in my post comes from the examples I offered. I am not simply saying that anyone who works on a car is a “worshiper” of that car, but that this particular young man in my example was. Tim and Luke, I’m sure you’ve known people who do in fact worship their cars, even though they don’t ask for their deliverance from a burning building. I’m not saying that to worship something means you think it’s the God of the universe, but rather more of a god (spelled with a little “g”). This was my point with the reference to idolatry in the book of Isaiah and the general uselessness and self-delusion of idolatry.
I was offering a lesser to greater argument in that if a young man cares enough about his car to tell everyone about it, how much more would a worshiper of God want to tell others about how great He is.
Tim, you mentioned:
“Well, there you go! That proves He doesn’t exist, if you’re correct, because I have taken no pleasure whatsoever in worshiping this “God.”
I’m not familiar with your spiritual background, so maybe you can help me out. Are you saying that you at some point were a worshiper of the God of the Bible?
In my original post I made that case that we should worship God because of the natural outpouring of love, affection, and gratefulness we have for Him. It seems like you guys are taking it a step back and are asking, “So why should we have this love, affection, and gratefulness?” This would require someone first of all to acknowledge His existence and then realize that He is (A) worthy of worship because He is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, and takes an interest in us personally for instance. We should be (B) thankful to Him because He has given us our lives, everything beautiful we have seen, everything delicious we’ve tasted, everything we have enjoyed in this life, etc. If His existence plus (A) and (B) are fulfilled in your mind, then telling others and Him and His greatness should be natural.
Specifically to Luke, I would say that it is not improper to own a house or other possessions and take care of them as a steward or manager. It is important to realize that God owns the earth and everything in it (Ps. 21:1) and we are to be His managers for the things He entrusts with, during our tenure upon His earth. The passage you were referring to, I believe it was in Luke 18:18-29 about the rich young man, rather than Luke 12, but correct me if I’m wrong. In this passage Jesus didn’t give a general command that all his followers sell all of their possessions and follow Him, but rather the commandment was to this young man specifically. Since Jesus was God the Son, He knew this rich young man’s heart and knew that his wealth was standing between him and God. You might even say this man’s wealth was his “idol.”
Luke,
On God’s name: Thank you for your clarification. I understand that in the Jewish tradition, they fear taking the Lord’s name in vain so much that they go to great lengths to make sure they don’t do it. This shows up in the Christian tradition as well, in the translation of the Hebrew scriptures. When the proper name of God is used, it is translated as THE LORD in small caps just in case printing it so much in scriptures would be taking His name in vain.
Mark, again you seem to be saying that he is worthy of worship simply because he is all-knowing and all-powerful.
Does this mean that you would hyperthetically worship any all powerful, all powerful deity, even an evil, tyrannical one?
Or are these aspects irrelevant, and the important part is the ‘all loving’ part? How are you judging him to be ‘all loving’? Is it by his own standards or a standard you are using external of him? If it’s by his own standards, then you are just using a circular argument.
If you have you own standard to judge him, do you agree that atheists can also have a standard to judge matters like good and evil?
I’m sure you’ve known people who do in fact worship their cars
I have not known anyone who worships a car in the way one might worship G-d. Sure, one can say “Yusef really worships that car,” but I think there is a generally agreed understanding of what this means and it is simply not the same as “Yusef really worships G-d.”
As Tim said: these are “vastly different degrees.” Though we might use the same word (in the parlance of our time) it does not follow that the word means the same thing in all contexts.
I understand that you are making a lesser to greater argument to say that a worshiper of G-d will want to tell others, but from the title of the post, you seemed to be aiming higher than that. The title was not: “Why a Worshiper of G-d Will Tell Others About Him,” it was “Why Worship G-d if He Actually Exists?”
So yes we are “taking a step back and are asking ‘So why should we have this love, affection and greatfulness [sic]?’” because this is the idea that I thought would be addressed when I looked at the title.
I made that case that we should worship God because of the natural outpouring of love, affection, and gratefulness we have for Him.
So perhaps a better title would have been “Why Worship G-d if We Have a Natural Outpouring of Love, Affection and Gratefulness for Him.”
This is a different thing, and in that context, I would say that your post makes more sense.
That being said, the post still leads to other questions, which we will hopefully discuss (I will ask more question, but my time is also sparse.)
A good question has already been posed by Andrew however (and I alluded to it earlier as well). Is it essentially because of His power that we should worship G-d? I hope that we can answer this question first (as well as how we might judge G-d to be “all loving”).
As far as our tangent:
I would say that it is not improper to own a house or other possessions and take care of them as a steward or manager.
Thanks. Let me clarify the passage (there are others as well, of course; the New Testament gospels are filled with similar ideas), and then perhaps you can respond further.
The passage you were referring to, I believe it was in Luke 18:18-29 about the rich young man, rather than Luke 12, but correct me if I’m wrong.
Unfortunately, I will have to correct you.
I was in fact referring to Luke 12. The quotes which I provided are from Luke 12, not Luke 18. While Jesus does say similar things to the “rich young man” in Luke 12 he is addressing not just one man, but a more general audience. The themes of the exchange in Luke 18 are addressed in much more depth in the 12th chapter (hence my use of it). I really recommend reading it. I assume you’re not very familiar with it since you did not recognize the quotations or that these exact issues are addressed more than once in Luke’s book. Though perhaps I did not use the translation you are very familiar with (leading to the confusion). I used KJV, but if you prefer NIV or NASB or even The Message, just let me know. (I am also willing to discuss some of the issues by looking at the Greek, but I admit that I need outside help in order to do this, which limits my ability.)
But yes, I was referring to Luke 12, so perhaps your answer will be different. But since you did reference Luke 18 saying: “You might even say this man’s wealth was his “idol,” I would ask if this would not be true of any possession one (anyone) would not be willing to sell. Does not every such possession become an idol?
As nicely stated by everyone here the use of the word worship is a little too loose. Worship is strictly something done in reference (or reverence) to a deity. In no way does liking a car or sports team come anywhere near close. I don’t care how much the person loves either thing. I have lots of interests and some loves as well, but they don’t qualify as worship. The hypothetical guy would have to revere his car as a god in order to worship it and in that case you’re just talking idolitry. Someone like that is cracked and probably needs a vacation at the state hospital. Funny though, that we could all probably agree that someone that prays to their car to heal the sick is himself sick, but if he prays to something without form and beyond the stars he’s okay. think about that as a lesser to greater argument. At least that guy’s car probably could heal the sick provided the guy used it to drive them to hospital.
I’m not saying that to worship something means you think it’s the God of the universe, but rather more of a god (spelled with a little “g”). This was my point with the reference to idolatry in the book of Isaiah and the general uselessness and self-delusion of idolatry.
What’s the difference between “worshipping” an idol and “worshipping” a god of the universe? The way you use the terms, they seem interchangeable….so if there is a mistake about the gravity of the “worship” in either case, then it’s because you use the terms as if they mean the same thing, when in fact they describe very different situations.
Someone who “worships” their car in the sense that you claim is not, in my view, someone who truly “worships” a car. You seem to connect “worship” with “idolize;” which could be said to make some sense….but the catch is, even if we use the word “idolize” to describe a hobby that one devotes his or her free time to, it’s still incorrect. To idolize is to see something as flawless or perfect, and to draw great influence from such perceived qualities.
I do not doubt that there are people who idolize other human beings, such as pop idols, actors, sports players, etc. in that sense…but I would hardly equate even such dedicated devotion to “worship” in the sense of what you say Yahweh expects us all to do in “worshipping” Him. Also, I would hardly accept the argument that, because there are a number of people that do it, this means that our species is “pre-disposed” or — to use your word — “made” to worship something.
If you were to rephrase your quote ever so slightly, I might agree, however; to quote Takahisa Kandori from Revelations: Persona:
“Humans cannot live without passion.”
For reasons already specified, I would not equate the human concept of passion with that of worship. They are two very different things, indeed.
It seems like you guys are taking it a step back and are asking, “So why should we have this love, affection, and gratefulness?”
You’re both right and wrong; you’re right in that I am taking it a step back. The difference lies in the question; I ask not “Why should we have love, affection, and gratefulness?” Rather, I ask, “How do I know that that is what love, affection and gratefulness are?” You and the others on this forum seem to define these things as being intrinsically linked to the existence of God; I do not make this connection so easily.
This would require someone first of all to acknowledge His existence and then realize that (etc.)
Exactly; my assertion never reaches that far. That was your assumption of my case.
thankful to Him because He has given us our lives, everything beautiful we have seen, everything delicious we’ve tasted, everything we have enjoyed in this life, etc.
Thankfulness =/= worship. My mother and father made me; I am very thankful for all that they have done for me in life (and, presumably, will continue to do, although I can’t say I expect as much). Although I do not worship them.
Or are these aspects irrelevant, and the important part is the ‘all loving’ part? How are you judging him to be ‘all loving’? Is it by his own standards or a standard you are using external of him? If it’s by his own standards, then you are just using a circular argument.
That may be exactly the case, I’m afraid. If he abides by Turek’s assertions, then he has no choice but to resort to a circular argument such that “loving” is defined as being synonymous with “God.” In which case we are left with a complete lack of understanding of the concept of “Love and God.” If they’re the same thing, then we must find a way to define one or the other without deferring to the other. What, outside of these two words, is capable of describing the concept that they themselves also describe? How can one demonstrate “loving God” without using the terms “love” or “God,” granted that they are circular and do not clarify the lack of a definition?
If you have you own standard to judge him, do you agree that atheists can also have a standard to judge matters like good and evil?
If he’s part of the Turek crowd on this one, he probably does. He’d just say that we all have that standard ability, imparted to us by God.
So perhaps a better title would have been “Why Worship G-d if We Have a Natural Outpouring of Love, Affection and Gratefulness for Him.”
Unfortunately, this degrades your argument to use of the Naturalistic Fallacy; even if we assume such a natural outpouring, it does not follow that we “should” do it just because the tendency occurs naturally. The desire to have sex with many women on short notice occurs naturally to a lot of men (especially ages 18-35); does that mean we “should” all go out and have sex with any and all takers? I can only assume that you’d argue “no” in this case. So how is your claim here about God any different?
It may seem like a petty difference, but it is actually very important to your case, because it’s the exact same argument in both cases.
Luke,
I suppose I could have titled the post “Why worship God if He actually exists and you know He exists and you actually like Him.” I’m sure there are plenty of people who know He exists but are no more likely to commune with Him than a bank robber is likely to spend time with a police man and for the same reason.
If someone is in active rebellion against God, the relationship cannot go forward. It is like a rebel who is in active revolution against his sovereign ruler. The King won’t give him pardon if he walks into the castle with sward in hand, but might if he lays down his weapons. This is why daily repentance is such a big part of the Christian life. At this point, we see that we move from the status of enemies of God to His adopted sons and daughters (John 1:12, Romans 8:23).
I suppose I shouldn’t have taken for granted that if we realize that God exists, that the outpouring of love and affection should be natural. I guess that’d be true unless you’ve got your sword in hand. I’m sure I’ll take some flack from some of you guys who read this, but I’d like you to answer this question: “If the God of the Bible exists, would I worship Him?” If the answer is no, then you’re probably not ready to kneel at His feet because the sword in your hand gets in the way. (I’ve also noticed that when someone throws a stone into a pack of dogs he knows which one he hits by which one yells the loudest.)
Luke Passage: I see you were referring to Luke 12:33-34. I’m sorry I missed that bit at first. This passage needs to be seen in context with the earlier pericipe in this chapter concerning the “rich fool.” It seems like Jesus was speaking to the way look at money and how we tend to falsely put our security in it rather than God (v.16-20). As we seen in Acts, the early believers did in fact sell their property and give it to the poor (Acts 2:44, 45, 4:32-37). I think it would be improper to see this commandment Jesus gave as an absolute prohibition of all earthly possessions. Just look at Peter’s words to Ananias in Acts 5:4 where he made it clear that selling the property was optional and even giving all the money from the sale was optional. Jesus was talking about “money belts that do not wear out,” meaning treasure in heaven by “being rich toward God.” Jesus points out to us that our heart continues to go where we place our treasure. So then, as well as today, giving is a great antidote to the consumerism and materialism of our culture.
You asked: “I would ask if this would not be true of any possession one (anyone) would not be willing to sell. Does not every such possession become an idol?”
I’d have to agree with you. Most anything can become an idol if we put it above God.
Andrew,
I responded to your questions by including the “all loving” part. I could have used all the “omni’s” but I preferred to keep the language as non-theological as possible. But if I did use them, I’d have used omnibenevolent which includes all-loving as well as all-good.
It sounds like you’re offering the “Euthyphro dilemma” in regards to God’s goodness?
My answer would be that there is an objective standard of good and evil, and love as well. These standards are not separate from God and He is not bound by them, but they flow from His existence and are a part of His very nature. So, there’s nothing circular in that reasoning.
What seems odd is how many moral non-realists tend to live and act as if they are in fact moral realists.
You asked:
“If you have you[r] own standard to judge him, do you agree that atheists can also have a standard to judge matters like good and evil?”
I agree that atheists can have standards to judge matters like good and evil personally, but it’s hard to come up with a transcendent, objective standard if you’re an atheist. At the most they can offer things like “this is good/bad for society” or “I like/dislike this or that.” Of course, good and bad need to be defined before you can say something is bad for society, and the atheist ends up with some sort of like and dislike again.
So Andrew, if you’re an atheist you can say why you wouldn’t do something, but you’d have to borrow from Theism to extend an “ought” to anyone else in an objective sense. You could “persuade at the end of a gun” as the famous atheist, Chairman Mao, recommends. But that’s quite a bit different than extending a transcendent “ought.”
If someone is in active rebellion against God, the relationship cannot go forward.
Do you understand that there is a grave — very grave — difference between (A) Being righteously opposed to something, and (B) not believing that that something exists? I suppose you could half-assedly claim that A is encompassed by B….but even that would be technically incorrect. Being opposed to something assumes a belief in that something’s existence; why waste time opposing that which is not real, and therefore poses no threat? For this reason, I think you gravely misunderstand my worldview.
That would be the same as if I had accused you of “being in active rebellion” against Sheva because you do not believe that she exists (or, if you prefer the more common variant, that she does exist, but is simply a manifestation of Satan trying to turn you away from Yahweh). Actually, if the paranthetical quote is an accurate reflection of your beliefs, the statement of “active rebellion” would be more true of your view of opposing belief systems than it would be of my attitude towards the concept of God.
Bottom line? You shouldn’t even be worrying about whether I am opposed to God or not. You should be addressing the issue of why I don’t believe in His existence. Once we’ve completely covered that, we can begin explaining why I supposedly “hate” (or am “in active rebllion against”) this being whose existence my mind will not allow me to conceive of.
It is like a rebel who is in active revolution against his sovereign ruler.
Not at all! I can see George Bush Jr. I can verify his existence and the harm his existence does to all nations in the world. And so my opposition is well-founded, even if you don’t agree with my terms. God? Not so much. Sure, I attack the supposed flawlessness of His moral decisions from time to time (mostly because they are horrifyingly inconsistent for a deity that is supposedly “perfect”), but that actually has little to do with why I don’t believe in Him. I simply cite those examples often as a response to the Moral Argument, which is all-too-commonly cited as some kind of “irrefutable evidence.”
“If the God of the Bible exists, would I worship Him?” If the answer is no, then you’re probably not ready to kneel at His feet because the sword in your hand gets in the way.
If the God of the Christian Bible exists? Judging solely on the way you portray Him here, I’d sooner die and risk an eternity in some twisted prison for people who don’t share your beliefs than attribute my life’s significance to your God. The God you portray is twisted and irrational, without meaning or relevance to my life; the theories surrounding his existence make even less sense, are riddled with holes and inconsistencies, and it only gets worse when we approach the “scientific” explanations, which often branch so far beyond conventional scientific understandings of the universe that they are impossible to even verify their possibility, much less whether or not those theories actually happened (assuming such a possibility to be in the positive).
Although, it seems you Christianfolk have a knack for misconstruing each other’s (and your own) arguments. So I’ll give you the full answer once I’m done with my latest trip through the Bible. Although, unless there is something different in there than there was the last time I looked, I don’t expect many changes.
I’d have to agree with you. Most anything can become an idol if we put it above God.
I’m not 100% certain….but the way I read this question, it was asking, “Do you believe that something that you are not willing to sell — for whatever reason — can be considered an ‘idol?’ Why, or why not?”
My answer would be that there is an objective standard of good and evil, and love as well. These standards are not separate from God and He is not bound by them, but they flow from His existence and are a part of His very nature. So, there’s nothing circular in that reasoning.
IOW: “God isn’t goodness….but goodness is God. God isn’t bound by goodness, but everything He does is Good.”
I sense a nitpicking of the definitions again; if God isn’t bound by Goodness, then it is theoretically possible for Him to be “evil” in some way. But you assert that whatever He does is inherently Good….and therefore He is bound by Goodness, in the same sense that He is bound by the definition of His own sense of existence. He is bound by His own definition, hence His existence.
Also, saying that goodness is encompassed by God’s being does not explain what it is or how it works. Geez….us secular folks have waited years to hear the thought-out proper rebuttal of the good/God dilemma, and this is what we get? It’s like a child, making up superpowers to explain away inconsistencies in the storytelling of their favorite comic book, like the old Adam West Batman shows.
“Good thing I’ve got my anti-Penguin-gas pill!”
And we can never forget the can of Carousel Reversal Spray….XD
P.S.
The whole centrifuge of your argument seems to be this:
-) Assume that God exists.
-) Assume that goodness exists.
-) Assume that they are the same.
Q: Why should we do those things? The first and second produce an endless-loop dilemma; the third is just an excuse to negate that loop that isn’t actually rooted in real knowledge (i.e. there’s no way we can know that about God; it’s nothing more than a tentative theory at best, that you want us to accept as truth simply because it solves your dilemma).
-) You just should. It’s the law! (the objective law, apparently)
Not exactly a convincing argument….perhaps I missed some things?
P.P.S.
So Andrew, if you’re an atheist you can say why you wouldn’t do something, but you’d have to borrow from Theism to extend an “ought” to anyone else in an objective sense.
Exactly! The atheist doesn’t claim to have an objective right to judge others in such a way that transcends his being! Likewise, he does not accept that others have that right, as well….and so, if someone acts violently towards him or someone he has chosen to protect, then he is justified in acting against that person in defense by his own rationale. There is nothing inconsistent about this belief system; it’s only the Christian argument that we even need such a justification, based on the idea that it’s somehow impossible to act without believing that your actions must reflect some tried-and-true philosophical variant of Hasbro’s Best Thing Ever.
“What seems odd is how many moral non-realists tend to live and act as if they are in fact moral realists.”
I don’t even know what you mean by moral non-realists. You are the one who doesn’t believe in morality. You just believe in a set of rules given to you by a creator. This isn’t morality. If you can’t conceive of an act that this creator could command that wouldn’t be moral, then it becomes meaningless to use the word ‘moral’.
“These standards are not separate from God and He is not bound by them, but they flow from His existence and are a part of His very nature.”
Sorry, but this is meaningless Mark. You are not answering the question. I’d prefer you just admit that you don’t have an answer than pretend that you do. Saying standards flow from his existance and are part of his natures sounds like new-age gobbledegook to me. When you start asserting things that make no sense, it suggests your argument is in trouble.
Please try again to explain what you actually mean by ‘God is good’. Please do so in a way that is not a circular argument. If you were being ruled by a tyrant God, how would you know? Would you still worship such an entity?
Once again, why is your God worthy of worship, and the Satan of your religion is not? You are either judging them by your own standards, or using theirs. There isn’t really a third option.
“Of course, good and bad need to be defined before you can say something is bad for society”
Good and bad need to be defined by you too. All you’ve managed so far is to say that good is something that flows from God’s being. If I said that it in fact flows from Satan’s being, how would you prove me wrong?
If you can’t find a decent defintion for something that’s bad for society then you’re not trying very hard. Possibly the reason you don’t want to do this is that most definitions of societal ills are things that more religious societies suffer from much more than more secular societies:
* Homicides,
* child mortality,
* divorce rates,
* teen pregnancy.
All much worse in religious societies. Certainly much higher in the US than in Godless Western Europe, particularly the nations that are liberal on matters such as teaching kids sex ed, allowing gay marriage etc.
If you don’t think homicides are bad for society, what definition of bad are YOU using?
1. What’s the difference between a Christian or Muslim saying that worshipping his particular God is the ‘natural outpouring of his affections’, and an atheist saying that being good is the ‘natural result of evolution’?
2. What’s the difference between a Christian saying that it’s natural to worship an entity because it is ‘all-loving’ and an atheist saying it is natural to love his wife because she is ‘all loving’?
3. Do you think it would be fair for someone to claim that in his philosophy ‘funnyness’ is a supernatural thing, and that anyone who ever laughs at something, or uses the words ‘amusing’, ‘funny’, or ‘hilarious’ is actually stealing from his philosophy?
4. If you’re claiming that ‘goodness’ is a Law in the same way as the Law of Gravity, isn’t that reducing morality down to the level of science and physics? Calling a person good or evil would thus be similar to congratulating or blaming a rock for falling off a cliff.
Tim, you said,
Umm…say what now? If I won’t worship the God you say created everything, what makes you think I would worship anything else? Or is it just that you can’t wrap your mind around the concept of there simply not being some uniform “Central Deity” to someone’s life?
It’s been my experience, within my own life and my observation of others, that the original point is true. We all worship something. May I humbly suggest an option, since you can’t see one for your own atheist life? What about your intellect? Many an atheist spend considerable time thinking hard about these issues (you seem to have) and feel an overwhelming desire to share your insight, your creative new way of looking at things in real life and in electronic (blog) form. This seems like the “gushing over a car” or “last 5 seconds of a game” reaction in the post.
Just thinking here
-Matt
Again,
That’s why I’ll never understand Christian extremism….this idea that there is only one kind of “love,”
Nope – there’s many greek words for it in my new testament – agape, philios, eros, and they DO have different meanings. That said, the point originally made seems to be that if such a little thing gets SO much of an owner’s life and conversation, his acknowledged God should get much much more. That seems sound to me.
-matt
…and if the word “worship” is raising too many hackles, try “revere” – reverance is often used in conjunction with the idea of worship.
A person is their own intellect. Is it possible to worship or revere yourself? I thought ‘worship’ and ‘revere’ mean that you are putting something above yourself. It doesn’t make sense to put yourself above yourself.
You’re defining ‘worship’ in such a way that it becomes meaningless. Try to defined what you mean by ‘I worship God’ and then explain how this relates to someone being proud of a car that they own. Someone who likes their car likes it because it pleases them in a subjective way. The Christians here are saying that God is beyond the subjective, but they can’t explain how this works. No-one can explain what they even mean by ‘all-loving’. How would they be able to differentiate an ‘all loving’ God from a God that isn’t ‘all loving’? If you don’t know then it means you’re just arbitrarily applying the label. My dog is ‘all loving’, but I don’t worship him either.
It’s been my experience, within my own life and my observation of others, that the original point is true.
Then on that we’ll have to disagree, as your definition of “worship” clearly greatly differs from mine.
We all worship something.
I do not.
May I humbly suggest an option, since you can’t see one for your own atheist life? What about your intellect?
No. Why? Read on;
Many an atheist spend considerable time thinking hard about these issues (you seem to have) and feel an overwhelming desire to share your insight, your creative new way of looking at things in real life and in electronic (blog) form.
Now you’re just grasping at straws….so you see my desire to exchange ideas with others, and to examine the universe and all its properties (and the properties of all things in it) as “worship?” Why don’t you state the desire to live as “worship,” based on that? Or the desire to breathe? We all zealously pursue those things, too, so according to you, we “worship” breath and life.
No, I think we need to reconcile our definitions of “worship” before this particular leg of the discussion can evolve any further.
That said, the point originally made seems to be that if such a little thing gets SO much of an owner’s life and conversation, his acknowledged God should get much much more. That seems sound to me.
An “acknowledged god” that you apparently feel the need to force into other people’s lifestyles; when I say to you that I am an “atheist” (which literally means “person who does not worship a god;” a = prefix of negation, as in, ‘asexual;’ theist = person who worships a deity or god), you both challenge the relevance of that definition (which I don’t truly have a problem with, for reasons numerous) as well as completely ignore it (which I do take issue with, because it undermines the stated intent of the discussion) by insisting, against the claims of people who live the very lives that you are describing when you say “non-Christians,” that “everyone worships something.” I think it’s ignorant and hubris to assume that I, for some reason, secretly want to worship something so badly, and yet for some unexplained reason I refuse to acknowledge the one thing that, according to such strange assertions, I would be most happy worshipping. That simply doesn’t make sense!
Wait…come to think of it, I think I realize now why you guys don’t get my points. It’s because you won’t accept the definitions of these certain words, these definitions that I use to describe how I live. I outlined this awhile back in a blog of my own, titled “Evangelical Argumentative Tactic #06: Purposeful Misinterpretation.”
If this misunderstanding is not purposeful, please — by all means! — feel free to prove me wrong by showing me that you understand the points I am making in some way (even if you don’t necessarily agree with them) in your next response. Otherwise, there’s no reason for me to keep explaining to you; your entire understanding of the English langauge is so wrought with self-defined terms and circular references that it’s nearly impossible to speak of anything without deferring to God. My understanding of the language is quite different; thus, the barrier between us.
You’re defining ‘worship’ in such a way that it becomes meaningless. Try to defined what you mean by ‘I worship God’ and then explain how this relates to someone being proud of a car that they own.
Andrew, have you read George Orwell’s 1984? There was a term used in that book, “Doublethink,” that I think describes this position very well; doublethink being defined as the ability to hold two opposing ideas in one’s mind and revere them both as “truth,” in spite of the fact that they inherently contradict one another. Matt is able to hold two opposing truths in his mind and revere them both equally, in spite of their inherent contradiction — 1) the idea that worship of God is the dedication of one’s entire life and purpose to the service of God; and 2) the idea that a man who is intensely devoted to an automotive hobby (but does not dedicate his entire life and purpose to the hobby, does not pray to the hobby, does not look to the hobby for salvation or spiritual guidance, does not believe that the hobby grants him the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong, etc. etc.) is “worshipping” the car.
The problem with this strange duality is simple: If “worshipping” God is the same as “worshipping” a car, then worshipping God is not a very monumental act at all; it’s really quite trivial. In which case, it’s demoted to nothing more than a hobby, just like working on cars, or watching football (or soccer, depending on where you live). Likewise, if we assume that someone “worships” a car in the same way that Matt presumably “worships” God, then we have a person who seriously believes that his car will bring him personal spiritual “salvation” in the afterlife. We must assume that he draws from his car all of the same conclusions that a Christian draws from God. Therefore, the devotion is that much more extreme.
I can’t speak for anyone else….but I live down the street from an automotive race track, where people come in to work on their cars and race them for sport. They come into my workplace from time to time, usually right before or after a race. And although I’ve heard some pretty zealous things being said about cars by these folks…I can’t say I’ve ever heard any of them lead a prayer service in honor of The Great Engine Block In The Sky Whose Name Shall Not Be Spoken For Fear Of Using It In Vain. I just can’t say that with honesty.
Someone who likes their car likes it because it pleases them in a subjective way. The Christians here are saying that God is beyond the subjective, but they can’t explain how this works.
Hence the eagerness to explain the interest in the car as being objective; the Christian knows that there is some connection between the interests, but does not understand how the degrees differ, because he truly believes that his own personal intrigue by God somehow exists independently of his mind, whereas the automaker’s interest in cars is just some trivial thing that only exists in his mind.
How would they be able to differentiate an ‘all loving’ God from a God that isn’t ‘all loving’?
“All-loving” simply means “Godlike.” All of those words defer to God in Christian English (which I abbreviate CE; not to be confused with CEorg, which is how I abbreviate Crossexamined.org; I also call it “CEnglish” for short). “Good,” “Loving,” “Generous,” “Merciful,” these are words that more secular-oriented folks use to describe qualities of a person that are definable and identifiable — i.e. we see a man who gives a ten to a homeless man and says, “Go get yourself something to eat,” and we think, “Oh, he’s quite generous, giving like that when there is no clear reward.” We use a dictionary to define our words because we realize that words are just that — inventions of the human mind, agreed upon and listed in a public forum (dictionary) for reference and ease of understanding, used to convey ideas that cannot normally be shared because of their fleeting and insubstantial nature. The Christian, on the other hand, believes that words are some magic fluid that floats through the air, and that God created us with an ability to “pick up” on this stream as an antenna would pick up a radio wave; the natural conclusion of this perspective is that the words flow from God himself.
As for God being “good” and “merciful” and all that….it mostly seems that these are buzz words that Christians believe were created after-the-fact, to make God seem more appealing to the masses. In a true definitive sense, they are completely meaningless, because their definitions all defer to one another; it’s like saying, “What’s the numerical value of A?” “A is B.” “Well, what’s B?” “B is C.” What’s C? It’s D. What’s D? It’s A. And then we have the full circle; Four different ways of referring to the same thing, whose origin/nature is no clearer than before we even came up with the first term.
“these are words that more secular-oriented folks use to describe qualities of a person that are definable and identifiable”
Quite so, Tim. If I say ‘I’ll meet you at 5pm”, all that’s needed is that we both agree what time 5pm is. We both need to be using EST, or GMT, or whatever, and both have our watches correctly set. It doesn’t mean we believe that it’s ‘objectively’ 5pm.
Now, we have these words such as ‘nice’ or ‘generous’ or ‘good’, and we have definitions for them and we know what they mean. They’re commonly understood words to describe behaviour. If I use those words, they carry a meaning for someone else listening to me – they’re useful adjectives. As long as someone else defines them in roughly the same way, we’re able to understand each other.
Occasionally you might have a problem of understanding if, say, a Christian tells you that your neighbour is ‘nice’, and they’re definining nice as ‘doesn’t beat his slave too badly and hates gays’, but generally we can use the words and know we’ll be understood.
To say that anyone using these terms is borrowing from religion, or assuming a divinity, is absurd. To say such a thing indeed DOES bring to mind Orwell’s 1984.
And to divorce words like ‘good’ or ‘loving’ from behaviour makes a mockery of the words too. To describe an entity as simply good irrespective of its behaviour renders the word meaningless.
Mark,
Excellent article. I myself know what you are talking about because prior to knowing Christ… karate was my idol. After God comes into your life, He becomes bigger and bigger, and everything else smaller and smaller. I’m not in karate anymore, and I’ve devoted my time for Christ and His purposes only.
Why worship God?
1) He made us and everything around us
2) We can’t exist apart from Him
3)He’s kind even when we didn’t know Him- I can see His hand in my life even when I denied Him…
4) Who wouldn’t love God after what He did for us, taking the punishment we should’ve taken & letting us get right with Him through Christ.
and an infinity of more reasons….
Christ deserves it all…. God gives us the life that we have, we didn’t choose to exist. He did.
Again, thanks for the article!
Excellent article. I myself know what you are talking about because prior to knowing Christ… karate was my idol. After God comes into your life, He becomes bigger and bigger, and everything else smaller and smaller. I’m not in karate anymore, and I’ve devoted my time for Christ and His purposes only.
Case in point; another grand reason why I can never be a Christian. One is required to pretend that everything he/she can see, do, feel, or participate in does not exist; anything that he/she spend time doing that isn’t directly related to worshipping God is considered a “waste of time,” or “idolatry.”
I can understand having a great appreciation for something….but when you get to the point where you literally forsake all other things in the interest of focusing every waking moment on that one single thing, it’s no longer an interest; that’s called an obsession.
“Every day, it gets harder and harder to tell the deeply religious apart from the completely void of sanity.”
Case in point; another grand reason why I can never be a Christian. One is required to pretend that everything he/she can see, do, feel, or participate in does not exist; anything that he/she spend time doing that isn’t directly related to worshipping God is considered a “waste of time,” or “idolatry.”
Nope. You’re misinterpreting (for the sake of argument) the poster’s intention. Everything else becomes smaller means exactly that… if you knew of one hill next to your town that seemed REALLY high, you’d readjust your thinking of “high” when you saw Mount Everest… that’s all that was said. Also, you are still railing against the worst examples of Christianity – the nuts that cut out everything but God in an attempt to win their salvation. My life is filled with pursuits apart from the church… my marriage, my music, my job, my friends, etc. and I do them, as per scripture, all to the Glory of God.
Vanity, vanity – all is vanity (the Greek word is literally fleeting, as in smoke) … Ecclesiastes is all about the pursuit of worldly things, and they left him empty. He tried to be all holy, and found it empty. Cut to the end and the author realizes it is only in the motivation BEHIND our pursuits that we find true peace… therefor riches, success, hobbies, etc. can bring us great joy, if they are done with the motivation of bringing Glory to God. When people say I’m a good guitarist, I have a chance to show humility, and open a door to the Gospel message. When my job performance shows me dedicated and talented beyond many others, I have done my work for men as is unto God, see? No matter what your pursuits in life, they are vanity, vanity! UNLESS there is an eternal context -
I know you guys don’t believe that, but it is consistent, and Christianity, especially western Christianity is sadly not a very good gauge of the truth right now. Compromise has led us to this very place where your accurate assessments of our divorce rates and hypocrisy are rightly damning. I’m sorry for that, as it makes these discussions hard (in the same way crimes committed by one racial group can make those who only know that group by these stereotype behaviors wary of the entire group… it’s not right, but understandable.)
My two cents,
Matt
OK, I finally get it now. You’re saying the Christianity is like an obsession, something you get into the exclusion of everything else. It’s like a mind virus. It’s like someone becoming obsessed with their car. When an alcoholic ditches the booze to become a born-again Christian, he’s ditching one addiction for another.
Thanks for clarifying this point for me – it explains an awful lot.
Nope. You’re misinterpreting (for the sake of argument) the poster’s intention.
If I’m misinterpreting anything, it is because it was misinterpreted, not because I need
help arguing with you or anyone else.
Everything else becomes smaller means exactly that…
Yes; it’s a metaphor implying that other things become less and less important, until
nothing matters except for God. That is an obsession; if I were to make the same
declaration of anything else, that is what you would call it.
Also, you are still railing against the worst examples of Christianity – the nuts that
cut out everything but God in an attempt to win their salvation.
If that’s what you think of Andrea as being, then I suppose so.
My life is filled with pursuits apart from the church… my marriage, my music, my job,
my friends, etc. and I do them, as per scripture, all to the Glory of God.
Then it’s not your particular point here I’m arguing with. The point I’m arguing with is
the idea that you can’t do anything without attributing it to God — and that, if
it cannot be directly attributed to God, then it is a form of “idolatry” or “vanity.”
Andrea compared Karate to God in the sense of worship; to me, that implies that either
(A) she literally *worshipped* karate as a godlike force in her life, or (B) she worships
God in a way that is trivial compared to most. Given these seemingly irreconcilable
points, I made my statement.
therefor riches, success, hobbies, etc. can bring us great joy, if they are done with
the motivation of bringing Glory to God.
Exactly! Nothing brings you fulfillment unless it bears on worshipping God — a concept
which we have already established to be utterly meaningless. We must choose to
attribute personal value to the idea of Godliness before it means anything;
otherwise, it stands only as an undefined pool of terms that all defer to one another to
provide the illusion of clarification.
It is a completely self-contained worldview that relies on no outside source for
confirmation or justification. It is an assertion of necessity, not a reason
for it.
No matter what your pursuits in life, they are vanity, vanity! UNLESS there is an
eternal context –
I don’t even know where to begin with this one, so I’ll start small and see where it
goes:
-) Since I don’t believe in such an external context (i.e. that our pursuits literally
matter in a truly final, objective sense), I suppose that claim would follow as a
judgment that my view is “vain” in itself. I’m not really surprised or anything, I just
seek clarification/confirmation here.
-) It is your view that assumes the need for this external context to begin with….it’s
very easy to paint a picture of the world without such a need. Given that my picture of
the world exists in such a way….the only way for you to convince me that I need this
external context is to first convince me that it exists. Appealing to my emotions simply
will not work.
I know you guys don’t believe that, but it is consistent, and Christianity, especially
western Christianity is sadly not a very good gauge of the truth right now.
I understand the point you’re trying to make, but please….spare me your “No True
Christian” remarks. For the record, I far prefer the liberalized version of Western
Christianity than the extremist political sect that you call “True Christianity.”
Compromise has led us to…
*GIANT SIDE NOTE*
That’s another thing; in Christianity, compromise with regard to the worldview is
considered a bad thing, am I correct? Given that, something’s been bothering me. Awhile
back we were talking about slavery in the Bible, and it was said that the slavery in the
Bible was “okay” because it consisted of certain circumstances. Jesus even condoned it;
another poster argued that slavery was “just what they did back then,” and that the laws
Jesuss supposedly set into place were put there to keep the slave owners from being
“overly zealous” when punishing their slaves, usually by beating them to near-death.
So….deferring once again to Turek’s claims of Objective Morality, God is unchanging.
Which means He cannot change his mind, ever. What He says is good, and that can
never change. Correct thus far?
So then….perhaps you (or someone else) could explain to me….why was slavery (in any form) okay ~2000 years ago?
Hear me out; I’m not just asking that same question that’s been asked a trillion times here. There’s a follow-up, as I’m sure you feel confident that you can answer the above question (in fact, I’m 99% sure that I have heard the answer enough, such that I would be able to paraphrase it as a test question in a college course): Why is the kind of slavery used in the Bible not okay today? Why is the government not allowed to assign slaves to people to pay off debts or loans? Why, in turn, are the employers of today — or the debt-lenders, or the loaners — unable to beat the ones who owe them for refusing (or being unable) to pay them or work for them? How is it any different today than it was ~2000 years ago?
God’s nature is unchanging, is it not? From where I stand, it seems your only choice is to say that the world should operate in such a way even today….I’m insterested to see what your response will be, if any.
WHOA! I don’t know what happened there….
Nope. You’re misinterpreting (for the sake of argument) the poster’s intention.
If I’m misinterpreting anything, it is because it was misinterpreted, not because I need help arguing with you or anyone else.
Everything else becomes smaller means exactly that…
Yes; it’s a metaphor implying that other things become less and less important, until nothing matters except for God. That is an obsession; if I were to make the same declaration of anything else, that is what you would call it.
Also, you are still railing against the worst examples of Christianity – the nuts that cut out everything but God in an attempt to win their salvation.
If that’s what you think of Andrea as being, then I suppose so.
My life is filled with pursuits apart from the church… my marriage, my music, my job, my friends, etc. and I do them, as per scripture, all to the Glory of God.
Then it’s not your particular point here I’m arguing with. The point I’m arguing with is the idea that you can’t do anything without attributing it to God — and that, if it cannot be directly attributed to God, then it is a form of “idolatry” or “vanity.” Andrea compared Karate to God in the sense of worship; to me, that implies that either (A) she literally *worshipped* karate as a godlike force in her life, or (B) she worships God in a way that is trivial compared to most. Given these seemingly irreconcilable points, I made my statement.
therefor riches, success, hobbies, etc. can bring us great joy, if they are done with the motivation of bringing Glory to God.
Exactly! Nothing brings you fulfillment unless it bears on worshipping God — a concept which we have already established to be utterly meaningless. We must choose to attribute personal value to the idea of Godliness before it means anything; otherwise, it stands only as an undefined pool of terms that all defer to one another to provide the illusion of clarification.
It is a completely self-contained worldview that relies on no outside source for confirmation or justification. It is an assertion of necessity, not a reason for it.
No matter what your pursuits in life, they are vanity, vanity! UNLESS there is an eternal context –
I don’t even know where to begin with this one, so I’ll start small and see where it goes:
-) Since I don’t believe in such an external context (i.e. that our pursuits literally matter in a truly final, objective sense), I suppose that claim would follow as a judgment that my view is “vain” in itself. I’m not really surprised or anything, I just seek clarification/confirmation here.
-) It is your view that assumes the need for this external context to begin with….it’s very easy to paint a picture of the world without such a need. Given that my picture of the world exists in such a way….the only way for you to convince me that I need this external context is to first convince me that it exists. Appealing to my emotions simply will not work.
I know you guys don’t believe that, but it is consistent, and Christianity, especially western Christianity is sadly not a very good gauge of the truth right now.
I understand the point you’re trying to make, but please….spare me your “No True Christian” remarks. For the record, I far prefer the liberalized version of Western Christianity than the extremist political sect that you call “True Christianity.”
Compromise has led us to…
*GIANT SIDE NOTE*
That’s another thing; in Christianity, compromise with regard to the worldview is considered a bad thing, am I correct? Given that, something’s been bothering me. Awhile back we were talking about slavery in the Bible, and it was said that the slavery in the Bible was “okay” because it consisted of certain circumstances. Jesus even condoned it; another poster argued that slavery was “just what they did back then,” and that the laws Jesuss supposedly set into place were put there to keep the slave owners from being “overly zealous” when punishing their slaves, usually by beating them to near-death.
So….deferring once again to Turek’s claims of Objective Morality, God is unchanging. Which means He cannot change his mind, ever. What He says is good, and that can never change. Correct thus far?
So then….perhaps you (or someone else) could explain to me….why was slavery (in any form) okay ~2000 years ago?
Hear me out; I’m not just asking that same question that’s been asked a trillion times here. There’s a follow-up, as I’m sure you feel confident that you can answer the above question (in fact, I’m 99% sure that I have heard the answer enough, such that I would be able to paraphrase it as a test question in a college course): Why is the kind of slavery used in the Bible not okay today? Why is the government not allowed to assign slaves to people to pay off debts or loans? Why, in turn, are the employers of today — or the debt-lenders, or the loaners — unable to beat the ones who owe them for refusing (or being unable) to pay them or work for them? How is it any different today than it was ~2000 years ago?
God’s nature is unchanging, is it not? From where I stand, it seems your only choice is to say that the world should operate in such a way even today….I’m insterested to see what your response will be, if any.
P.S.
As for determining that the idea of Godliness is meaningless….it’s like this. If I choose right now to say that the word of God is meaningless, then there is nothing you can say to prove me wrong. You can cite theories, promote circular arguments, etc….but they all defer to one another as having the authority to judge themselves righteously. If I say that I do not recognize that authority….then there is no other source you can turn to to justify claims of righteousness.
To me, a truly righteous God should be able to support Himself as such without relying on words that either contradict each other, or completely ignore each other.
To me, a truly righteous God should be able to support Himself as such without relying on words that either contradict each other, or completely ignore each other.
He has. His Word even explains your reaction to his presence, including the evidence all around us. I really wish I didn’t care so much about your comments, as they just break my heart – to hear someone say that there is no lasting significance to what we do in our lives…
Scientific evidence won’t cut through, as the theories for how old the earth is just keep getting longer and more convoluted, whereas the evidence for a young earth keep growing… Emotional appeals fail because you feel you’ve got all the happiness you need and God wouldn’t add to that… Testimony of folks like me who’ve been where you are and have experienced both “sides” and can tell you the innumerable benefits of a life of faith… Nature itself screams “notice me”… I fear you may be past the point of anything I say making a bit of difference, but I sure hope you’re not. God will continue to bring things into your life to either soften your heart or (and this chills me) harden it and judge you accordingly. May God have mercy on me for failing Him every day, and my online atheist acquaintances if He sees fit.
-Matt
“the theories for how old the earth is just keep getting longer and more convoluted, whereas the evidence for a young earth keep growing”
Matt, this is utter nonsense. If you’re this ignorant of science then any appeal to common sense is going to fail for you. It’s like talking to someone who’s convinced that dragons exist because he believes eclipses are caused by giant dragons swallowing the sun.
As to the concept of slavery in the Bible, I stirred up so much last time I opened my virtual mouth, I’ll try to brief this time.
We’ve gotten away from the concept of understanding community – out position in how it relates to others (the philosophers throughout the millenia discussed the “one and the many”). Our lives, according to the Bible, are not our own. God as creator is presented as a sovereign ruler with the right to ask anything of His creatures. Man stealing is officially forbidden in the letter of the law and the spirit. Slavery is also not required by the bible. But if it exists, under certain circumstances, it is clearly not wrong. Like paying a debt with labor – a man’s only true posession. As to physically punishing a slave, murder is forbidden, but physical punishment is not. There are boundaries. And just to state this again, the Jewish mind didn’t view things as individuals – they were part of the whole, and each part played , well, their part. Their lives belonged to God who gave some long years and financial blessings, and others servitude and poverty. But it is THOSE downtrodden, sad people that Christ came to preach a message of hope – that whatever THIS life holds, the next will be glorious. Godly people are urged to treat each other, including their foreigners and slaves and dependents, with love and respect.
I know you’ll rip that apart, but I’m trying to lay out exactly WHY biblical indentured servanthood is not man-stealing and beating until death. They’re different systems – and YES anyone who’s been wronged and not recompensated feels at least for a moment the ability to see this point of view… the criminal/borrower should pay his debt. If his pockets are empty, he has his labor.
-Matt
…and I do believe the dragon stories arose from people’s experience with dinosaurs. People who painted them on walls, laid footprints next to theirs, and clearly walked among them. Call me crazy
How does someone deal with the fossilized footprints found side by side in the same strata, when dinosaurs were part of a previous evolution of critters?
Matt, the bible makes it quite clear that the beating to death thing IS ok, so you can’t say it’s part of a different system to the one laid out in the bible. This is something that you need to deal with and reconcile with your views.
“Compromise has led us to this very place where your accurate assessments of our divorce rates and hypocrisy are rightly damning.”
While it’s admirable that, unlike Frank, you are willing to face these facts, don’t you think that it’s possible that the very scientific ignorance that you yourself are part of contributes in no small way to the fact that more Christian communities such as America’s have, for example, such terrible mortality rates for babies? If you think that all the biologists in the world have completely got their understanding of humans wrong, no wonder you’re less likely to get proper care for your babies. Likewise, if you see nothing wrong with beating someone to death just because they owe you money, no wonder America’s got such high homicide rates.
So I’m afraid your own views are part of the problem.
“How does someone deal with the fossilized footprints found side by side in the same strata”
You’re not crazy, Matt, you’re just credulous and easily convinced by liars and charlatons. Remember that conversation we had about the film Expelled? I gave you a ton of stuff on that and you replied ‘Oh, I hope that’s not all true’, but you didn’t go the extra yard of genuinely starting to question the veracity of all the nonsense people are peddling to you.
I’m not going to waste time googling for debunkings of idiotic stories of dinosaurs in cave paintings – it’s time you started doing your own homework on these things. They’re just the religious version of the moon hoaxers. Have a little more intelllectual integrity before someone sells you the Brooklyn Bridge!
Yes, in fact I did – reading most of The God delusion, dozens of articles on atheist websites, many of whom you’ve mentioned, I even attended a seminar to hear a Christian rebuttal to those things I just learned from Dawkins, you, and others.
Yes I did my homework…
I still don’t know about those darn footprints, though. How does our polite disagreement make me credulous? Are you suggesting that any, ANY duplicitous behavior in the production of an ID movie makes the whole theory bunk? What about the dishonesty behind all the missing link fossils that have been steadily disproved, showing intentional misdirection by evolutionist scientists? See, I don’t go there, because it’s not the issue, but some deception (which I admit is horrible) during a hollywood project just fuels your fire. We really do seem to find exactly what we’re looking for.
As to slavery and the beating, the Bible makes it clear that murder is wrong. My guess is that, due to the lack of internal medicine and understanding, a slave dying several days after a beating NOT being blamed on the owner was a way of protecting the slave owner from false prosecution. A slave’s LABOR was absolutely viewed as property, and there are provisions for situations in which a slave would become attached to a particular wealthy family forever – better this then either death for unpaid debts or a person wandering the desert or begging because they had no land or livestock. Many slaves then and in recent history made that choice, and they were very VERY well treated.
Abolitionists often made the case that ALL slaves were being mistreated and beaten, when in fact it was the exception, not the norm. Just look at the slave narratives (I forget the title) but within twenty or so years after 1865, a historian interviewed every living ex-slave he could find and well over 75% said their life was better as a slave and they were treated very well. Many had taken their master’s names as a way of paying them respect. Many MANY were taught to read (Stonewall Jackson comes to mind as a Southerner with a heart for the uneducated slaves he met) and many were taught the Gospel, in reading and in song.
Now don’t hear what I’m not saying – sinful men absolutely went above and beyond their Biblical specifications on how to treat and punish their slaves. Wicked men (mostly European) stole thousands of men from Africa and other places and brought them to sell. But revisionist history has painted a very different history than what one sees when reading the journals and writings of the men of the time – both southern and northern. Slavery is just so taboo that it carries enough baggage to almost always obscure a real discussion of how BIBLICAL slavery was to take place in a society.
FWIW,
Matt
His Word even explains your reaction to his presence, including the evidence all around us.
First off; Anybody from any worldview can make up a reason off the top of their head that explains away inconsistencies. I’m not interested in the spur-of-the-moment excuses that Christian “scholars” have accepted as “good enough” to justify a lot of the incoherencies/inconsistencies between the Biblical worldview and mine.
Second; what word? What evidence? You seem to be claiming that the fact that things are (and the things themselves) are somehow “self-evidently evident.” That makes no sense. Something about them has to force us to infer based on something else. You can choose to infer whatever you like, but if it is not demonstrably consistent within itself, then it is not evidence, simple as that. And unfortunately for the Christian worldview, it actually has to have a definite definition in order to be consistent within itself; which is to say, there must be something beyond the claim that, “The evidence is all around you, if you just look with your heart.”
Well, my heart doesn’t have eyes; it’s a senseless organ in my chest that pumps blood through my body. It has neither the capability for sight nor comprehension, and thus it cannot “look.”
I really wish I didn’t care so much about your comments, as they just break my heart – to hear someone say that there is no lasting significance to what we do in our lives…
Did you not hear me tell you that appeals to emotion won’t suffice for an argument?
Not that it matters whether or not it makes us happy or fulfilled as to whether something is true or not….but I have already explained to you how I view the lasting significance of my life. If I expend my life to help someone else, then that effort outlasts my life….and if that person was able to live longer as a result, then anything he or she does with that extra life also outlasts my life. If that’s not a lasting effect, then what is?
Wait, you’re saying that something cannot have value if it’s not attributed to God? Is that it?
Scientific evidence won’t cut through, as the theories for how old the earth is just keep getting longer and more convoluted, whereas the evidence for a young earth keep growing…
I will not respond further in this particular direction until you answer me, damn it….what evidence?! Claims, claims, everywhere, but not a drop of evidence!
(Sorry if that sounds rash, but I’m at the bottom of the barrel; I don’t know any other way to ask you that I haven’t already tried.)
Emotional appeals fail because you feel you’ve got all the happiness you need and God wouldn’t add to that…
I never feel that I have all of the anything that I need; that’s why I live. I constantly pursue better conditions for myself and those around me than we have now. I cannot find fulfillment in stagnation or in contentness; no, there is always room for me to grow, learn, and evolve.
Testimony of folks like me who’ve been where you are and have experienced both “sides” and can tell you the innumerable benefits of a life of faith…
You’ve experienced both sides, eh? And yet, you have the audacity to claim that my early life of Baptist “faith” simply wasn’t real because I lost it?
The base of it is that we both seem to think we’ve experienced both sides; any claims to the contrary are pointless and serve only to question one another’s integrity, which undermines the assumptions inherent in the offer of intelligent conversation. So I suggest we simply abandon this portion of the conversation, because I cannot honestly see it going on much farther without degenerating into, “I’ve seen both sides too, and I like this one better!” “No, you just didn’t see our side for real, is what it is!” “Nuh huh!” “Nuh-uh!” And so forth.
Nature itself screams “notice me”
I’m actually glad you brought this up….here’s a blog I posted just yesterday afternoon. I thought of it at work.
“…I don’t really get how fundies get off saying that the planet and its systems was/were created by God solely for man’s service and entertainment. I mean, if one only looked at select portions of the earth’s surface, I might be able to understand how he or she could arrive at that conclusion….but speaking with even the most rudimentary understanding of the way our planet works, and exactly how many different systems it consists of, it gets harder and harder to see how it all revolves around us.
I mean, look at volcanoes; they’re just the tip of the *iceberg, so to speak — the part we see is only the end result. The actual functionality of the volcano takes place far below the surface of the earth, as a result of complex tectonic reactions that influence the cycle that transforms rock into magma, magma into ash, and ash into rock again. It’s so utterly, brilliantly natural, completely untouched by man….and yet it’s exactly that: untouched by man.
*=Speaking of icebergs….what about them? They’re pretty fucking huge. They’re floating around parts of the earth that aren’t even naturally habitable for most humans. Even the parts of the arctic circles where humans do live aren’t very populous….and that still doesn’t account for the thousands of completely random icebergs just floating around the ocean all over the place, in the icier parts of the world. I mean, how does humanity’s supposed domination of the earth account for these kinds of natural phenomena? What’s the point of making them, from that perspective? What few ways we take advantage of these systems are easily outnumbered by the sheer amount of resources present; there are more icebergs out there than we will ever use for, say, the production of desalinated water for use in drier climes.
One explanation is that these phenomena exist because “God wants to show us the extent of his power.” Yeah? Well, great job, making all this shit that we’re likely never going to see. Those Pulsars, Black Holes and Super Novas that occur in the distant reaches of space — you know, those places that are so far away that humans couldn’t reach them if they traveled at the speed of light for their entire lifespans? Yeah, great job Mr. Great Artist God. Making all this shit to prove how artistic you are, this shit we’re never going to be able to observe because of the limitations of our species (both biological and spacial).
I’m just saying….this whole thing seems a bit too, ya know, colossal to be something that was made “just for us.” It seems like there’s a bit more to the picture that the vast majority of humans just don’t want to see. Or can’t. Maybe they can’t see it? If that’s the case, then I suppose it makes sense that the faint might choose to just abide by the illusions in their hearts. I mean, ignorance is bliss, right? And if you ask me, the only time you aren’t ignorant is when you admit that you don’t know the whole truth yet.”
–Tim
I would say that this is my answer to the “nature is proof!” claims….but I like to think of it less as a response to such an audacious claim, and more of a thought in and of itself. I’m trying to get away from using people like you (and my opposition to your beliefs) as a defining point for myself, see? Because although I am an atheist in the basic sense, I do not define myself as “just” an atheist. I’m other things, too.
God will continue to bring things into your life to either soften your heart or (and this chills me) harden it and judge you accordingly.
Let Him. Rest assured that I’ll find out one way or the other; I’m not worried about what God will supposedly do to me, and so if you’re worried about my fate, please, don’t lose any sleep over it. It’s not your problem, anyway~
I know you’ll rip that apart, but I’m trying to lay out exactly WHY biblical indentured servanthood is not man-stealing and beating until death.
Actually, I have no intent of shattering that view. I fully understand the case that Biblical “slavery” is actually indentured servitude, and while I disagree on some aspects of that, it’s not that argument I wish to incite. Rather, I ask: Why do you think having such servants, as Biblically mandated, is not allowed in today’s society? Also, why do you think that beating your employees (or others that may be indebted to you….whichever demographic you think fits the modern-day variant of Biblical “slavery”) is also forbidden? What’s the difference, I guess, is what I mean to say. And that’s not a loaded question, either; I have no response waiting. I seriously don’t know.
Are you suggesting that any, ANY duplicitous behavior in the production of an ID movie makes the whole theory bunk?
I can’t speak for Andrew obviously, but….well, Expelled reeks of dishonesty to me all around. Perhaps I’ve been jaded by the falsehoods of the likes of Comfort, Robertson, the rest of the TBN crew, and many others, but I am very, very skeptical of such views no matter where they come up. I mean, I’m always willing to sit and listen….but if I don’t hear at least something that I haven’t already heard (and heard debunked in a way that satisfies my curiosity) at least once in the first 15 minutes or so, it’s usually hard to keep my attention much further.
Though I make a special exception for highly controversial material, such as Expelled, which I do plan on viewing at some point. There’s just this deal about having to pay to see it that’s kept me from it thus far….ugh….
within twenty or so years after 1865, a historian interviewed every living ex-slave he could find and well over 75% said their life was better as a slave and they were treated very well.
I see your point, although I’m a little disturbed by the direction this post is heading….in any case, I’d blame your above quote here on the fact that there was rampant racism and attempts to “get back at” the blacks on the part of the white folks, as a sort of revenge act; an act of rage directed at blacks for daring to achieve freedom. It’s a solid, well-documented fact — no matter, Christian or atheist — that blacks had it very, very rough in the years following the success of the abolitionist movement, the Civil War and the freedom of the slaves. Racism was a huge factor in this; and I don’t even feel the need to dignify that with a “Most Historians Agree(TM)” trademark symbol~
I mean, the white folks were happy (and therefore much less aggressive towards their slaves) when the blacks were serving them in their plantations and mansions….they became less so when the very resource that had allowed them to achieve such unrivaled prosperity in the first place (the slaves) were suddenly given legal rights and status as “human beings.” To them, given that they saw blacks as “less than human” (as “property”), it was probably the same as if, for you and I, our computers were suddenly given the right to vote, to speak freely, and to be free from our dictation. I mean, these folks literally viewed black people as less than human.
Slavery is just so taboo that it carries enough baggage to almost always obscure a real discussion of how BIBLICAL slavery was to take place in a society.
Well, if you will take my honest advice, I think — if you want to separate Biblical slavery, by the definition you have given me here, from the traditional notion of Civil War “slavery” — you should refer to Biblical slavery not as slavery, but as “Indentured Servitude.” They’re very, very different concepts, and you’ll have a much easier time breaking ground with someone who isn’t so open-minded to the idea if you start with words like “servitude,” instead of “slavery.”
You’re credulous because you’re casting out the vast body of scientific evidence to accept something totally moronic. It’s one step away from finding the face of Mary of a tortilla. These so-called human footprints are a complete joke in scientific circles. Find what a respected archeologist has to say on the subject, don’t just take on trust a website put together by someone who knows barely more on the subject than you do. It’s like thinking finding a forged Jewish passport ‘discovered’ by an anti-semite is enough to cast doubt on the holocaust.
It’s like on the one hand you’ve got astonomers, who are able to predict the exact second that a solar eclipe will come along 30 years in advance, and on the other you’ve got astrologers, who think they can predict what kind of a day you’re going to have based on what ‘star you were born under’. And you’re putting your lot in with the latter.
“Are you suggesting that any, ANY duplicitous behavior in the production of an ID movie makes the whole theory bunk? ”
I’m saying that you can’t even refer to ‘the whole theory’, because ID doesn’t even constitute a theory. It has nothing to support it at all. It makes no predictions, it is not subject to falsifiability, it has no papers published for peer review.
“the Bible makes it clear that murder is wrong”
Right, but isn’t murder in this context defined as ‘wrongful killing’, in other words ‘killing that is wrong’. So it’s just saying that when killing is wrong, it is wrong – a tautology. But when it isn’t, it isn’t. So we get on to the questions of ‘when isn’t it wrong?’, and the exceptions are numerous. A kid talking back to his parents is deserving of death, so is an adulterer. Etc etc.
In my mind, if you beat your slave into a coma and he dies 3 days later, you are responsible. If you are fine with God saying you are NOT responsible, then fair enough, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Your comparison of slavery then to paying off a debt is nonsense, Matt, pure spin. How do you reconcile this with your slave’s children also belonging to the master? Or his wife? Truly horrible.
“See, I don’t go there, because it’s not the issue, but some deception (which I admit is horrible) during a hollywood project just fuels your fire.”
If I recall, you were using points from that particular movie, and I was showing how dishonest your source was.
P.S.
I know how you guys are about cursing, so I was actually gonna edit out my expletives in that blog posting, but apparently I forgot….just wanted to point out, that wasn’t be trying to be blunt or anything. I just slipped up
By the way, all this apologetics for slavery is REALLY leaving a bad taste in my mouth. Saying 75% didn’t have it so tough in an era when raping a black woman wasn’t even recognised as being a crime is a bit disgusting. Matt, you need to READ about the conditions that slaves endured just on the journey from Africa. A large percentage didn’t even survive the trip. And when slavery got made illegal in Britain, America and other countries kept doing it for decades. So British ships would patrol the waters, trying to catch slave ships.
If a slave ship saw the authorities coming they’d just toss the manacled slaves off the side of the boat to drown.
It is a shameful, disgusting period, and you do yourself no favours by trying to excuse it in any shape or form.
And Tim, indentured servitude is 1984 double-speak too. If any kids you have become the property of your master then you’re a SLAVE and so are they. If it was so OK, how come the bible had a different set of slavery rules for Jews than for other races?
And Tim, indentured servitude is 1984 double-speak too. If any kids you have become the property of your master then you’re a SLAVE and so are they. If it was so OK, how come the bible had a different set of slavery rules for Jews than for other races?
Allow me to explain; when an opposing team is either losing horribly, or has already been soundly trounced in a game….I believe it’s considered courteous to offer advice as to what they could have done differently. Even if the information isn’t in itself enough for the other team to use to dismantle your own strategy, it can at least help them find a better way to play the game.
Now, as I said, I am opposed to MANY aspects of Biblical “slavery,” whatever we choose to call it. However, as I live in the deep south, I was attempting to give our friend Matt a word of helpful advice; if you go around the deep south in real life, saying things like, “Slavery is okay if you do it right,” no matter what definition you use for “right” (Biblical or otherwise), you’re likely to get some part of your body rearranged in such a way that it was not originally meant to be. People don’t take kindly to such references down here, not at all.
Perhaps that made less sense than it would where you or Matt live (I have no idea where either of you live), in which case I apologize for being vague. It was rather region-specific advice….
Perhaps that made less sense than it would where you or Matt live
*Perhaps that made more sense to me than it would where you or Matt live.
I live in the UK. We’re kind of against slavery here, in any form. We outlawed it decades earlier than the US. Maybe where Matt lives slavery is like homophobia – not viewed as so bad in certain circumstances. It must be that ‘moral relativism’ that Christians are always telling me about.
Maybe I’ll check in later to see if Matt can explain why, if slavery then was just about owing money, how you could be made a slave just because your parents were slaves. I mean, YOU don’t owe the cash, do you?
But otherwise, I’m kind of done here again for a while. When the other side is reduced to making excuses for slavery then it’s generally a sign they know they’ve lost.
There’s simply too much to reply to, guys. Shock and awe – affective
Some quick thoughts:
I want to stress again that the process of man-stealing and murder is completely wrong. We agree on this. And this incidents described like dumping chained humans in the sea are just despicable, and would be condemned by the letter and spirit of the OT law.
One point I always try to make in a discussion like this is that not a single slave was ever unloaded in a confederate state port – the flood of them came through northern ports run by northerners. Antebellum southerners have this reputation as slave-beatin’ ignoramuses, but in fact it was the hypocritical “abolitionist” north who maintained this constant flow of slaves. This is a matter of public record and perfectly easy to certify. I’ve read so many biographies, autobiographies, journals, etc that paint a very Christian picture of the antebellum south. Men and women who bought these wretches, torn from their home land, beaten and abused, and they bought them knowing that if they didn’t, their life somewhere else, in a non-Christian home, was much more fearful. They taught them and clothed them, taught them Scotch-Irish songs whose melodies became the basis of virtually every “Negro Spiritual” to use an old term.
I say all this to say this: Christianity is not incompatible with slavery. Neither is Judaism of the OT. The modern view of an individual’s rights was virtually foreign to the OT – children OFTEN paid for the debts of their family. In our modern world where children don’t always take care of old invalid parents, this concept of being responsible for your parents does smack of wrongdoing. We’ve been raised, all of us, with images of the worst type of human suffering and oppression represented in African slavery. Jewish slavery (indentured servanthood) is of course one of the reasons why slavery was not immediately despised by southern presbyterians in the confederate states – and many did everything they could to better the lives of those offered for sale, giving them a job, a home, an education, and most importantly, the Good News.
EFFECTIVE, more like it
You’re credulous because you’re casting out the vast body of scientific evidence to accept something totally moronic. It’s one step away from finding the face of Mary of a tortilla. These so-called human footprints are a complete joke in scientific circles.
That’s just mean-spirited, man… I’m too old and have studied too hard to be essentially called a moron. Do me the honor of watching that – I have no desire to have an electronic “shouting match” or name-calling session.
I have seen the arguments against the evidence for a young earth. It all begins with denying any possibility of a God who intervenes with his creation, and has to ignore a PLETHORA of scientific hickups with their own theories. Behe, for example, is one scientist who is making huge strides with the speed of light and its evidence for a young earth. Hope that’s specific enough for you. See, instead of calling you a name or insulting you, I provided a name. If you’d like, I’m glad to compile a list of scientists and their journals and books that have been instrumental in confirming my faith in the Genesis record. Would you do anything with it if I did? Andrew, I did exactly what you asked me to and read a TON of new-atheists, who are considered the best-of-the-bunch. I graduated from University with a Bachelor’s Degree in education – you better believe I have an excellent grasp on the liberal, secular views of old-earth science and evolution. I am in the process of studying for my master’s degree. Now you can drop the “Matt doesn’t know anything about what I believe” bit – I know quite a bit. The subject intrigues me – both sides. I love to learn – which is what brought me here in the first place, if you recall… I got on here to basically tell Frank I thought he did a poor job debating Hitchens
So don’t assume too terribly much about me, and forgive me for the times I probably have done that to you.
Peace,
Matt
Men and women who bought these wretches, torn from their home land, beaten and abused, and they bought them knowing that if they didn’t, their life somewhere else, in a non-Christian home, was much more fearful.
….
This can’t be your point. Are you seriously trying to defend the actions of slaveowning plantations as “helpful” solely on the grounds that the slaveowners were “more Christian” because they treated their slaves “right” by the OT? Am I understanding you correctly?
That has nothing whatsoever to do with what I asked you, of course….I’m just making absolutely sure that I’m reading you correctly. Because if I am….I have to say, I’m just a little bit taken aback.
and many did everything they could to better the lives of those offered for sale, giving them a job, a home, an education, and most importantly, the Good News.
Oh, man….I don’t even know where to start with this one. We clearly disagree in some irreconcilable ways. I’m actually surprised to read this….on the one hand you say that “man-stealing” is wrong….and yet on the other, you say that it was okay to own slaves, as long as it was “for the right reasons?”
Now you can drop the “Matt doesn’t know anything about what I believe” bit – I know quite a bit.
To be honest, I’m not sure what to make anymore….yeesh. My one consolation with Christians was that, deep down, at least they seemed to be people who wouldn’t kill or enslave each other, given the chance….even if I disagree with their reasons for doing so. But if your view is held by any others, I’m suddenly very worried for the future of our nation.
Seriously? Do you think slavery should be reinstated, or something?
P.S.
I guess what I meant by that last is, I don’t care what your scientific credentials are; if there is a better argument against the obviousness of “objective morality,” it’s your position here — that you are able to say these things about slavery and punishment without feeling anything other than pride is a disturbing image to me. And this revisionist approach to the Civil War-era slavery system is also a bit unsettling.
Moreso, though, what I don’t understand…..is how you can say, “Well, slavery is wrong, but since the slaveowners of the 1800′s took care of their slaves better than some others, that makes it okay.” Is ‘man-stealing’ wrong, or is it not? Is purchasing a man who owes no debt “wrong” by OT law, or is it not? As I understood it, Jesus supposedly martyred his life because of his principles; he never held back saying what he thought was wrong or right, regardless of the effect it had on him or his health. So if he thought slavery was wrong in any way, then he should have said so at some point; there is no excuse for him to have said nothing. If he would suffer torture just to say that he is the son of God, what’s to stop him from adding the bit about slavery? That’s such a little thing in comparison, is it not?
Given that….it seems unChristian to simply accept a “wrong” such as ‘man-stealing’ on the grounds that “it’s a danger to my life to oppose it, so instead I’ll keep these slaves so they’re treated more fairly than they would be at another place.” Are they free? No! They’ve still been wrongfully (according to your Bible) taken from their homes — stolen, if you will — and brought into the home of a slaveowner, where they work as slaves against their will. Even following the outrageously absurd OT laws, I simply cannot see how you believe that.
As much as you seem willing to come out and say some of these things in the name of “goodness” and “Christianity,” I don’t believe that you have any reason to justify the actions of slaveowners in the 1800s on the grounds that “that’s just the way it was,” or for reasons relating to politics or retaliation. A Christian martyrs him- or herself for “goodness,” does he/she not? Is that not what this uproar in the US about “Christians being persecuted by atheists” is all about?
Argh….I’m seriously lost here. The more time I spend looking over the world of Christianity, the less and less sane it begins to appear….
[/culture shock]
Wait, wait, wait….I think I finally get it.
Christians believe that humans are flawed, right? That we’re inherently “bad” and that we need God to be able to overcome who we are?
So they think that we’re damned to “do evil” no matter what path we choose in life, right? That, without God, we’ll all just degenerate into a mass of “sin” and “evil” and all that jazz.
So if you turn Christian, then you’re saying, “Yah, I know I’m not perfect….but since I believe in God, then it’s okay, because Jesus said I’m forgiven.” So it doesn’t matter if people are inherently “sinful,” because Jesus gave them a free pass. Am I right so far?
So if a Christian does something “wrong,” and they look back and say, “Ya know, that was ‘wrong,’” then all they have to do is pray to God and talk about how they know it’s wrong, but that’s their sinful nature, and they pray to God to forgive them for acting out their sinful nature that they can’t control (because it’s their nature). Am I still on the right track?
Whereas, say, an atheist does something wrong, and he’s left to look back on it and say, “You know, that was wrong. It kinda sucks that I did that; I wonder if I can make it better?” And he/she might try to remedy the situation, or fix the wrong in whatever way possible. It might bother him/her if he/she can’t, because he/she feels that he/she is responsible for the perceived misdeed. But the atheist can’t summon Jesus to defend them against their own pasts. Correct?
So what it boils down to, then, is….Christians are completely absolved of responsibility for their actions. As long as they believe in Jesus (“through faith alone,” remember that?), they’re magically absolved of all the wrongdoings in their lives, because God forgives them for being the way He made them — sinful. Right?
Whereas atheists are burdened with the responsibility of their actions. We have to watch what we say and do, and make sure that we act in the best way we know how, even though we know we’re not perfect (because nobody is). When we make a mistake, we feel the need to fix it and try to help make it better if we can. When we look back on an action that we feel was “wrong,” we feel bad about it, and use it as a motivation to not do that thing again in the future.
Basically, we try to be responsible for our actions.
Christians believe they don’t have to be responsible for their actions, because someone else has taken that responsibility for them.
Is all of this accurate? Close, even?
If so….I just have one thing I want to say.
I will never, ever be a Christian.
I want to be responsible for my actions. I want to be able to figure what satisfies my conscience. I want to be able to fix what I have done wrong. I don’t want to feel the apathy that Christians feel with regard to the damage they do in their lives. I don’t want to be the kind of person who just wades down main street, leaving destruction in his wake, and then turns towards the wreckage behind him and says, “Well, that was wrong, and I know….so Jesus, can ya forgive me for being sinful and evil? It’s my nature, ya know!” I want to be the kind of person who is careful to keep those sorts of things from happening; I want to be the kind of person who can look at his own actions and say, “I won’t do that, and I will do that. I know not to do this again, and I know to do that as much as possible.”
Christianity is about abdication of duty; it replaces all of the duties that are thrust upon us in this world with those of some “next life” that may or may not even exist.
Before our conversations, Matt, I never felt the need to say that I feel I understand Christianity well enough to openly denounce it….but if what you say here is true, then a Christian is the last thing I want to be. And so I have no choice but to denounce it, here and forever more. I will not have that kind of responsibility-shirking in my life. I don’t accept it from others, and I certainly won’t accept it from myself. So you can take your Jesus and your Free Pass to Heaven…well, I’m sure you know where this is going.
So what it boils down to, then, is….Christians are completely absolved of responsibility for their actions. As long as they believe in Jesus (”through faith alone,” remember that?), they’re magically absolved of all the wrongdoings in their lives, because God forgives them for being the way He made them — sinful. Right?
Wrong, according to the bible. We will be rewarded according to our deeds here on earth. And we are absolutely called to reconcile our actions here on earth – down to the point that before we come into God’s presence in worship, we are called to examine ourselves and if we even have an unresolved verbal argument with a brother, we are to leave our sacrifice/tythe undone until we have made it right. We are told not to let the sun go down on an argument. We are called to be lenders, not borrowers. We are shown parable after parable from the lips of Christ about treating our neighbors and even enemies with dignity and mercy. Our actions will be compensated in the next life, according to the Bible – some with “jewels” in their “crown” (and whether that’s literal or figurative, I do not know). Your slinging mud at God with these kind of accusations betrays a serious lack of understanding of not only the OT Jewish culture/mindset, but also your inability to comprehend even a simple tenet of the Christian faith. Your accusations are baseless, founded only on your desire to destroy Christianity in your own mind, I believe. If this is your decision, I will respect it, and btw – I don’t think it’s fair for anyone to throw a sincere, adult, emotional appeal back in the giver’s face. I’m not dishonest when I said it breaks my heart – you and Andrew… I had hoped to learn more about atheists and their views… and I have. And I’m broken. You will never “discover” the evidence you want for God when you approach Him in this way. Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and see what happens. If it’s your experience with Christianity that’s turned you off, remember – we’re not perfect! In fact, we’re sinners, whose lives are being transformed daily by the renewing of our minds. Don’t expect me or anyone in this life to be flawless or have all the answers any time soon. If my (consistent) views regarding slavery in the bible or my suspicions on how a Christian man could participate in the act two hundred years ago are a stumbling block for you, remove it. I won’t mention it again, but if you want to know, as I did, what someone who believes EVERY word of the bible thinks about this issue or that, let me know – mjgarwood@gmail.com.
Sorry for any offense, but God requires a lot of us – we were bought at a price, and I will do everything I can to honor that gift. See, we’re not saved so we can do NO good works – the Bible says we are saved FOR good works, which I do not to earn my salvation, but because of it. That sentence right there divides modern Christians down the middle – many hate what I just said – anyone who believes in a works-based salvation.
bah – i’m getting long winded. Too much to possibly address here. Slavery’s off the table – now to your regularly scheduled arguing
Peace, guys -
Matt
“I had hoped to learn more about atheists and their views… and I have. And I’m broken.”
You’ve discovered we’re more against slavery and bigotry than Christians. I’m not surprised you are broken – this must be very upsetting for you.
You really don’t listen very well, Andrew… I’ve made it clear how I feel on this point, and I stand with the Bible on those issues. If you’ve read the Bible, you know that treating others as better than yourself is kind of a big point, which in no way conflicts with the system of indentured servanthood described in the Bible. Yes it conflicts with the worst perversions of the system seen throughout the world across the centuries, but I condemn that also. You seem to find yourself very clever, and if that tone is your plan for future exchanges, mocking my sincerity, then just don’t respond… or does your self-established worldview allow such coarseness and disrespect? Oh, for the days of chivalry and gentlemanly conduct!
Peace,
Matt
Your slinging mud at God with these kind of accusations betrays a serious lack of understanding of not only the OT Jewish culture/mindset, but also your inability to comprehend even a simple tenet of the Christian faith. Your accusations are baseless, founded only on your desire to destroy Christianity in your own mind, I believe.
Believe whatever makes you feel better. It’s not my business anymore, really.
If this is your decision, I will respect it, and btw – I don’t think it’s fair for anyone to throw a sincere, adult, emotional appeal back in the giver’s face. I’m not dishonest when I said it breaks my heart – you and Andrew…
It’s ridiculous. I honestly don’t understand how you can equate such a belief with any sort of genuine concern.
In any case, there are certain types of people that make me feel bad when I feel I’ve said something out of line….and there are other types that make me think, “Ya know, maybe this is one of those times where I’m supposed to pick my battles.”
You will never “discover” the evidence you want for God when you approach Him in this way. Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and see what happens.
That’s always been the problem. As I heard some crackpot pastor put it one day on some Sunday show; “Those atheist folk, they say things like, ‘I’ll believe when I see.’ But it doesn’t work that way! You must believe first, and then you will see!”
Do you realize the fallacy of such a way of thinking? Speaking of so little evidence, that can be said of any worldview. As of science, if I wished, I could say that right now: “People want to know why we should respect scientific methods….they say they’ll believe it when they have a reason to, when they see some evidence that compels them. What they don’t get is that it doesn’t work that way — you must first acknowledge the philosophy of scientific advance! Then you will see that it makes sense!”
It’s an obvious given that if we choose to blindly accept the givens of a particular worldview, we’ll be able to use those givens to retroactively justify it. It’s a disservice to the intellects of all involved parties to cite that as an argument for any particular view.
we’re not perfect!
No, you just want us to be. You think it’s okay that you’re not perfect because you get a free pass. You hold it against us that we’re not perfect because we didn’t accept the free pass, and we accept responsibility for our own imperfections, instead of pawning it off on someone else.
we were bought at a price, and I will do everything I can to honor that gift.
I don’t recall being purchased as an item.
Slavery’s off the table
Wow. That’s like the judge telling a jury to “disregard that” after something screwed-up has accidentally made its way into the chambers. I can pretend like I never heard it, but I still heard it, and it still confounds and disturbs my conscience.
or does your self-established worldview allow such coarseness and disrespect? Oh, for the days of chivalry and gentlemanly conduct!
I have to say I can sympathize with Andrew’s reaction in a way….listening to the way you can so easily justify all of these things without so much as a look backward, it’s unsettling. I’m trying very hard to walk the fine line between culture shock and common courtesy, but I have to say, I am quite taken aback by some of these revelations. Put it together with your earlier claims that the government should be able to kill people for being “immoral” by those same standards, and we have a recipe for one of the most tyrannical world regimes in history.
Reminds me why I got into politics.
P.S.
As for your claims about personal responsibility….the fact that you deny these things is what seals the fate of your cause in my mind. For those claims are the only way to justify some of the beliefs you hold — the idea that you can justify the actions of people who chose not just to abide by the laws of slavery in the 1800s, but congratulate them on a job well done for purchasing slaves based on some misguided notion of “Christian goodness,” for example. The only way we can excuse this behavior is if we assume that the Christian in question is not being held responsible for his/her moral actions. If he/she is being held responsible, and is expected to act to the full extent of his/her beliefs that slavery (or this particular form, anyway) is “wrong” or “against the standards of the OT,” then he/she should willingly and openly martyr him/herself against the system in the interest of first sabotaging and then correcting it — you know, that stuff that the Bible says Jesus did?
And yet instead, you take the position that “they did the best with what they had at the time.” If we assume a standard of God-given objective morality, then there is no excuse; it’s either wrong, and you’re wrong for owning slaves under that system, or it’s not, and you’re not. There is no in-between. Such is the consequence of such morality; there is no room for any gray area.
And on that note, I choose to dismiss your argument* because I’m sick of waiting to hear a genuinely thought-out response to anything. You keep citing claims of evidence, citing your scientific and academic credentials, and spouting about how “obvious” so many things are….and yet when pressed, you have nothing further. Let me tell you now, I don’t judge a person’s credibility based solely on their credentials or claims thereof. If a world-renowned physicist comes and tells me that the full moon is actually a giant turtle getting in the way of the sun, and tries to convince me that this is a valid scientific theory, I know he’s full of it, even though he has the creds of a master. Do you know why? Because I have a very basic standard of what I consider “the immediate reality of my surroundings,” and that does not gel with it to a single percentile. I may not “know” everything, but there are things I have good reason to believe, such as the consistency of my immediate physical surroundings. And if somebody says something that is obviously bunk, I have no choice but to denounce it on the spot as such.
*=Not related to my dismissal of Christianity, of course; that’s a process that’s been going on for quite some time, as I’ve been gradually learning more about it for the past 10 or so years. So don’t feel bad, you didn’t kill it for me, your arguments just helped put a few nails in the coffin, is all.
If a world-renowned physicist comes and tells me that the full moon is actually a giant turtle getting in the way of the sun
*If a world-renowned physicist comes and tells me that the solar eclipse is actually a giant turtle getting in the way of the sun
Matt,
Sorry, since I haven’t had the spare time to respond; I’d like to comment a bit more on slavery. You’re welcome to comment back, or not.
First of all, to answer the question Tim posed some time ago:
God’s nature is unchanging, is it not? From where I stand, it seems your only choice is to say that the world should operate in such a way even today….
(Obviously there was much background to Tim’s question, so if anyone needs it, please see his post. I didn’t see the need for reposting it all.)
Tim,
I think that there is actually a good answer to your question in the Bible.
Though I strongly doubt anyone else (out of those you’re asking anyway) would want to employ it.
In Matthew 19:8, when talking about divorce (Jesus was laying down different, more restrictive rules on divorce), He said that the previous rules were given because the hearts of the people were hard, but that it was always this way from the beginning.
So, here you have an answer to your question. G-d’s nature may be unchanging, but sometimes people are not ready to hear the truth (their hearts are too hard), so they are told something else.
So we could say that G-d always thought slavery was wrong, but the hearts of the people were too hard to hear the message. (I suppose that this is what the people who say that “that’s just the way it was back then and G-d was dealing with that” are approaching.)
There are, however, many problems with this argument. These reasons are why, I suspect, most Christians don’t employ this rationale(I have never heard this argument; I though of it independently, but would not be surprised if some liberal Christian groups do use it).
1.) G-d doesn’t tell the truth, seemingly because of the reaction the people might have. If G-d lies that is good (obviously!), but it is perhaps uncomfortable to admit. What else has He said to us that is not true?
2.) It opens up a Pandora’s box (or maybe a treasure chest) of arguments. Why did the old law forbid homosexuality (and why did Paul write to the Corinthians that homosexuals would not inherit the kingdom)? Simple. The hearts of the people were hard. We could employ this logic anytime we wanted, and apply it to just about anything.
But in this argument, I do think the Bible provides an answer to your question. It’s just that it pretty much renders any discussion of what moral guidance the Bible gives meaningless (whether that would be a good or bad thing, that’s up to you).
Now Matt,
You seem to be making the argument that slavery in the Bible was more like an economic transaction, similar to what I do when I take a job. Am I correct? And you say that as long as people are treated well, there is nothing inherently wrong with this? Still correct? (I am honestly asking, I don’t mean to misrepresent your position.)
I think where you run into problems, is that the Bible seems to prescribe what this means (i.e. this is how one treats a slave). I think (and hope) that you are quite uncomfortable with many of these measures. For example, I assume that while the OT may say that it is ok, for a slave to be beaten into a coma for a couple of days (as our friend Andrew likes to point out), you disagree. So you run into a problem where your moral standard runs into the Biblical standard, and they disagree. So who do you trust in this case, yourself, or the Word of G-d?
I also think that you need to add a little context to the way that you lay out “Biblical” slavery. You do seem to describe it as indentured servitude, in which someone has debts and says “I will be your slave.” It is an agreed upon thing, you’re treated well (again, what does this mean when we look at passages like Exodus 21:20?), so it’s not that bad. It is not what we imagine when we think “slavery.” Is this basically your position?
I think this only describes part of the practice in Biblical times. Much of it was not as pretty as you make it out to be. It was acceptable, for example, to buy children from their parents and keep that slave for life, and even give him as inheritance. Now, that is still an economic transaction, I suppose, but one which did not involve the slave, and the slave was without choice. Slaves were also to be simply taken. G-d, for example, instructed His people to enslave their enemies (Deuteronomy 20:10-15). Are you ok with this as well? Enslave people for life as part of the spoils of war?
And while while, yes, many some slaves were more like house servants, who do you think did the worst and most dangerous jobs? Why do the unpleasant, difficult and dangerous things yourself? Why risk your life, when “your property” can do it? Do you really think that the life of slaves in Biblical times was so great? If your parents had sold you as a slave, or you were taken when your town surrendered and became a slave for life, would you think it was ok as long as you were not beaten so badly you quickly died? If no Biblical laws were broken against you, you’d be perfectly happy, thankful?
If slavery was as pleasant and nice as you seem to make it out to be, why was there a need for these laws in the first place? And once G-d laid down these laws, why were they so “liberal?” That is, why not say “don’t beat your slaves, ever!” instead of “they’re your property, so if you beat them into a slight coma, no harm — no foul.”? (Sorry Tim, I just realized this is akin to your question about why my boss shouldn’t be allowed to beat me when I screw up at work.)
Matt, be honest with yourself. You’ve put yourself in the position where you’ve become an apologist for slavery. Does this not bother you? Tremendously? Is this not what has left you broken?
we’re not perfect!
No, you just want us to be. You think it’s okay that you’re not perfect because you get a free pass. You hold it against us that we’re not perfect because we didn’t accept the free pass, and we accept responsibility for our own imperfections, instead of pawning it off on someone else.
I do not want you to be perfect. That’d make you God. You’re railing against straw men again. I point out a standard of conduct given progressively to a people that trace themselves back to the first man, and received confirmation in the form of miracles and signs and wonders. It is that standard of conduct that I hold up as a pedagogue – the greek word for teacher is used to describe the function of the law… the law was never intended to be attained – the moral law is unkeepable, and is to be as a “pedagogue” or taskmaster, teaching us our failures and pointing out our need for a savior. Such is the testimony of scripture – we can argue about that, but not about your wrong understanding of it… I can’t help there.
And as to being sick of waiting for arguments, I remember at length giving my proof for why I believe there is a God, based partly on the Kalam argument. I remember it being almost as long as some of your giant posts, so although we may disagree on it, I have definitely given support to my stance, as has Turek. As for scientific evidence, feel free to check out “Creation And Change: Genesis 1:1-2:4 in the Light of Changing Scientific Paradigms” by Douglas Kelly, a man who is anything but a lightweight in the theological realm. He quotes liberally from Michael J. Behe and others who challenge, based on scientific inquiry, the soundness of evolution conclusions… this is one easy to read book I recommend to anyone curious about the ID “side”… I read the God Delusion on y’all’s recommendations and tons of articles, blogs, and other materials… Stop claiming I haven’t provided a thing in support. Do you want me to send you a copy of the book? I certainly can’t reproduce it here.
-Peace,
Matt
“2.) It opens up a Pandora’s box (or maybe a treasure chest) of arguments. Why did the old law forbid homosexuality”
Precisely Luke. That’s why I doubt the integrity of anyone who tries to use the bible to argue against homosexuality. Unless they also are campaigning for the return of slavery, they are being grossly hypocritical. They’re just using the bible to justify an abhorrant view that they can’t justify any other way. Intellectual honesty means looking at your prejudices and giving yourself a hard time over them.
Hi I just want to to let everyone know that I won’ t be commenting for a little more than two weeks. I will miss talking to you all. God bless to you all, peace on earth, and may God guide all of you on the right path. Have a great weekend, Emily
Emily – if you see this, check out my website mattgarwood.wordpress.com and there’s a link to order my cd. Let me know if there’s any problems… sorry I didn’t get back to you. It slipped my mind til just now, and I know you don’t have constant daily internet access.
God Bless!
-Matt
I point out a standard of conduct that I believe was given progressively to a people that trace themselves back to the first man, and whom I believe received confirmation in the form of miracles and signs and wonders.
Fix’d.
It is that standard of conduct that I hold up as a pedagogue – the greek word for teacher is used to describe the function of the law… the law was never intended to be attained – the moral law is unkeepable, and is to be as a “pedagogue” or taskmaster, teaching us our failures and pointing out our need for a savior. Such is the testimony of scripture – we can argue about that, but not about your wrong understanding of it… I can’t help there.
Exactly, it all wraps back around to the idea that adhering to the moral code is impossible; thus, man’s “fallen” nature. This leads us back into the idea that we have to rely on someone else for “salvation” because we are “fallen”….which means we are not judged by our actions, but by whether or not we acknowledge that free pass that you believe was given to us.
I don’t see how you can not understand the problem here….if what you say is true — that Christians are to be judged by their actions — then belief in God is unnecessary, because (as even Turek himself admits) it’s entirely possible for, say, an atheist to do acts that most would consider “moral,” without believing that they were ordained by God. However, if in fact belief in God is the flipping point — if belief in God determines whether you will go to Heaven or Hell….ya know, “by faith alone” — then that negates the significance of good acts, because humans cannot be “good” consistently enough to satisfy God on their own.
And as to being sick of waiting for arguments, I remember at length giving my proof for why I believe there is a God, based partly on the Kalam argument.
Really? When was that?
As for me, I’m not “curious” about the ID side at all. I still can’t rationalize my way past the starting point; the whole concept is riddled with biases and forced interpretations ripped straight from Biblical lit, fit together with a number of logical stretches and leaps more suited to an obsessive-compulsive than a scholar.
P.S. I mean, seriously….The Da Vinci Code had more soundly-executed “science” than the ID movement….and that’s saying something….
P.P.S.
I realized that I may not have been clear earlier, concerning my denunciation of your beliefs….so here are a few points I want to take note of:
-) There are two basic fragments to the arguments for God; the “Scientific” arguments, and the “Moral” arguments.
a) the “Moral” argument is subjective by nature and is therefore automatically debunked; for reasons revealed to me in this debate here, it has been proven to me that the God of the Old Testament cannot possible be moral. And thus, if God does exist in a scientific sense, and it is the Old Testament God, then He is not a moral God, because there is no way that an acting, changing being can be consistently moral such that it becomes a law.
b) This is a clear example of humans imposing their impression of reality onto the deities they imagine — if there were such a God, He would not be able to act in any way, lest He risk changing His state from one of perfection and equilibrium to one of imbalance. In a perfect system, any change results in a step away from perfection.
-) The “Scientific” arguments aren’t even really arguments for OT God….they’re just different (and severely flawed, from a scientific standpoint) ways of perceiving the evidence we have regarding the beginning of the universe.
a) The ID arguments are not arguments in themselves, per se — which is to say, they don’t actually force us to infer the existence of a God — rather, they’re just convenient excuses not to believe conventional scientific approaches. Which is to say, they are reasons for people to say, “That might not be the way the universe began.” They don’t imply how it did begin; they simply take the argument back such that nothing really means anything, and so no argument takes anyone anywhere. If we accept the basic accuracy of scientific method to this extent, then it’s simply false to claim that ID is “the truth.” The only way it can even be plausible is if we ignore the rest of the evidence in this field.
b) Second….the ID arguments tend to start off as being scientific, but this usually tapers off fairly quickly. It starts with a brief attack on some established belief — such as the question of “where did energy come from?” — that is usually played up as having a much more grave and profound significance than it does in context, and then it veers off into philosophical territory, thus vacating the premises of scientific argument. As such, arguments of this caliber are not scientific arguments at all.
So….bottom line: The only leg the Christian has to even stand on in a scientific environment is to challenge any and all interpretations of evidence and question their validity until nothing means anything, resulting in a void of meaninglessness. This is a moot argument, however, because it can never conclusively prove (or disprove) anything at all. It simply bars progress in any direction.
So, if by denying progress in the field of science and insisting that scientific evidence is not reliable (unless there exists a way for you to bend it towards a more Christian end), you believe the ID case has been made, then so be it. But let it be known; this case is not a case at all. It defines itself solely by opposition to another.
Mark,
Thank you for your answers.
As far as the title of the post, I think we can leave that discussion aside. We have really moved on to much deeper and more interesting topics, it seems.
Though we’ve also moved passed the question that was asked; “why should we worship the Christian G-d, if He exists,” but I hope we can return to it, at least in part.
I’m sure I’ll take some flack from some of you guys who read this, but I’d like you to answer this question: “If the God of the Bible exists, would I worship Him?”
Yes, I think you would! Just kidding…
I find this question odd. Or, I suppose I don’t understand why you’re asking. If the question we’re trying to answer is “Why Worship [the Biblical] G-d if He Actually Exists” then I don’t see how my answer to this, or anyone else’s, has any bearing on the argument. The reason(s) for worshipping Him should be the same, no? If I answer this question, it could only bias the argument. I do not see how it could improve it. That said, if you still want me to answer, I can.
Now, a lot of other questions have been asked, so I know as more and more ideas are thrown out there it is more difficult to respond, but I’d like to take a closer look at the reasons you gave to that bigger question.
He is (A) worthy of worship because He is all powerful, all knowing
I assume these are just components of the reason. Or are you saying that anything which is both all powerful and all knowing would be automatically deserving of worship?
If so, why?
If they are just components, why do you see them as necessary?
For example, would a goddess who is all loving, not be worthy of worship because she may lack some power?
all loving
The questions about this have already been asked, so I will await that answer.
If I may add an additional question though. You said:
My answer would be that there is an objective standard of good and evil, and love as well. These standards are not separate from God and He is not bound by them, but they flow from His existence and are a part of His very nature.
First of all, I suppose I’d like you to expand, because I honestly don’t understand what this means (truly and honestly).
My question is, if G-d is not bound by this objective standard of good and evil, then how would you know if He chose not to follow it?
Can you give me an example of something G-d might do, if He decided to do something “not good?” As you said, He is not bound to be good; so what would this look like?
takes an interest in us personally
Again, this must be just a component of the reason, but why is it necessary? If some deity was all-powerful, all-loving, etc, but ensured equal happiness for all of it’s creation, equally (what if G-d were a socialist?) — why would this render the deity unworthy of worship?
We should be (B) thankful to Him because He has given us our lives
I suppose I can see a point here. Though again, I don’t think this reason by itself is sufficient, so I ask why it is necessary. Though as a counterexample: for one, not everyone loves their lives (there is empirical evidence for this, I think). Should these people be thankful as well?
The reason I say that this reason by itself is not sufficient, is that Andrew, in some sense has given life to his daughter (i.e. she would not be alive without Him), but if Andrew badly mistreated her, would she still owe him something?
everything beautiful we have seen, everything delicious we’ve tasted, everything we have enjoyed in this life
But what of the terrible things we’ve seen? The poisons we’ve ingested? The evils we know others have suffered?
Also, Andrea, you said: Who wouldn’t love God after what He did for us, taking the punishment we should’ve taken.
Who set up the punishment regime, though? It’s as if you’re essentially saying that if someone came to you on the street and said:
Person: “Well, I was going to do this terrible thing to you Andrea, because I totally felt you deserved it, but then I decided not to, because I thumped myself in the nose (though I will still do these terrible things to others I encounter on the street, who have done the exact same things you have) — aren’t I swell?”
Andrea: “You are swell!”
I don’t say this to dismiss this argument entirely (or make it comical, I am just trying to raise a serious point), but there must be more there to what you’re saying here, no?
For some further comments… I think the following argument is a very important aspect to answering the question of why one would/should worship G-d. We each have some sort of standard of right and wrong (agreed?). (It doesn’t matter why we have these standards or where we believe they came from, the point is we have such standards.) We can all say: A is right, and b is wrong, and we can do this on a number of issues.
Now, if the Christian/Biblical G-d came to us, personally and said, “guess what, it’s all true; here I am, and I am exactly the G-d in this book,” holding up your favorite translation of the Bible, then this would be a G-d who has done things. Many of these things we can all judge according to our own standard.
If we think A is wrong and G-d has done A we are less likely to think much of Him. Not thinking much of G-d would be a major stumbling block in worshipping Him, I think.
So for example, Andrew has mentioned (in a different thread, I believe) that G-d has committed genocide, and Andrew is against genocide (i.e. Andrew thinks it’s wrong to commit genocide).
So to reiterate, we all have a moral standard, if we judge G-d positively by this standard, then we are much more likely to worship Him. If we judge G-d negatively, then we either are far less likely to worship Him (unless we adjust our standard).
Now, Dr. Turek has given an answer to the genocide question, saying that G-d is the author of life, therefore it is not wrong from Him to take it (it is simply a transfer, he says). But I think the argument remains basically the same. One person says that genocide is wrong, no matter the circumstances, the other says that genocide is fine, given the correct and specific circumstances (e.g. it is done by G-d). So it remains a comparison to that person’s moral code.
I think that is a key component to the larger question. Of course, it only gets back to the idea of what it means that G-d is good, and Mark, I look forward to hearing you expand on this.
Anyway, I suppose that I am saying is that since we all have some standard of morality in which we believe, we cannot help but compare G-d to it. The answer we get to this comparison at the very least strongly affects whether we consider G-d to be good. Whether we consider Him to be good is a key, if not the key input in answering whether we will or will not worship Him.
Really, I think this may get us back to the all-powerful, all-knowing question as well. If you accept a different moral code for G-d simply because He is all-powerful, and all-knowing, the question remains: why?
(Sorry if this all kind of jumps around. I sort of wrote as I was thinking, rather than taking a pre-constructed argument and verbalizing it. I don’t want to waste too much time cleaning it up, as I think there is plenty that some of you may want to comment on already.)
Luke, your pretty well sum up many of my points and questions. But I can tell you that Frank and Mark say that it is impossible to judge God by our standards, because the only standards we can have are those that God gives us. I’ve explained 50 times that this is a circular argument.
And as you, me and Tim alone seem to understand, if you can only judge God by his own standards, then how would you tell this God apart from a ‘hyperthetical’ tyrannical God? If someone argues that your God is in fact just such an evil deity, how would you argue against this notion without using either a circular argument or simply asserting ‘God is good’, without having any notion of what ‘good’ in this context actually means.
I particularly agree with you that when everyone imagines a ‘perfect being’, they’re basically conceptualising all the traits that they themselves already value. When I was a Christian I imagined an all-loving, benevolent, kindly God. When someone like Frank or Mark imagines God, they emphasise the values that they see as important – his power, his hatred of gays etc. It’s all just an extension of values they already hold. To say that values come from the God and not the other way round is to put the cart before the horse. And that’s why it’s so hard for people like Matt, who I’m sure doesn’t really approve of slavery, to consider the ramifications of the Old Testament.
Dear Skeptics,
Sorry, I’ve been busy for the last couple of days and haven’t had a spare moment to write a response to you guys. For the sake of clarification, indulge me here.
It seems like the primary point of disagreement with the topic of this article is fairly small. I’m not saying it’s insignificant or that it’ll be solved here on these posts, but unless I’m mistaken, we have a good deal of common ground. I think we are all in agreement that we enjoy telling others about things that give us happiness. If the thing that makes us happy is a personal being, like a human, for instance we think it is natural not to mention appropriate to tell them how we feel. The lesser to greater argument makes sense that if a God was worthy of worship, that we should want to talk to others about His greatness as well as tell Him directly.
The question of whether or not you or other people worship their cars is a bit beside the point, since I was just trying to explain why God’s followers would want to worship Him. I also think that we probably (different qualifier here) agree that if there is a God who is all loving, all good, all powerful, and all knowing that he/she/it would be worthy of at least telling others and the being itself of his/her/its greatness.
The real point of contention is whether the God of the Bible is really all of those things listed above. Would you say that’s the main issue here or am I off base?
Luke,
“Also, Andrea, you said: Who wouldn’t love God after what He did for us, taking the punishment we should’ve taken.
Who set up the punishment regime, though?”
Listen man.. WE are the ones at fault… because WE are the ones that live AS IF there is no Creator when IT IS EVIDENT there IS by just glimpsing at ourselves. WE are the ones that ignore Him, WE are the ones that reject His free gift, and WE are the ones that try to deny the evidence He has already presented.
Question: What else can God do.. what else?
He became a man, took our punishment, conquered death and everything else with it, and said… “All you have to do is come.. and you’ll see…”
And people are STILL rejecting Him… come on now.. Just GO to God… Cry out to Him. Only God can take the blindfold OFF your eyes.
Not me, not anybody, ONLY Christ.
The real point of contention is whether the God of the Bible is really all of those things listed above. Would you say that’s the main issue here or am I off base?
That, whether or not Yahweh exists, and one more thing — whether or not “loving” and “great” mean the same thing in deference to Yahweh that they do to non-godlike entities. I disagree that the terms “great” and “loving” require the supposition of Yahweh’s existence to have any meaning.
Listen man.. WE are the ones at fault… because WE are the ones that live AS IF there is no Creator when IT IS EVIDENT there IS by just glimpsing at ourselves.
Evident? How so?
And actually, you don’t live as if there is no Creator, do you? In which case, why do you say “we?” Don’t you mean us (or “you,” speaking from your perspective), the atheists?
WE are the ones that ignore Him, WE are the ones that reject His free gift, and WE are the ones that try to deny the evidence He has already presented.
1) I have no reason to think He is real; in fact, if people were not around to tell me about Him, I would never have even thought of the idea in the first place.
2) If He does exist, and his gift is the justification of slavery, abuse and tyranny, as well as freedom from the personal responsibility to do the best that one can with one’s life, then you are correct. I gladly reject that “gift.”
3) Evidence? See #1.
He became a man, took our punishment, conquered death and everything else with it, and said… “All you have to do is come.. and you’ll see…”
….that doesn’t answer the question at all….
Just GO to God…
No.
Tim,
“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to ALL WHO BELIEVE. There is no difference, for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” (Romans 3:22-24)
“But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Rom. 5:8)
-All of humans have sinned by:
Living as if there was no Creator (before coming to know Him), and doing whatever we desired even though we knew deep down it wasn’t right.
After coming to know Christ your desires change on its own… the sin you once loved.. then disgusts you… once you submit yourself to Christ, He takes over. Then you begin to do everything.. for HIS GLORY, not for your own.
———————————————————————————————-
1) “I have no reason to think He is real; in fact, if people were not around to tell me about Him, I would never have even thought of the idea in the first place.”
- You can’t tell me that even when you were little.. you didn’t look at your hands and at yourself and wonder “what am I? I can think and have emotions.. but I didn’t make this body…”
Come on man, be honest here.
-Other times you looks at ants, at you look down at them.. and this thought comes into your mind “Well if I can look down at ants, then is someone looking down at me?” You can’t tell me that thought hasn’t popped into your mind. It happens to all of us.. but we dismiss it as imagination or something because of how we’ve been deceived by the world around us (again this is before you come to know Him).
- It’s so easy to get lost in the lies of this world, you take your teachers as your authority who teach you the Bible is for ignorant people and science is for the intellectual. So they brainwash you.. I was.. I still have no excuse for being atheist when I was because again.. it is EVIDENT we have a Creator, but out of my own free will I had chosen to not even hold primitive thoughts such as those.. I mean the science books have all the truth.. right??? (what I convinced myself to think then..)
-WRONG. The Bible has proved itself to be true over all this time, and so many things about science are written in the Bible prior to it being discovered such as the earth hangs on nothing, washing hands, the life is in the blood, etc….
-His free gift is Eternal life with Him, our Maker, our Creator.. the life that we don’t deserve, because all of us didn’t want Him at first.. we thought we made ourselves or something because we certainly weren’t living for Him.
-God took the punishment we deserved upon Himself, the punishment WE deserve because out of our own FREE WILL, we CHOOSE to reject Him, even though we can’t even breath apart from His will of letting us do so (again this is before coming to know Him, that we reject, after you search and He finds you, all you want is Him, to please Him).
A bridge, but people choose to not use it, because they’d rather enjoy their way and when it comes to crossing it they’d rather fall in the ditch because they think it’s a mud puddle even though it’s evident it’s a ditch. I mean it’s right there. Christ is right there. He did it. We can be made right with God through Him only, and He proved it rising from the grave and everything… so what other evidence do you require??.. because it already IS there.
Here.. why don’t you go and look at the evidence presented with no bias… You obviously are curious about God otherwise you wouldn’t be on here… so seek Him with your whole heart and YOU WILL find Him…
“You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.” (Jeremiah 29:13)
So, GO and seek Him with your whole heart, and you WILL find Him.
Mark, the difference is that I can look at a person on earth and say that they embody many qualities I value, and therefore I respect them in some way. But with God we’re not supposed to do the same thing. You tell us that we shouldn’t judge God by our own values – we’re supposed to judge him by his OWN values.
I couldn’t respect a homophobic God, no more than I could respect the views of a homophobic human, or a racist human. So I couldn’t worship YOUR God. My mother’s Christian faith includes understand and tolerance of gays. I could respect her God, but presumably you couldn’t.
2) If He does exist, and his gift is the justification of slavery, abuse and tyranny, as well as freedom from the personal responsibility to do the best that one can with one’s life, then you are correct. I gladly reject that “gift.”
The life of faith is NOT freedom from personal responsibility to do the the best one can. Read the book of James for a primer on what the Bible ACTUALLY says about this. Then start going backwards and notice all the variety of things – good things – that a member of the kingdom of God is supposed to do. Your statement is simply false.
-Matt
“This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to ALL WHO BELIEVE. There is no difference, for ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”
This is the part I keep trying to point out to Matt. If this part is true, then it makes no sense to assume any responsibility; all you have to do is believe. Because everyone is a sinner and imperfect; so in that sense you’re no different from me. The only difference is belief.
I don’t see how that works out.
Living as if there was no Creator (before coming to know Him), and doing whatever we desired even though we knew deep down it wasn’t right.
After coming to know Christ your desires change on its own… the sin you once loved.. then disgusts you… once you submit yourself to Christ, He takes over. Then you begin to do everything.. for HIS GLORY, not for your own.
I don’t want to become obsessed with Yahweh.
- You can’t tell me that even when you were little.. you didn’t look at your hands and at yourself and wonder “what am I? I can think and have emotions.. but I didn’t make this body…”
When I was very little, I tended to think more along the lines of, “I can’t wait until supper….we’re having ice cream for dessert! WOOHOO!”
In other words: Existential crises are not the territory of toddlers.
-Other times you looks at ants, at you look down at them.. and this thought comes into your mind “Well if I can look down at ants, then is someone looking down at me?”
Of course. That’s a basic inquiry of the structure of the universe; it’s like saying, “if there’s a forward in time, is there a backward?” I don’t see how that implies that there is such a thing, though; time, for example, can be looked at as either a spacial dimension (in which case there is a backward, we just can’t access it), or as a measure of change (in which case there is no backward because it is merely measuring change; and you can’t undo change, you can only change back, which is ultimately more change and more effort….which means that time still marches on).
Likewise, one can view the ant-to-human relation as something that is continuous up to the level of godhood, or as something that is finitely interesting in itself — that the scope of the universe is so diverse as to account for an entire society of creatures that I can theoretically crush with the heel of my shoe (not that I would, mind you~).
Granted that no such boot has ever crushed our society, I can only assume that, if there is such a higher society than ours, that it is either (A) too large to interact with us in a meaningful way, or (B) they don’t bother us.
- It’s so easy to get lost in the lies of this world, you take your teachers as your authority who teach you the Bible is for ignorant people and science is for the intellectual.
Not really. I’ve been out of high school for quite some time now, and I barely use any of the information I was taught in school in my daily life. My job doesn’t require but the most rudimentary mathematical efforts; earth and life science is more of a hobby of mine than a belief system, as you seem to think of it; and the Bible is the popular text of a disturbingly famous cult.
On that note….a problem with the Bible and Christianity as a whole, is you guys’ attempt to make it seem relevant to all areas of life. I’m sure you believe it is, but by forcing interpretations into every square, you only serve to lighten the credibility of your cause. You loosen interpretations of this world until they can be explained by anything, and then you simply choose to adhere to the Christian explanation (when there are plenty of other religions to choose from). And then you just leave it at that, present it to the world in a “take it or leave it” fashion. That’s why people are leaving your religion. Because they start to sense the hollowness, the looseness of your interpretations of this world; the fact that they are loose enough to allow belief in God, but not tight enough to filter out other beliefs. So based on those interpretations….your beliefs can be no more “surely true” than those of other religions. Especially the scientific arguments; those merely account for the beginning of the universe. And every single world religion has a deity that they claim created the universe.
So you’re left with only the few cases you have presented here….which are hardly compelling.
So they brainwash you.. I was.. I still have no excuse for being atheist when I was because again.. it is EVIDENT we have a Creator, but out of my own free will I had chosen to not even hold primitive thoughts such as those.. I mean the science books have all the truth.. right??? (what I convinced myself to think then..)
Let me make something clear to you; what I choose is not to “disbelieve” in God. That is beyond my immediate control, just as it is beyond your immediate control to “become homosexual.” It’s not something my biology, my conscience, and my rationality will allow me to accept, the existence of God. No, what I choose to denounce is the work of your churches in this world, the maliciousness they spread in the interest of “serving God.” The claims that slavery is A-OK as long as it’s of Christian origin; that beating your slaves is okay, as long as they don’t die (because murder is wrong….what a conundrum!). That women exist to serve the pleasures and efforts of men. That God’s existence is “evident” in things that do not infer it. That we must first “choose to accept” God’s standard before it retroactively makes sense (as this is true of any standard, and therefore meaningless). Those are the things I denounce, and even proving God’s existence will not change them. If you wish to argue them away, then you must argue them away point by point, not by proving God’s existence.
-WRONG. The Bible has proved itself to be true over all this time, and so many things about science are written in the Bible prior to it being discovered such as the earth hangs on nothing, washing hands, the life is in the blood, etc….
“WRONG” what? And how has the Bible “proved” itself to be true?
Why was there no mention of microorganisms in the Bible?
Come to think of it….all the things that are explained as “supernatural” or “magical” in the Bible (save one or two important factors) have been explained by physical means; the life isn’t literally in the blood. It’s the nutrients that the blood supplies to other parts of the body, which aid in the production of proteins and such to help the body’s cycle of functionality in motion. It’s not as though your blood contains some magic essence called “life” that keeps you alive.
And sickness is, of course, the work of tiny little critters.
-His free gift is Eternal life with Him, our Maker, our Creator.. the life that we don’t deserve, because all of us didn’t want Him at first.
….um, at first, wouldn’t we have not been created yet? In which case we couldn’t want life…because we weren’t real yet….
we thought we made ourselves or something because we certainly weren’t living for Him.
I thought the Bible says the first humans were Adam and Eve? Didn’t they “know” that God had made them? So what’s this about? If they weren’t “at first,” then I don’t know what was, by the Bible.
He did it. We can be made right with God through Him only, and He proved it rising from the grave and everything… so what other evidence do you require??
What other evidence? Besides someone on an internet forum telling me to “Go to God” repeatedly? Well, I can think of a number of things….
Here.. why don’t you go and look at the evidence presented with no bias… You obviously are curious about God otherwise you wouldn’t be on here… so seek Him with your whole heart and YOU WILL find Him…
Nobody is without bias. All you’re asking me to do is switch my bias from a rational portrayal of sensible reality to one of supernatural voodoo and innuendo.
So, GO and seek Him with your whole heart, and you WILL find Him.
No.
Your statement is simply false.
Tell that to Andrea…she keeps giving me ammo, here….
Ms. Andrea,
Quoting you:
“Listen man.. WE are the ones at fault… because WE are the ones that live AS IF there is no Creator when IT IS EVIDENT there IS by just glimpsing at ourselves. WE are the ones that ignore Him, WE are the ones that reject His free gift, and WE are the ones that try to deny the evidence He has already presented.”
Why does this make any sense to you? Everything is created by god, correct? This is what you think? So he makes this horrible creation, us, and then makes up a scheme with which to redeem us. It was your god that made up the rules of sending himself down and getting strung up on some wood. Why? Not only did he make a disgusting creation in us (essentially your cynical view) he had to make up some flim-flamery in order to redeem us. He could just wave a hand and we’d all be “good clean folks” but no that be too easy.
Tell that to Andrea…she keeps giving me ammo, here….
Andrea , the life of faith is NOT freedom from personal responsibility to do the the best one can. Read the book of James for a primer on what the Bible ACTUALLY says about this. Then start going backwards and notice all the variety of things – good things – that a member of the kingdom of God is supposed to do. You may know this already, and I hope I’m preaching to the metaphorical choir. Tim wanted you to know this.
-Matt
Of course Matt that’s true… you can’t say you’re going to live for Christ but not lay certain things aside… and live for Him and His Glory. You do have certain responsibilities… that come natural to you when Christ comes do dwell inside of you…
In other words it’s not that you do this and that to be saved…
but because you are saved…. you do this and that… it just happens..
If you ain’t bearing fruit… most likely.. nothing happened… you had a false profession of Christ or something. Trust me.. when Christ gets you.. you CAN tell.
“the life of faith is NOT freedom from personal responsibility to do the the best one can”.
YES SIR!!!!!!! That’s most definitely correct
Ha. Ha! I c wut u did thar
Tim,
-”His free gift is Eternal life with Him, our Maker, our Creator.. the life that we don’t deserve, because all of us didn’t want Him at first.
….um, at first, wouldn’t we have not been created yet? In which case we couldn’t want life…because we weren’t real yet….”
- I’m talking at first in your life.. for example: me two years ago.. want God.. no.. I wanted to live my own life.. do my own thing… I’m talking about here and now before Christ comes into your life.. people are living for themselves and not for God.
“we thought we made ourselves or something because we certainly weren’t living for Him.
I thought the Bible says the first humans were Adam and Eve? Didn’t they “know” that God had made them? So what’s this about? If they weren’t “at first,” then I don’t know what was, by the Bible”.
You’re taking what I say and twisting it every time man.. stop that. I’m talking about US before knowing Christ.
“The claims that slavery is A-OK as long as it’s of Christian origin; that beating your slaves is okay, as long as they don’t die (because murder is wrong….what a conundrum!). That women exist to serve the pleasures and efforts of men.”
-You know what.. I don’t expect any less.. you twist what I say… well you most definitely know how to twist anything, even the Word of God. The way you say this.. is not true. I can’t convince you, so I just leave that to God and His will.. all I can do is pray for you.
Toby,
“Why does this make any sense to you? Everything is created by god, correct? This is what you think? So he makes this horrible creation, us, and then makes up a scheme with which to redeem us. It was your god that made up the rules of sending himself down and getting strung up on some wood. Why? Not only did he make a disgusting creation in us (essentially your cynical view) he had to make up some flim-flamery in order to redeem us. He could just wave a hand and we’d all be “good clean folks” but no that be too easy.”
-God made us with free will. He wants us to love/seek Him out of our own will, because we WANT to. God doesn’t want to force us, or interfere with our free will. God made humans- Adam and Eve gave authority to the devil by listening to him instead of God, at the Garden of Eden. That caused the fall of humanity. God still loves us enough to STILL provide a way to Him through Christ.
-But then again… the door is open for those who WANT to go in.. for those WHO WANT to be in the Glory of their Creator for Eternity. Problem is that it is up to each individual whether they will choose God or not.
-He provides enough evidence to where He doesn’t interfere with our free will. It makes perfect sense.
to the believers–
Maybe you shouldn’t describe an offer of eternal servitude as a ‘free gift’. Hey look everyone my bank is giving away free houses to anyone wiling to sign a mortgage.
b
I’m talking at first in your life.. for example: me two years ago.. want God.. no.. I wanted to live my own life.. do my own thing… I’m talking about here and now before Christ comes into your life.. people are living for themselves and not for God.
Oh, ‘kay, my bad.
You’re taking what I say and twisting it every time man.. stop that. I’m talking about US before knowing Christ.
I just assumed you meant “humanity as a whole.” Like I said, my bad.
-You know what.. I don’t expect any less.. you twist what I say… well you most definitely know how to twist anything, even the Word of God. The way you say this.. is not true. I can’t convince you, so I just leave that to God and His will.. all I can do is pray for you.
I guess it’s good and well that you abandon this here, because neither you nor Matt Garwood seems to be able to offer a satisfactory, Christian-originated condemnation of slavery, misogyny, and abuse. It’s a useless argument from either side; the case has been made. On this we seem to agree.
God made us with free will. He wants us to love/seek Him out of our own will, because we WANT to.
And He wants to punish us for not doing that. And He doesn’t want to see us get punished.
Triple Contradiction FTW!
Problem is that it is up to each individual whether they will choose God or not.
Yeah, “problem,” that.
-He provides enough evidence to where He doesn’t interfere with our free will. It makes perfect sense.
I see what your deal is; you consider “belief” to be a free will statement. And you know, in some ways I might agree with you….but there are very different kinds of belief, and I’d argue that none of them are in our direct control. If you wish to prove me wrong (or at the very least suggest as much), all you need to do is:
-) Choose to become gay;
-) Choose to think that torturing small children for the fun of it is not “objectively wrong”
-) Choose to believe that God does not exist, in spite of what you apparently think is an “overwhelming amount of evidence” (whose nature you seem unable to specify).
If you can do all of these things, then you will prove that I am wrong about beliefs not being under our direct control. Until then, I have no choice but to dismiss this particular argument of yours.
Tim and others… in case you’re not aware, Andrea’s claim that it is of our own free will to choose God or not is called “Arminianism” and certainly does not represent historical Christianity in the time of the Apostles, nor is it universally held today. I, for one, disagree with her statement. I fall firmly within the Calvinistic view of scripture – one that holds a sovereign God orchestrating all things, blessings and cursings, prosperity and suffering, belief and unbelief, to His glory. He uses ordinary means, but extraordinary/supernatural when it is called for. The belief in a supreme being necessitates this view, without even cracking open the Bible, imho… but Andrea, that view does not separate us as brothers and sisters in Christ. I see faithful Arminians all the time, but I see several major flaws and weaknesses inherent in your view of “free will” that not only weakens an arminian’s personal life in the kingdom, but will certainly fuel (more-so than you have) the ire of the intelligent onlooking atheist who knows even a modicum of Scripture.
In love,
Matt
Matt,
We have the free will to either accept or receive Christ, BUT God already knows who those will be. God knows all things from the beginning. At the same time, God chooses you and it is your own free will. If you truly come to believe in Christ, and bare fruits according to that claim, then you know God chose you from the beginning.
“one that holds a sovereign God orchestrating all things, blessings and cursings, prosperity and suffering, belief and unbelief, to His glory. He uses ordinary means, but extraordinary/supernatural when it is called for.”
Of course, that’s exactly how it is. As believers in Christ we are to take action for Christ and not just sit back in our cushy houses and have Bible Studies though. We need to go out there and proclaim the gospel to the people that are lost. All for God’s glory.
By the way, I’m no Arminian or whatever…. I’m a Christian, I follow CHRIST, and no one else.
Tim,
No prob man.. it’s all good…
About this statement:
“I see what your deal is; you consider “belief” to be a free will statement. And you know, in some ways I might agree with you….but there are very different kinds of belief, and I’d argue that none of them are in our direct control. If you wish to prove me wrong (or at the very least suggest as much), all you need to do is:
-) Choose to become gay;
-) Choose to think that torturing small children for the fun of it is not “objectively wrong”
-) Choose to believe that God does not exist, in spite of what you apparently think is an “overwhelming amount of evidence” (whose nature you seem unable to specify).”
*** That’s true, this is beyond our control, because it is in God’s control. He made us. That’s why the moral argument is so good, because God is that perfect standard of morality we compare things with. God has given us a conscience to where if we do any of the things aforementioned we know it is not right, yet some don’t care and do it anyway. ***
God is so righteous. He is so just. You see why God being just and loving at the same time has to punish sinners that don’t repent and turn to Him. He wouldn’t be JUST if He let everyone in to His glorious Kingdom. He is loving because He has provided a way for us to go with Him, that is attainable… through Christ alone.
BUT people choose to ignore Him and what He had done to redeem us and go in the path of destruction. They do things that are against His nature, that are morally wrong, and that deserves punishment.
When you come to know Christ Tim, it’s incredible how your very life changes. It’s like you thirst for Him, to be with your Maker, your Father. You long for being in the presence of your Creator, because He knows you best, and He made you for Him. You long to be in His presence for eternity. It’s like everything else starts to not matter anymore, but Him, and doing what pleases Him. Christ has saved my life, He took the deceit I was planted in, and tore that apart. I begun to see everything different, in a new light. It’s incredible.
You know Tim, I don’t want to argue with you one here. I’m here just trying to get you to the Lord, because when you get to Him… you know that the reason you were made, was to be with Him.
Glory be to God, Precious Jesus.
Or go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR4CCLnmf1Q
Arminian is a term, and it holds a meaning – it does not imply any knowledge of the theologian it is named for, just as believers before and after Calvin held a position commonly referred to as “Calvinistic”… But terms allow us to dialogue intelligently without misunderstanding. My “Calvinistic” leanings don’t mean I worship or follow John Calvin, but the term serves to identify (easily) a group of commonly held positions on interpretation, our daily walk with Christ, and our requirements within the church proper. That’s all
Of course I know you don’t follow Arminius.
Your understanding of the Christian’s responsibility does come across as a bit limited (hopefully just the limitations of this format of discussion, something I feel often when it causes misunderstanding of my own opinions.) This is what Tim and the others are referring to. Remember that Christ came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. The law is still a pedagogue (“teacher”) that shows us God’s standard. This includes much more than spreading the gospel, though that is a very important command from the mouth of Christ. Email me if you’d like to continue this discussion – it’s already quite outside the original topic. mjgarwood@gmail.com – I’d love to chat with a fellow believer any time. Nothing I’d rather talk about than our Lord and Savior.
-Matt
That’s why the moral argument is so good, because God is that perfect standard of morality we compare things with.
If you mean to imply that our own personal standards are actually those of God, somehow….then I think we must simply agree to disagree. I don’t believe that.
He wouldn’t be JUST if He let everyone in to His glorious Kingdom.
I think this is probably the biggest problem I have with the “getting into Heaven” debate. From what I understand:
-) God made mankind
-) God made mankind sinful
-) God doesn’t allow sinners into paradise
The common rebuttal for this case is that “God didn’t make us sinners, he gave us a choice, and we chose sin.” But if that’s true, and if it’s as you say — that God already knows who will make the choice to become Christian and who will not — then how is God just in this situation? Assuming of course that “just” is not defined as being connected with the will of God (as that’s a circular definition that doesn’t answer my question). How is it just to create something, give that something a power to choose (knowing full well what choices they will make and why), and then punish them based on the choices that you know they will make? That is completely circular and pointless, and it doesn’t point to a God that is either merciful or just.
And that’s by my own non-God-given standard, as I’m sure one of you will eventually point out (and then later recant, as it hurts your case to admit).
When you come to know Christ Tim, it’s incredible how your very life changes. It’s like you thirst for Him, to be with your Maker, your Father. You long for being in the presence of your Creator, because He knows you best, and He made you for Him. You long to be in His presence for eternity. It’s like everything else starts to not matter anymore, but Him, and doing what pleases Him.
Have you read Homer’s Odyssey? There’s a chapter in there about Lotus Flowers (which aren’t real, BTW, they’re mythical). A Lotus Flower is supposedly a flower that you eat, that fills you with complacency; it makes you yearn for more Lotus Flowers, and soon your entire existence is consumed with the desire for Lotus Flowers. Anything you do, you begin to judge against the possibility of obtaining more Lotus Flowers. All you begin to care about is Lotus Flowers, and how to obtain them.
Replace “Lotus Flowers” in the above paragraph with “Jesus,” and tell me how it is any different.
You know Tim, I don’t want to argue with you one here. I’m here just trying to get you to the Lord, because when you get to Him… you know that the reason you were made, was to be with Him.
I can clearly see that. Unfortunately for you, based on these premises that have been offered thus far, I am far from able to accept that standard. You won’t get anywhere with me by repeating the same taglines over and over again. So if that’s all you’re interested in, then I’ll save you the trouble and tell you not to waste your time.
Of course Matt that’s true… you can’t say you’re going to live for Christ but not lay certain things aside… and live for Him and His Glory. You do have certain responsibilities… that come natural to you when Christ comes do dwell inside of you…
In other words it’s not that you do this and that to be saved…
but because you are saved…. you do this and that… it just happens..
If you ain’t bearing fruit… most likely.. nothing happened… you had a false profession of Christ or something. Trust me.. when Christ gets you.. you CAN tell.
Andrea,
I am not trying to mock or twist anything. I am honestly trying to see how different people come at these issues, and I want to learn something. I am sure that the conversion you have experienced was a very real thing, and you fully believe everything you are saying here.
That said, here is what I don’t understand about what you said above: If this is true, that a real change takes place, why is this not easily noticeable in society?
Andrew has brought this up many times, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen an answer outside of the “No True Scotsman” argument. Why do places like secular Europe outperform religious (Christian) places like the United States in so many social measures of morality (morality in a sense that I bet you and I would agree on)? Less murder, violence, rape, abortion, drug use, domestic violence…
Why? If what you say is true, then how could these facts possibly be true?
I am sure we could all go citing statistics back and forth, but I think it would be dishonest to not admit that there is at least no significant, discernible difference between between behavior of those who are “saved” and those who are not. (Again, without involving our Scotsman friend.)
Why would this be true? If what you say is true, how can this be the reality?
Let me also ask you some other questions about what you’ve said.
He is so just.
How are you judging Him? What standard are you using?
You see why God being just and loving at the same time has to punish sinners that don’t repent and turn to Him. He wouldn’t be JUST if He let everyone in to His glorious Kingdom.
I think you addressed this to Tim, but honestly, no, I don’t logically see how this would not be just. Could you please explain?
If Jusus came back and said that everyone gets to go to heaven, would you say “how unjust, I will not worship an unjust L-rd like you!”?
He is loving because He has provided a way for us to go with Him, that is attainable… through Christ alone.
As Matt has said, his belief is that this is not in fact attainable for everyone; only for those G-d has predestined, not simply foreknown. (So when Romans 8:29 says foreknew, it does not mean that G-d knew the future and He predestined based on that knowledge, as you might read it, but rather foreknowing is an action verb; it was part of G-d’s predestination process based on His sovereign will, not yours.)
So because the G-d in which Matt believes does not provide an attainable way (for everyone) to “go with Him,” is Matt’s G-d unjust? (And if not, why not?)
BTW, Matt also believes that G-d’s grace is irresistible, so if He has predestined you, you will be saved; you can’t resist or prevent it (He looses none). So if a person has been predestined, they will be saved, no matter what. If a person has not been predestined, they will suffer the consequences (again this is not based on what the person might do based on their own free will, but on G-d sovereign will only). Do you consider this just as well? (It is, of course: “Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?”)
By the way, I’m no Arminian or whatever…. I’m a Christian, I follow CHRIST, and no one else.
To be fair to Matt, it certainly sounds like you follow Arminian theology.
(If you only follow Christ, why don’t you believe that people will be judged according to what they do for Him, as Jesus Himself describes in Matthew 25? I mean this honestly.)
Based on this assumption (you follow Arminian beliefs), let me ask you a question. I asked what you think of Matt’s G-d, but I think you face a similar problem.
If someone is born in Pakistan, China or even India, the chances that they will hear the gospel and be free to “convert” are rather low, certainly much lower than most people contributing here (agreed?). While a guy like Tim has the freedom to argue and debate with people like you and Matt and is constantly being introduced to Christ (and prayed for, I’m sure), I think we could say that salvation is attainable for him (as you describe it). But what of a hypothetical guy Tim’s age who grew up herding goats in a small village in Afghanistan? He is a pious Muslim, therefore he believes very strongly in the Creator. He just doesn’t believe in Jesus (well, he does, but not in the way that you do; he believes very strictly that there is one and only one G-d). He doesn’t even know how to read, let alone have a chance to see a Bible. He has never met a Christian. One day, while in the field herding, he is killed by a stray bullet.
How was the salvation you describe attainable for him? If it was not, how is his situation just?
Also, since you have talked quite a bit about G-d justice, I have another question on that front. Let’s continue with the example above. That young man is currently (under your Just system) sentenced with eternal torment and gnashing of teeth.
So if terrible eternal torture is just, what would you see as unjust?
Why would 37 trillion years of torment simply not be enough? Why would 37 trillion years be so unjust?
Or do you see the sin that the man has committed in not accepting Christ as so terrible that anything but the worst possible sentence would _just_ be unfair (and if so, could you please “justify” this view)?
Also, Matt,
I am glad you brought up early Christianity. A very, very popular view in early Christianity was universalism (most of the early churches followed this view). How were they fooled into believing in such an unjust and unloving G-d? How could anyone who supposedly knows G-d see Him as so unjust and unloving? (I know I kind of asked this of Andrea in a different way.)
“We are all creatures that are made to worship something. If we don’t worship and venerate God, we tend to worship and venerate our favorite sports team, girl, celebrity, car, career, and/or bank account.”
I think this is incorrect. I don’t worship anything that I’m aware of.
Tim,
“How is it just to create something, give that something a power to choose (knowing full well what choices they will make and why), and then punish them based on the choices that you know they will make? That is completely circular and pointless, and it doesn’t point to a God that is either merciful or just.”
We do have the power to choose, but God knows whether or not out of your free will, you will choose Him.
Ex: You are a biology teacher. You’ve never showed favoritism to any of your kids. You teach them the same material. You treat them all the same way. But at the end of the year you pretty much know who will pass the course and who won’t. It’s not the teacher’s fault, it’s the kids that didn’t apply themselves to do a good job. Those that do care about the class, will pass with flying colors.
-God has provided the evidence to all of us. Not just in creation but in Scripture. Not just Scripture, but people around us that have had Christ dwell in them, and they try to show us what’s up and bring us to Him, etc… The thing is some just don’t care, some do…. God made us all with the capability of acknowledging Him. All of us are ABLE to do so, but it is up to us whether we acknowledge Him, and turn to Him.
“For God so loved the world that WHOSOEVER believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. ” (John 3:16)
That make sense?
We are responsible for our own actions. Which is why we will be judged by Him…. He can’t force us. He comes to you and you respond. Or He comes to you when you are ready to respond.
God is infinite, limitless, inexhaustible…. we can never fully comprehend His ways… but that’s why at the same time it is our choice and He already knows who those will be/chose them. Like the teacher example above.
God Bless.
We do have the power to choose, but God knows whether or not out of your free will, you will choose Him.
I’m not sure what you mean here….are you saying that “God knows that you will choose him, regardless of your free will?” In that case, how do you justify the existence of people who live and die without ever converting?
If, however, you mean something else, then perhaps you will need to clarify.
Ex: You are a biology teacher. You’ve never showed favoritism to any of your kids. You teach them the same material. You treat them all the same way. But at the end of the year you pretty much know who will pass the course and who won’t. It’s not the teacher’s fault, it’s the kids that didn’t apply themselves to do a good job. Those that do care about the class, will pass with flying colors.
The same problem I have with all such analogies is that it assumes a relationship between the authority figure and Yahweh. In an immediate sense it’s possible to see the connection, but the more profound the connection we draw, the less apparent it becomes; in this case, it’s important to point out that we cannot see or even be sure that God exists, whereas the existence of the biology teacher is as simple as looking to the front of the classroom. There is no reading between the lines, no assuming (in the vein of, “Well, the universe is complex so —> complexity requires a designer, etc. —> therefore the universe was designed, and the Bible which I believe says this designer was God, so —> therefore God exists”); it’s just a matter of, “look, there’s the teacher.” Simple as that.
As for myself, I am not comfortable taking directions from someone of whose existence I have not been ascertained. My disbelief in God is probably the primary barrier to accepting the validity of such analogies; as I told you before, many of your cases already assume the existence of God, which is problematic in a debate such as this.
-God has provided the evidence to all of us. Not just in creation but in Scripture. Not just Scripture, but people around us that have had Christ dwell in them, and they try to show us what’s up and bring us to Him, etc…
What evidence? That’s what I keep asking; your evidence all requires that one be actively looking for evidence….that’s not what “evidence” means. Evidence is something that would cause us to infer a certain scenario, even if we had not thought of that scenario before (or had anyone to explain it to us).
Do you watch any crime shows, or read any detective novels? It’s a lot like this; in a crime novel, the evidence is often set up such that an unusual situation has occurred. The detective(s) on the case are forced to look at the available evidence and figure out what happened and who is to be held accountable. There’s usually a cycle involved wherein he/she thinks the suspect is a number of people, but through encountering new evidence, each suspect is systematically ruled out until only a small pool remains. At this point some projection of who the culprit is becomes necessary, but there are already some indications; therefore, anyone who fits the indications even to some degree becomes somewhat of a suspect, and so it’s not true projection or “guessing,” it’s more of a deduction.
The detective doesn’t just try to figure out from scratch who the culprit is. He isn’t told who the culprit is, and then sent off to find evidence to prove that that man (or woman) is the culprit. He has to use the evidence before he knows who the culprit is, when he is completely devoid of any knowledge to that end, using only the available clues and hints, vague as they may be. And a very startling percentage of the time, it is almost certainly possible to do so, because of the (very fortunate) compatability between human behaviors and forensic studies….because humans leave forensic evidence so easily, and even sometimes leave more evidence trying to cover up the original evidence than they would have if they had not tried to cover their tracks at all.
What I’m getting at here is….if God exists, and he wants to be known, there should be a way for Him to be known outside of the Bible or human interaction (i.e. being “told the answer”). Such a supposedly obvious answer should be easy to deduce on one’s own. Otherwise, it is not obvious.
You Christianfolk here wouldn’t be in such a rut about this simple dilemma if you did not so often rely on the claim that Christianity can be reached without the Bible or without being told about it; you claim that it’s “so obvious” and that “science proves it,” and yet you also claim that the Bible and human testimony are required to prove it, otherwise this other “obvious” evidence becomes meaningless….
It seems to me that you only take the position that “The truth of Christianity is obvious just by looking at the world around us” when you’re trying to debunk the claims of an atheist who says otherwise; when the same atheist takes the position that, “Well, if it’s so obvious, why do we need the Bible?”, you recant back to the position that the Bible is “part of the evidence.”
Point being: If we say the Bible makes it “obvious,” then that’s a biased statement, because it assumes the Bible is more credible than any other source. If we back out from that assumption (which I do), then we’re left with the “obviousness” of every other world religion, as well — every one that has a Bible, at least.
it is our choice and He already knows who those will be/chose them.
So how is that just?
Luke,
Thanks for the great responses – to me and Andrea. Two quick things -
1) What’s the deal with G-d and L-rd, why no vowels? Just curious.
2) Early Christianity had way more than the reformed view I espouse and the universalism you mentioned – Gnosticism, works-based, antinomianism, etc… So you are right (if this is your point) that the mere presence of a viewpoint at that time in history by a group does not have much weight. My intent, and the reformers like Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and many others, is to not find out A view from early Christianity, but the view of the apostles, who received and transmitted (first generation from Christ Himself) Jesus’ teaching. Very quickly, as should be expected when truth is handled by sinful man, the message began to be distorted and we begin to see things built on things built on things that are so far left of the clear teachings it amazes the onlooker. Case in point – Catholic purgatory and the treasury of merit… the pope can get you out of purgatory if you help him finance his Cathedral… I mean that’s Benny Hinn, Bakker, Swaggart, Popoff, Oral Roberts,….. All this is to say that a proper hermeneutic applied systematically tot he text, with an understanding of the social and political climate, is one of the only sure ways of knowing what is meant. It is this very thrust that made me lean “reformed” several years back, and I feel it is the BEST (not necessarily perfect) understanding of the true message of the Bible. Whether it is true or not is another discussion.
Peace,
Matt
Luke,
Good questions man.. thanks for your sincerity and all.
First of all, I don’t follow Arminian theology, just in case you didn’t know my guys I trust as far as theology are John MacArthur, John Piper, Paul Washer.. etc… because they follow Biblical teachings and don’t make up their own. I said at the same time it is your own free will and God knows or (foreknows) who those will be. All of us are born as sinners, with the same evidence (as far as creation), so we really have no excuse for not turning to God.
About your question about why are secular countries more ‘moral’ supposedly vs. U.S. who is known to be Christian. Well Luke nations aren’t Christian or secular, it’s the people in them. There are many people that claim to be born-again yet live like the secular. Like me telling you “Luke I’m a great cook”, just saying it with my mouth, but never actually cooking for you.. make sense? Those that are all out for Christ you can most definitely tell.. guys like these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJT8IN2moxk&feature=PlayList&p=ACB2B5EDB059DC55&index=7
-Luke if someone killed your entire family… and the police took this person to jail.. if they let them go after killing your family.. would that be just? NO. He committed a felony, he deserves punishment. We demand justice in our daily lives, yet you expect any less from God?
-What about someone who never heard the gospel? All of us are dirty and the only way we can be cleansed from our sin is through Jesus Christ. I’ve heard of people in Muslim countries that Christ has come to them in visions and revealed the gospel to them.. obviously they were seeking God and since they were God showed them who He really was…. you can see a video on that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xS9qcYhdls&feature=related
Plus, the gospel has been a world-wide movement for ages, that’s why Christian missionaries are on the run proclaiming Truth to the people everywhere in the world.
“So if terrible eternal torture is just, what would you see as unjust?”
You know what is unjust?? People rejecting Christ when He took the full wrath of God upon Himself completely, restoring our relationship with God, and STILL people rejecting Him.. THAT is unfair…
No one could ever drink the cup of the wrath of God the way Christ did…. No pain in the history of the universe is comparable to this one.
Most importantly no one has nothing on God’s Holy Spirit… no one can stop God…. Christ will keep bringing the world to Himself forever until He comes back…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-08YZF87OBQ
May your heart be opened to Christ, and the deceit stripped away from your life….
God Bless.
Tim,
Don’t over complicate things:
1) God has no limits, He knows all things.
2) He has made it available to EVERYONE to obtain salvation through Jesus Christ. Not just Jews, not just Gentiles, not just Brazilians.. EVERYBODY…
Evidence that I guess is the type you are looking for:
( More info can be found in ‘I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist By Norman Geisler & Frank Turek)
-The New Testament alone has over 6,000 manuscripts, the ancient document that follows that is Homer’s Illiad with only 600 manuscripts, and all ancient document go down from there.
-By the process of comparison and cross checking, the original New Testament can be reconstructed with great accuracy. Since there are copies spread all over the ancient world, there’s NO way one scribe or priest can alter the Word of God. No other ancient book is so well authenticated.
-Jerusalem was demolished by 70 A.D. by Titus the Roman emperor. All info included in the NT is so detailed on Jerusalem before it was demolished that it couldn’t be written by someone of a later generation. All NT books were written before A.D. 100, about 70 years after the ascension of Jesus.
-If there was ever a place that a legendary resurrection could not occur it was Jerusalem, because the Jews and the Romans were all too eager to squash Christianity and could have easily done it by parading Jesus’ body around the city.
-There are about at least 30 characters in the N.T. who have been confirmed as historical through archaeology or non-christian sources.
-If the NT events are fictional, then why do the non-Christian writers record some as though they actually occurred?
*Jesus Christ is cited by Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Phlegon, Thallus, Suetonious, Lucion, Celsus, Mara Bar-Serapian, the Jewish Talmud (which said he did sorcery-admitting the miracles he did had to have happened, these are the opponents to Christianity.)
-Nobody dies for something that they KNOW is a lie. Why would the N.T. writers endure persecution, torture, and death for a fictional story? They said they SAW Jesus, that they TOUCHED Him, that they ATE with Him..If they didn’t actually do these things they wouldn’t be willing to die for something that they made up or are lying about.
-Historical novelists usually don’t use the names of real people, especially powerful gov’t and religious officials who could easily deny the story and the writers know they are getting into a heap of trouble by writing about them. They were willing to run the risk.. why? The saw Jesus, they saw Him alive, they touched Him, after He had been put to death…
Tim, we have a Creator God and He reveals Himself to us.
Check this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mUpmq855yI
God Bless.
“Nobody dies for something that they KNOW is a lie.”
Andrea, we’ve already been through this. I asked you if you see any signifcance in people from OTHER religions who are willing to die for their faith, and you said that you didn’t. So why ask us to see significance in it when it’s your particular religion?
Andrew,
Again I’m talking about eye-witnesses.
I get it some die for what they sincerely believe… right got that… We’re talking guys that said…”Hey I SAW Jesus Christ alive, and I TOUCHED Him, go check the tomb… HE IS NOT THERE!”
They were willing to die because they SAW the resurrected Jesus.
They were willing to die because they TOUCHED the resurrected Jesus.
They were eye-witnesses.
-If I tell you.. Andrew.. I can turn my hair purple in a snap!
BUT I don’t do it…. you gonna be like
“Andrea… whatever girl.. I’m out!”
Yet if I actually do turn my hair purple in a snap, you see it, you touch it.. then you’d be like “Oh snap sis!!! you just turned your hair purple let me call my mom and my sis.. and bubba… etc… so you can show them!!!”
If nothing happened… the name of Christ would’ve stopped dead on its tracks…
Because it happened.. NO ONE has been able to stop it.. and NO ONE ever will.. lest they be coming against God Himself.
Love this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y7IKrkQSyA
Like me telling you “Luke I’m a great cook”, just saying it with my mouth, but never actually cooking for you..
Actually, that’s exactly what I see as far as evidence that Jesus was resurrected. Everyone says it happened, but nobody’s got the proof….
I’ve heard of people in Muslim countries that Christ has come to them in visions and revealed the gospel to them..
Yeah. Mm-hm. Sure. Now you’re just grasping at straws again….
You know what is unjust?? People rejecting Christ when He took the full wrath of God upon Himself completely, restoring our relationship with God, and STILL people rejecting Him.. THAT is unfair…
Umm….isn’t Jesus supposed to be an avatar of God? In which case they’re basically the same thing. So he took himself upon himself. No big deal there.
Don’t over complicate things:
Don’t oversimplify things.
-The New Testament alone has over 6,000 manuscripts, the ancient document that follows that is Homer’s Illiad with only 600 manuscripts, and all ancient document go down from there.
Popularity =/= dependability.
-Jerusalem was demolished by 70 A.D. by Titus the Roman emperor. All info included in the NT is so detailed on Jerusalem before it was demolished that it couldn’t be written by someone of a later generation. All NT books were written before A.D. 100, about 70 years after the ascension of Jesus.
….okay….I still don’t see how that proves anything about Jesus….
-There are about at least 30 characters in the N.T. who have been confirmed as historical through archaeology or non-christian sources.
Did you know that Adolph Hitler is a real person? That’s historically verifiable. By the reasoning you put up here, that means Persona 2: Innocent Sin is a factual account of the supernatural, because Hitler makes an appearance.
-If the NT events are fictional, then why do the non-Christian writers record some as though they actually occurred?
I don’t believe they’re fictional so much as very, very greatly embellished.
(which said he did sorcery-admitting the miracles he did had to have happened, these are the opponents to Christianity.)
Not at all; not anymore than the fact that the Christian groups in one of my former school districts had railed against the local Wiccan faction — which was trying to implement teachings of Wiccan nature in the local school curriculum — “proves” that Wiccan magic is “real.” The Christians were arguing against the Wiccans, see, because they said the Wiccans were really Satanists in disguise, and they were trying to deceive the children. Everyone else just said, “Yeah, well, Wiccan ‘religion’ is mind-numbing superstition anyway. We don’t believe it, but it still has to go.” And the whole thing got turned down.
According to you, this proves there was some supernatural activity going on there — just because Christians are easy to freak out doesn’t mean there are really such things as sorcerers and magical “miracles.”
-Nobody dies for something that they KNOW is a lie.
I wouldn’t necessarily say they did know it was false (I also wouldn’t necessarily call it a lie); we’re talking about a period in history where things that we now understand to be anything but were readily and easily attributed to the supernatural. As one man once wrote, it was a period during which you could but raise a flashlight to a man and send him off screaming as if all the demons in Hell were after him. So excuse me if I do not take accounts of the supposed supernatural very lightly, given their origins in such a period.
-Historical novelists usually don’t use the names of real people, especially powerful gov’t and religious officials who could easily deny the story and the writers know they are getting into a heap of trouble by writing about them. They were willing to run the risk.. why? The saw Jesus, they saw Him alive, they touched Him, after He had been put to death…
If any part of the NT is to be believed, then martyrdom is easy to imagine. So that’s not a problem. If they believed it, then they would likely have martyred themselves, regardless of whether or not it was actually true.
Tim, we have a Creator God and He reveals Himself to us.
Lee Strobel? Maybe later. Got limited bandwidth until 2am.
Andrea: Tim, you know George Washington was the first president of the U.S. right?
Tim: Well not necessarily, back then people embellished things, so really it was his uncle being president who had a false i.d. claiming to be George Washington, who was really in Hawaii as a doctor. Plus I wasn’t there to see it so, it didn’t happen.
**** It is so easy to make up circular arguments to negate the Truth Tim…. so easy.*****
You’re in denial. Face the facts man. Christ proved Himself True…
It appears you don’t believe in the supernatural…
or miracles..
but hey you say you are atheist right… so you must believe in miracles because the greatest one happened… creation???
Come on now man. Drop it..
The evidence is clearly presented and you just don’t want to take it.
Tim: Well not necessarily, back then people embellished things, so really it was his uncle being president who had a false i.d. claiming to be George Washington, who was really in Hawaii as a doctor. Plus I wasn’t there to see it so, it didn’t happen.
You’re not really trying very hard, are you? At least pick an analogy that relates to your accusations in some way.
You’re in denial. Face the facts man. Christ proved Himself True…
The Nile? I’m nowhere near Egypt~
Nah, I’m just pullin’ yer leg ;D I know what you mean. And I have to say, although I’m not surprised you’d try to steer things in that direction, I am a bit bummed that you’d stoop to that so early. I guess you really don’t have a case for God….
It appears you don’t believe in the supernatural…
or miracles..
*gasp* What was your first clue?
but hey you say you are atheist right… so you must believe in miracles because the greatest one happened… creation???
What?
Come on now man. Drop it..
The evidence is clearly presented and you just don’t want to take it.
Whatever you want to believe; it’s fine by me.
By the way….have you ever wondered why a person like me would come onto a site like this? Or why a person like me would argue some of the things I argue with you? You try to make it so personal, and in doing so you sell both of us short….it’s nothing personal, at least not on this end. I don’t expect to change your mind about believing in God, nor do I expect to have my mind changed. You might consider it an exploratory measure; I’m curious as to how you people can seriously believe this stuff….also, I’m curious as to whether you sincerely believe it, or if it’s something you just don’t care about, so you take what’s given to you and you blow off everything else.
Not that that matters; I’m no more “in denial” of Yahweh’s scripture than you are “in denial” of atheism. It’s an insult to both our intelligences to try and imply otherwise, and it sells the argument short. Not for the first time, I’m quite disappointed in the way you choose to end this argument
If you prefer to look at it this way, feel free to….
…as you know, I don’t believe in god. Especially Yahweh, but speaking generally, I also don’t believe in any other god. I have my views and I have my beliefs, and they are not 100% complete — in fact, I doubt they ever will be — but they are enough to satisfy my desire for purpose and reason. What unknowns there are have little to do with the way I live my life; the exact details of the way the universe was created are fascinating to me, but they are not necessary to live a fulfilling life to the ends that I seek. They’re simply fascinating to me in their own right. That said, there is nothing that my view doesn’t account for, although there are some things it doesn’t fully explain. Those are different things, of course; nothing that we know to be possible is made impossible in my view.
Following from that, though…if God is real, then of course it would be a very helpful thing to know. And the best way to know is to ask someone who knows. Assuming that you know (which is a HUGE assumption in the first place, but bear with me), and that I ask you, I expect a thorough case to be made. You make claims — a LOT of claims — that have little or no backing information. They require me to blindly place trust in things that I have no reason to trust (such as documents written about a man by people who admit that they worship that man as a supreme being), and to claim that I “know” and “feel” things that I do not know and feel. Given that….if there is any doubt in my mind, no matter how small, then I will present it, and I will not let go of it until it is satisfied.
You claim that your belief in God is certain and unfaltering; if that is the only way to believe in God, then I do not. I entertain the possibility in the back of my mind, as most people do given the polarization and misinformation in today’s society (thanks in no small part to the world’s Christian and Muslim churches), but I do not “believe,” I do not “feel” God’s existence, and moreover I do not feel that these things are “obvious” in any way. I have doubts, very real doubts, and they overwhelm the possibility (in my mind) of Yahweh being a real entity in any sense. As Albert Einstein once said, “I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creations, or who experiences free will [in the manner we experience].” It simply doesn’t fly with me.
So at the end of the day….you can sit here and make accusations, and you can explain away my disbelief and say I’m in denial, or say I’m a minion of Satan sent to pull you away from your faith….but that doesn’t change a single thing. I still feel the way I feel, and all the name-calling, belittling and second-guessing isn’t going to change that. The only way you can change my mind is to confront the doubts that I have, to my satisfaction. If that is too steep a challenge for you, then it is your own fault, and you should own up to that. It’s childish to accuse me of such things because your case is incomplete.
I mean, I understand if you’re frustrated that you weren’t able to convert me with a wave of the hand as you probably were converted yourself….but if you can’t win the game, don’t play. That’s all I have to say~
Tim,
I apologize if I seemed to belittle you or any of that. Believe it or not I had a lot of common with you. As a matter of fact no one pronounced me converted as you say. One day God just convicted me out of nowhere and turned me to Christ. No human person could convince me, I used to belittle Christians, and criticize the Bible much like you do now. Thing is no one sat down to explain things to me, and maybe if someone had I would’ve understood and not gone through my stage of atheism. So that is why I am one here.. I’m trying to the best of my ability to give you examples and historical facts to help you understand. I try to help you conceive of what it was that Christ did for humanity in taking the wrath we deserved to make us clean before God. If it is indeed true that Christ is Lord of a person’s life you should be able to tell because their desires change, it’s like you see the world in a whole new set of lens. That’s what happened to me.
I’ve talked to a lot of people and they always say that if they felt God or had an experience maybe they would believe. All of us on here are really here to help you. Maybe God will reveal Himself to you in a way where all your doubts are dismissed. What would it hurt if you just asked God to show you. Sincerely from the heart. If you are not ready for that, well we’re praying for you on here.
Again Tim,
We are here for you. We try to clear up your doubts. But man I try to explain to you the way I wish someone would’ve explained it to me and when you still doubt… I just don’t get how you don’t see it. But it’s ok… I will pray for you. I’m sure all of the guys from crossexamined will join in prayer for you to come to know Christ in a way that you are CERTAIN and not doubtful at all.
So man.. it’s all good.. God Bless you….
Andrea: “We are here for you. We try to clear up your doubts. But man I try to explain to you the way I wish someone would’ve explained it to me and when you still doubt… I just don’t get how you don’t see it.”
It’s simple to convert an atheist. It’s three steps:
1. Show strong evidence of a supernatural’s existence.
2. Show that the supernatural has the qualities you believe it has.
3. Show that this supernatural deserves worship.
If you can do this, reasonable atheists everywhere will be compelled to adopt your world-view.
I also recommend you understand a common ‘tool of judgment’ among atheists and others; that the evidence should be proportional to the claim. In other words, amazing claims require amazing evidence. It will save you many exasperated hours of comparing the threshold of credence imposed by believing that George Washington was the first president with believing that snakes can talk.
“Andrew, Again I’m talking about eye-witnesses.”
I can give you many examples of charismatic religious leaders who managed to talk large groups of followers into giving up all their posessions, leaving their families behind, and in many cases ultimately killing themselves. Jim Jones had ‘eye witnesses’. He got a thousand or so people to drink poisoned cool aid. Perhaps if all that had happened a few centuries earlier, in more credulous times, he might have got a religion to grow up around him.
See, I now believe even more firmly than I did before getting involved with my atheist friends on here that I can’t convince you to believe… it is God who regenerates the heart and makes it possible to “have eyes that see and ears that hear”.
Case in point, as per Coylh’s proposition
1) the amount of information we see encoded JUST in dna, not to mention the larger-scale evidences necessitates the conclusion of a designer with the power to create. The aesthetic beauty of this amazing structure is symmetric and bears every hallmark of information being communicated in a beautiful way (I recently saw a top-down picture of dna compared to stain glass masterpieces and it rivals, if not beats them all, imho). The science of information, which is not material, is a fascinating frontier in science… I wish I could get the german’s name from my memory to the keyboard, but it eludes me – there’s a guy who has a mindblowing presentation on what IS information. Sounds like it’d be dry, but it’s anything but.
2) I believe the supernatural is supernatural by definition. I expect it and believe it to be above and beyond the material, expected patterns of this reality. You probably mean something more, but that’s my quicky answer.
3) Men recorded their interactions with this God in a reliable manner, with more documentation than we require for any other historical document. Signs and wonders which authenticated the prophets accompanied them. More later.
-Matt
Matt, if DNA was evidence alone for God, then why is it that the more someone knows about and understands DNA, the less likely they are to be religious? i.e. Biologists are much more likely to be atheist than the general population. Lewis Wolpert knows more about cells than you or me. He’s a humanist. If the evidence was so obvious, how come it alludes an expert on the subject, and yet is apparent to you?
Oh, and to both Andrea and Matt – snowflakes have symettry and beauty. One could say they have the APPEARANCE design. But we understand the natural processes that create them.
Unless you want to say that God designs each individual snowflake, in which case you’re saying that the laws of physics are suspended several billions of times each time there’s snowfall.
DISCOVERING that there is order does not necessarily (using the term philosophically, not generally) mean there is no one behind the order. Since we’ve never observed anything on the scale of a universe accidentally falling into place, or even dumping letters of the alphabet on the floor and getting information back, why should we be so UNscientific as to do the same when we discover information elsewhere? You bring up a good point, though Andrew – but let’s not forget there are a LOT of brilliant scientists out there and many of them are believers in a designer.
-Matt
“DISCOVERING that there is order does not necessarily (using the term philosophically, not generally) mean there is no one behind the order.”
But you are using order as evidence.
“but let’s not forget there are a LOT of brilliant scientists out there and many of them are believers in a designer”
I’m not seeing THEM using science as justification for their belief. Whereas you are. If you were right that the evidence is there in the science, one would expect to see greater belief among those who know most about this ‘evidence’. Wherease in fact we see the opposite.
Andrea,
I will gladly answer the question you posed to me, but I’d like to say that I would also like to hear your answers to the questions I asked you earlier.
(You did answer one about the shepherd, by saying that he might have a vision, so let me adjust that question by ruling out visions, and ask you to answer it again, please.)
if someone killed your entire family… and the police took this person to jail.. if they let them go after killing your family.. would that be just? NO. He committed a felony, he deserves punishment.
Why does it have to be a he?
This brings several points to my mind, so I’ll just go through some of them.
In the scenario you put forth, I’ll assume some things (the person is really guilty, the police did not break the rules in making their case, etc, etc.). No, in that case I don’t think it would be just for that person to just be let go immediately. For the most part, I am happy with how our judicial system works. Personally, I am against the death penalty (on a simple level, I think killing is wrong), so if this person was given the death penalty, I would not consider that just. But like i said, I am fairly happy with our justice system. If someone commits a murder at a young age, as terrible as that is, I think it is often fair and just that the person be released on parole decades later, in their old age (as long as it can be reasonably ascertained that the person is no longer a danger to society, of course).
On that point, let me also say that a huge part — the biggest part, of why I think this person should be placed in prison is not because of some desire for revenge or out of anger (Matthew 5:22). Those things might make us feel better, but carry little practical effect. It is because such a person is reasonably assumed to be a danger to others and therefore needs to be kept from them.
But let me move on to the actual idea of punishment. Do I think daily torment should be inflicted upon this person? No, I don’t. Should they be tortured? No. Maybe we we should just withhold medical care? I don’t agree. Maybe have their hands should be cut off to make future murders more difficult? No. Maybe we gouge out their eyes (it would be difficult to see how they would murder another person that way, plus we might think it would make others think twice)? Still no. (Do you agree with me on these points? Why or why not?)
So while I agree that some punishment should be doled out in the name of justice, I think some reason must be used. I don’t see any logic or reason in the argument: if person a does something bad, no matter the degree, they deserve punishment 1 for as long as possible.
Let me give a Biblical example. Do I think that children who disobey and are stubborn and rebellious deserve to be punished by their parents? Yes. Do I think that is just? Yes.
Do I think that they should be stoned to death? No, I don’t. I prefer time-out for my daughter at this point.
So, yes, while I think certain things deserve to be punished, and many of the punishments our society accepts are just, the punishment must fit the crime. To me, that equation is a huge component of the idea of justice.
So let me ask you yet another question, based on what you asked me. If this person who has killed my family is given the death penalty, and in their (we really need a new pronoun in this language) last days of death row, picks up the Bible out of sheer boredom, and reads that they too can be saved, and prays to Jesus, what happens?
You now say that this person who has killed my family deserves eternal bliss, right? How is this just?
(Honestly, this to me is most analogous with the scenario you put forth of the person just being let go by the police.)
On the other hand, you say that the Afghan shepherd, who has never killed anyone, never stolen, and has led a pious life deserves to be tormented for 133 trillion years, and that’s just for a start. Just looking at these two hypothetical people, can you honestly explain to me the justice you see?
Thanks,
Luke
Luke: That’s a terrific point and I’d like to see it answered with more than, ” Because, man, Jesus (who was actually god himself) took all the sin away when he came down on his suicide mission! And if you don’t see that then you’re just in denial because of your free will!”
Yep, me too, and so would the Israelites. This is a perfect example of not understanding the text or the context. The Israelites had penalties UP TO death, which would be an incorrigible (sp?) youth. I can tell you, it might have only happened a few times. I hate feeling, in our American society, that children have the right to not only verbally, but physically abuse adults, and they are doing it in increasing numbers, as increasing numbers of them are raised in single-parent homes lacking the supervision and maturity necessary in the parent.
of course I forgot to paste the quote! aaagh this brain! My post is in reference to
Do I think that they should be stoned to death? No, I don’t. I prefer time-out for my daughter at this point.
So, yes, while I think certain things deserve to be punished, and many of the punishments our society accepts are just, the punishment must fit the crime. To me, that equation is a huge component of the idea of justice.
And to say so is a gross exaggeration of the case, as I understand it from my studies. Much as the year of Jubilee was commanded but rarely if ever observed in actuality. Basically, a child refusing to listen to his/her parents to the point of harming the peace of the culture or endangering them, making a mockery of their authority and their theonomic foundation for that law, the MAXIMUM penalty allowed was death.
-Matt
So, Mr. Garwood, do you think that the punishment of stoning in those “few times” (I mean, who really knows how frequently or infrequently) was a rule sent down by god?
Yes, I believe that the entirety of Scripture was written by men, inspired by God. Not on their verbal testimony alone, nor on their reputation alone (as I have no problem saying not EVERYTHING Paul wrote was inspired, for ex.) but on the witness of signs and wonders. I believe that God demonstrated His power in a unique way to the men and women who wrote these things. I also believe in the internal, self-witness of these books, but I realize many here do not, so I submit the signs and wonders. Example – turning the Nile to blood, calling down plagues, leading the people of Israel supernaturally from Egypt, striking a rock and making it water over a million travelers, etc.
-Matt
Matt,
I think that you latched on to a small part of my post and it didn’t make much sense outside of the largest context (and thereby missed the larger questions I was trying to ask).
When I said: The punishment must fit the crime. To me, that equation is a huge component of the idea of justice.
I was clearly not referring to only the part about the stoning of children, but about the larger issues of justice that I had written about in that and previous posts.
You seem to be responding as if I am making some sort of argument about the moral value of the Bible, which I am not. In a basic sense, what you quoted was an answer to Andrea’s question about a murderer being set free right after committing a murder. (I used the case from Deuteronomy as just one example of how I feel.)
And to say so is a gross exaggeration of the case, as I understand it from my studies… Basically, a child refusing to listen to his/her parents to the point of harming the peace of the culture or endangering them, making a mockery of their authority and their theonomic foundation for that law, the MAXIMUM penalty allowed was death..
Since you did bring up a more specific discussion of this though, I feel a moral obligation to denounce any practice of stoning children. I do not care how rarely it happened! That does not make it any better. Once is too many! The stoning of children is wrong! Don’t think of this as some foreign concept to discuss. Think of a child — a real, living, breathing human being, being taken out to the city gate, and having stones hurled at their body. I will stop there, but honestly think about this. If it does not send chills down your spine and simply revolt you, then I do not know what to say. I simply don’t…
Let me ask you more directly — not about whether this is/was G-d’s law, but about you and your (metaphorical) heart: Is it, or was it ever okay to stone a child for stubbornly refusing to listen to their parents to the point of making a mockery of their authority?
Dear Luke,
To answer your question, when I asked, “If the God of the Bible exists, would I worship Him?” I was trying to see how much of the “atheism” in the room is actually more like “anti-theism.”
About the “omni’s” You asked if the all powerful and knowing is automatically worthy of worship and then “ For example, would a goddess who is all loving, not be worthy of worship because she may lack some power?”
If such a hypothetical goddess existed, then it would be truly remarkable that any being should be “all loving” so she’d at least be deserving of our admiration. Such a being would be less worthy of admiration if she were weak, possibly she’d merit a bit of pity.
You can see some lesser to greater parallels in our world around us. We have a great deal of respect for a lion when seen up close because of his power. We have a great deal of awe when we see a modern dump truck that can haul over 200 tons of rock and even more when we look at the power of a super-nova. So in a sense, just power alone goes some of the way, and this would translate all the more to an omnipotent being. Likewise, we admire the love of a mother who adopts 5 (otherwise unwanted) special needs children and puts their interests before hers on a daily basis. We may appreciate the life that Mother Theresa lived in Calcutta in caring for the sick and dying even more. These women aren’t necessarily powerful, but we have a great deal of respect and awe for them none the less. So how much more should we have these feelings for an omni-benevolent deity? So if you roll all of God’s “omni’s,” you end up with a being worthy of worship. Do you see what I mean?
You asked me to expound on my answer that These standards are not separate from God and He is not bound by them, but they flow from His existence and are a part of His very nature.
When I said He is not bound by those laws, I didn’t mean He may choose to break them. What I meant is that they are a part of His very nature and therefore he could not go against the good. It would be kind of like asking you if you would like to flap your wings and fly to Texas. You’d probably say that you can’t do it because it’s not in your nature to fly with your own wings. We probably wouldn’t say you’re constrained by your not having wings, but it would suffice that it’s outside your nature. I hope that makes it a bit clearer, but I’m afraid I can’t explain such things without a great deal of metaphorical language.
So to answer your question, there are no examples of what God might do if He chose to do something “not good.”
You Asked:
Again, this must be just a component of the reason, but why is it necessary? If some deity was all-powerful, all-loving, etc, but ensured equal happiness for all of it’s creation, equally (what if G-d were a socialist?) — why would this render the deity unworthy of worship?
It would only render the deity more worthy of worship for the individual who realizes this. Again, a lesser to greater example would be Michael Jordan, being probably the best basketball player who has ever lived is highly respected and venerated by a young kid from an average town. If for some reason, Jordan was especially interested in this kid and became pen-pals with him for instance, the kid would value him all the more and on a deeper level. If that is true with a ball player, how much more for the sovereign of the universe? So if God took equal interest in all of His creation, it wouldn’t make Him any less worthy of worship in my mind.
In answer to your question: our thankfulness to God for creating us is a great deal different that a man fathering a child. The main difference is that God chose to create us and a father may or may not choose to sire his offspring, and often doesn’t. Even when he does choose to father his offspring he doesn’t so much make his children as he sets a process in motion that He didn’t himself create.
You Said: “We each have some sort of standard of right and wrong (agreed?). (It doesn’t matter why we have these standards or where we believe they came from, the point is we have such standards.) We can all say: A is right, and b is wrong, and we can do this on a number of issues.”
I’d have to disagree with you on this one. The way we ground right wrong is very important. To allude to your good and bad tastes reply, morality for the atheist is much like that. It’s like rejecting God because he creates Brussels Sprouts. If asked why that’s such an important thing, the person would reply: “Have you ever tasted those things? They’re awful! Why would a loving God create anything so distasteful to me?”
The atheistss arguments against God’s goodness are the same except we are talking about His actions rather than His creation (Brussels sprouts). At the best, the atheist can say they’re distasteful to him, not that they’re wrong.
I could be wrong, but it sounds like the fact that you think God ordered genocide is a big issue and the main stumbling block for you and others. I would answer this objection somewhat like Frank does. I’d say:
1. God in a sense kills everyone because nobody dies outside of his sovereign will.
2. In a Christian world-view (which is the only proper context to judge the God of the Bible) death is not some sort of annihilation of the person but rather puts them on a different plane of existence in the afterlife. (It strikes me as strange that in this generation instead of mankind being on the witness stand on trial for his crimes, mankind has put God upon the stand is now grilling Him with questions.)
3. We should have no reason to think that every commandment to humanity should equally apply to God. It’s not hypocritical for me to tell my 2 year old daughter not to go into the street by herself while I do it regularly. (This example is only intended to point out that a father’s rules to his children do not necessarily apply to him in the same way.) If I were to build a table out of wood from a tree I owned, felled, and milled then I cut that wood, sanded it, stained it, and varnished it, the table would be mine for the simple reason that I made it. I would be justified in both destroying it if I so choose as well as telling others not to destroy it without my permission. I would also be justified in telling a hired servant to destroy it for me.
I use this illustration to point out that God did in fact create humanity and is justified in using whatever means He chooses to preserve or kill his creation based upon what He decides. If God were to try and explain all of his reasons to us, it’d be like you trying to explain calculus to an ant. So the justification is there, even if we don’t understand all His reasons.
I’m sorry this is so long, but there were a bunch of questions and I hope I answered them adequately for you. I also apologize for the length of time there, as my spare time has been greatly taxed of late.
Luke, it would break my heart every bit as much as the parent today who sees their child receive life in prison or the death penalty for their wickedness. Absolutely it would and SHOULD crush any parent to think of losing their child to capital punishment. But we do not (I’m assuming you’re American) have a theonomic law here in America, and I feel that as horrible as the OT stoning prospect would be, our current situation is worse. Neither are preferred states of affairs, mind you -
What about the teenage girls and boys who made the headlines recently for kidnapping and beating a girl on camera? They have become incorrigible. They know there is nothing REALLY stopping them – they’re just kids, and the knowledge of that drives all manner of sin in our society to become unchecked and embraced to its wicked end. I dealt with gangs growing up – in a “rich” suburban school. The kids who intimidate and often carry through with their threats of violence… bricks to the face and guns brought to school to kill me have perhaps colored my personal feelings, all because of the color of my skin and my willingness to confront their behavior when no one else would… I admit this has probably colored my view. But the current state of affairs, where children know they can do ANYTHING and get away with it – up to and including murder – did not exist in OT Israel. There are very few accounts of it ever taking place, so I’m sure they kept that as a threat most of the time, but a real threat it was.
Maybe I answered you, maybe not. Justice is painful, I’ll give you that, but do you really believe that it is NEVER appropriate to publically execute a minor, under NO circumstances? Wouldn’t the possibility jerk a metaphorical knot in both children and their parents to act responsibly? And in case I didn’t make it clear, it is something I would never want personally, nor would I ever treat it as cavalier. But the child who refuses to obey his/her parents’ authority will clearly never respect any other – and many do suffer for this type of child…
-Matt
Andrew,
In answering Matt you earlier said:
“but let’s not forget there are a LOT of brilliant scientists out there and many of them are believers in a designer”
I’m not seeing THEM using science as justification for their belief. Whereas you are.
Are you actually saying that there aren’t any scientists using scientific evidence as justification for their belief?
“The way we ground right wrong is very important. To allude to your good and bad tastes reply, morality for the atheist is much like that.”
And yet it is Christians here justifying slavery, stoning children etc, not atheists. People in glass houses shouldn’t be throwing stones. Especially at children!
And Mark, your analogy of the tree fails. Humans are not trees. We can feel pain, fear, etc. Humans are not objects to be owned by another. Perhaps the difference between us comes back down the Christian attitude to slavery. Most atheists I know are against it, whereas all the Christians here are apologists for it.
“Are you actually saying that there aren’t any scientists using scientific evidence as justification for their belief?”
It mainly seems to be clowns like Behe, who have proved themselves incapable of making a case for the evidence either in court or to other scientists. Behe submits few if any papers on his ‘discoveries’. Instead he writes derided books to preach to the converted. And the science aspects of his books fall down whenever any experts on the subjects try to examine them.
The fact remains that scientists are less likely to be religious than non-scientists. Matt’s point failed in the scientific evidence he offered.
“It strikes me as strange that in this generation instead of mankind being on the witness stand on trial for his crimes, mankind has put God upon the stand is now grilling Him with questions”
No, it is the men who do evil deeds and then say they’re doing a God’s will that I am putting on the stand. I don’t believe the God exists. I would and DO do the same for Muslims who claim their God commands them to do terrible things too.
Christian apologists here seem to subscribe to a bronze age system of justice that includes stoning people and slavery. Given this, I’m baffled by their insistence that their system is superior to ours, or that atheists need Christian morality in some way. Christian societies have demonstrably worse problems then more secular ones. Atheists I know route their morality in preventing harm, valuing happiness, respecting the rights of others.
Christian ethics as offered on this board (not, to be confused with the morality of the nice Christians I meet in every day life) seems completely divorced from these concerns. It’s nothing to do with good or bad, right or wrong, happiness or unhappiness. Instead it’s more like a series of arbitrary rules. It’s more like moral relativism, with one set of rules for God, another for us, and where slavery is fine at some points in history but not in others.
They know there is nothing REALLY stopping them – they’re just kids, and the knowledge of that drives all manner of sin in our society to become unchecked and embraced to its wicked end.
There’s nothing “wicked” about childhood stupidity. If you can’t tell the difference between simple, stupid naivete of the kind that 99% of teenagers experience and a true understanding of what it means to be absolutely malicious — i.e. a coherent, cognitive realization of the final result of your actions — then I cannot carry on this particular thread; it is the job of the parents to teach their children what is and is not allowed in human society, or in their own homes. If a child does something horrible, like beating another child (and taking pictures, at that), then I (of course) feel that there should be some severe punishment. But to publicly humiliate one child in response to the public humiliation of another is not justice nor equality, it’s revenge; they are not the same thing. Revenge is concerned with “getting back;” it’s a malicious act. Justice is about keeping order and stability. When we punish an unruly child, it’s not to “get back at him/her for what he/she did,” it’s to show that they cannot expect to do these things and get away with it. If we are there, and we are watching, or if we find out about it, we will stop them.
The Biblical means of stoning or killing such people just shows how incohate the books’ teachings really are; the Biblical means are still stuck at that childish, immature method of “revenge.” They care not for regulating the stability of social order; they only care about endlessly continuing petty social quabbles by turning a genuine issue into a schoolyard smackfest. If we really care for the well-being and future of these children, and if we can really claim to have any interest at all in their futures, we must find a way to show them that what they are doing is unacceptable in our society, not kill them. Ever. To kill them just proves that it’s an act of revenge, not of civility.
But the current state of affairs, where children know they can do ANYTHING and get away with it – up to and including murder – did not exist in OT Israel.
Where does this come from? In what state, city or county is this kind of behavior acceptable? If I dare question your sources?
Wouldn’t the possibility jerk a metaphorical knot in both children and their parents to act responsibly?
Do you really believe that killing someone is a way to get people to behave? Doesn’t murdering them as an act of revenge defeat the purpose of trying to set them straight in the first place?
Look, I was asked awhile back if I could imagine a scenario in which killing is “okay.” I responded that there was no such scenario in vanilla reality…..the only time it is necessary is when one acts to prevent the death of a person who is circumstancially innocent, and killing the guilty party is the only immediate alternative to just that scenario. In other words; if someone’s life is in immediate danger, then it makes sense to justify that they had to fight for their life, and worse came to worse and someone was killed. If not, someone would have died anyway, and to deny someone their right to defend their lives at any cost is to essentially deny them the right to life.
But what about afterward? Let’s say the offender was not killed in the struggle, but merely subdued, perhaps even injured….but not killed. Say the offender was a fifteen year old boy or girl. What is to be gained by dragging them into the high street and stoning them to death in front of everyone? What, in your mind, justifies this? “Sending a message?” What are we, some kind of mob? What message are you trying to send that could not be sent by forcing the person into a state of solitude and suppression, such as a prison environment? Hell, even forcing them to work for the person to pay off the “debt” (akin to your Biblical view of slavery) would be a better alternative than simply wiping them off the face of the earth, as barbaric and immature as slavery is.
Maybe it’s just my atheist belief that we have such limited life and limited influence as a result….but I believe that as long as you live, you can atone. If you do something criminal, as long as it is made apparent that you will not offend again (i.e. you’re sent to prison, or confined in a mental hospital), then there is simply no reason to murder you publicly to “send a message.” If your message is that “We will not accept this,” then there are more than enough ways to send that message than by massacring someone. If you choose to kill them for that reason, then there is obviously more at work here under the surface; it’s not about a message, it’s about power and revenge. “Look what we do to people who disrespect us!” It’s like a gang member executing one of his followers for going against the leader. It’s eerie and cultish, and I want no part of that line of thinking.
Are you actually saying that there aren’t any scientists using scientific evidence as justification for their belief?
Not 100% sure, but I think he’s saying that the ID proponents who are scientists, as a rule, do not rely on scientific methods to prove God’s existence. Rather that it’s a personally-held belief that, if it is spread, relies more upon emotional and spiritual appeal than on hard science.
“3. We should have no reason to think that every commandment to humanity should equally apply to God.”
But the loophole is all the people in the bible who do horrible acts that are somehow ‘OK’ because apparently it was God who told them to do it, or because they’re doing it on God’s behalf. Suddenly the normal rules don’t apply to them.
If someone kills your sister and tells you that God, Allah or Vishnu told them to do it, would you say “Oh great, you are a hired servent carrying out God’s will and I will defend you in court”?
My problem isn’t that I read about God killing a bunch of people and think ‘what an evil fictional character’. It’s that I’m reading about HUMANS killing a bunch of people and doing so convinced that it’s fine because they’re doing it on behalf of a being who is above questions of morality. THIS is giving up responsibility.
For all your talk of atheists being without responsibility, it is the religious who are doing this. That’s perhaps why atheists are so much less likely to commit crimes, especially murder. Again, put your own house in order before getting worried about what atheists are up to.
Matt,
As I said in my previous post: I do not know what to say. I simply don’t…
Luke, it would break my heart every bit as much as the parent today who sees their child receive life in prison or the death penalty for their wickedness. Absolutely it would and SHOULD crush any parent to think of losing their child to capital punishment.
I was not asking about your child. Just a child. A case in which you are not personally invested. But your language clearly answers this.
What about the teenage girls and boys who made the headlines recently for kidnapping and beating a girl on camera?
I don’t know the specific case you are talking about, but I do know one thing, they SHOULD NOT BE STONED.
(I apologize for my use of annoying emphasis. I just feel as though I cannot be clear enough. I previously dedicated almost an entire paragraph to make my feeling clear, but it seems that it was not enough. I understand all caps are annoying, but felt they were needed now. Sorry again…)
So I ask directly again, Matt. Do you feel that those girls should be stoned to death in the public square? I just really, really don’t know what to say. I am honestly shocked and horrified that you seem to be even entertaining the possibility. Please tell me I am wrong — please!
Do you really believe that it is NEVER appropriate to publically execute a minor, under NO circumstances?
Again, since my previous denunciation seems not to be enough: I believe that it in NEVER appropriate to execute a minor, whether publicly or secretly, under ANY circumstances. (I had previously stated my opposition to capital punishment for anyone.)
Some comments on the rest of your post:
But we do not (I’m assuming you’re American) have a theonomic law here in America, and I feel that as horrible as the OT stoning prospect would be, our current situation is worse.
This is of course a deep and huge topic and I don’t think we should get into it here. But I do not think our current situation is worse. Yes, we have a sensationalist media, but overall our society, even here in America is a very safe one. Europe is even more safe. I think people tend to idealize the past, but often this is not justified. I recently ran across some research which talked about how much higher the murder rate was in colonial and early America, for example. (There is argument as to whether or not America was founded as a Christian nation, but there is no question that it was founded as a terribly violent one.) Anyway, like I said, this is a large and side issue, but I do think that to imagine current American society as some cesspool of evil, while previous societies were peaceful and ordered is a mistake. (Perhaps Mark or some other moderator could create a separate thread simply asking a question like: “Is society less moral than ever?” that we could then discuss.)
But the current state of affairs, where children know they can do ANYTHING and get away with it – up to and including murder – did not exist in OT Israel.
Have laws regarding murder been suspended? Were the attackers you spoke of simply released with a simple “sorry for your troubles.”? I think I know what you’re trying to say, but honestly, I’m not sure.
Anyway, I cannot intelligently comment on this because I do not know very much about OT Israel (my knowledge is limited to the OT, and several articles). I would like to say though, that what we consider a minor or a child is different from what a child was considered in those times. You mentioned teenagers earlier in your post. Most, if not all of them would have probably been considered adults in those times. Honestly though, I don’t know much of these societies other than from the Bible, so it is difficult for me to comment more. With my knowledge of history as a whole though, I don’t think that the “threat” of stoning children to death really made ancient Israeli society the envy of the world.
the child who refuses to obey his/her parents’ authority will clearly never respect any other.
Matt, I really don’t know the road you’re heading down when you say things like this. It really seems as though you’re defending preemptive punishment by death for stubbornly disobedient children.
You’re not defending the stoning of murderers, but rather the stoning of seemingly incorrigible children lest they turn into murderers one day.
I am at a loss for words…
Mark,
Thanks for your response. You certainly don’t have to worry about length or the use of metaphor, at least not in my case (one of my favorite books is Moby Dick, so…).
I will try to respond to your points soon. I don’t think we’ve as much trying to come to a conclusion here, as just understand different modes of thinking. I have no answer to the question myself (why should we worship G-d, if He exists), which was the reason for my initial post trying to see what you and others thought.
Thanks,
Luke
I respectfully disagree, and think that parents should raise their children in such a way as to obey their own authority and the authority the community/society has put over them insofar as it does not violate God’s law. The parent oftentimes has as much or more of the blame as the child does for a child’s running off into a metaphorical ditch. The bible clearly teaches that children are to honor their parents, and parents are commanded just as strongly not to stir up their children to anger, which leads to sin. In other words, just as women are to respect and honor their husbands, the husband is commanded to love them as Christ did His church – giving himself for her. The disparity and confusion that arises from focusing on just one aspect of the OT law is that it often ignores the rest of them, and they collectively create the kind of society I’m talking about.
One where the law of God is taught from a very young age, where discipline is quick and consistent – the most loving kind, where husbands AND wives live together, mutually supporting each other in the raising of their children… That society will rarely if ever see an incorrigible child. There is no need for attention-getting (they have their parents’ full focus), nor does the child feel that there is no better way to express all their excess energy and emotions in puberty (they are physically active in agrarian society, and have parents who have modeled the “slow to anger” bit the Bible says so much about).
So, I don’t see how we would ever just throw stones at anyone in today’s society. The foundation, properly laid, doesn’t exist today. Those rules were for that society in that time. To implement one out of context from the others is of course offensive. I still maintain that God’s law is more just than any other code of social conduct and would rather live under His rules, properly applied – unlike many Jews, Pharisees and others, than any other.
We obviously disagree. I’m fine with that. I couldn’t tell you what to believe any more than you can convince me that America’s socialist leanings are the way to go. Lots of folks seem to disagree with THAT view right now. I sincerely appreciate your tone and respect in this, Luke. Thank you for that. To disagree and part peacefully is a skill I try to instill in my students, and it’s nice to see it modeled
Peace,
-Matt
I have a question in the spirit of understanding -
If, to simplify, Arminianism emphasizes the person making a choice to believe in God, how does it happen in Calvinism?
I am asking at the personal experience level not at the pay no attention to the man behind the curtain level. And trust me – you should not take this to assume I am likely to convert at any moment.
Mark, the post you did at 3:12 was very well written, I scarcely believe the same writer wrote the claptrap that opened this thread. I may write a longer response to that post but have work and family to attend to now.
Barry
I respectfully disagree, and think that parents should raise their children in such a way as to obey their own authority and the authority the community/society has put over them insofar as it does not violate God’s law.
Well, what exactly do you suggest that society does today? You keep talking around those rose-colored glasses about “back then, they did this,” and “now they do this,” and all that….but you still haven’t answered the questions of how society should be handled now, based on these Biblical laws. Every time someone pins your answer on something, you just back off of it and say, “Well, that time it wasn’t done right.”
So, according to today’s society, how would you handle disobedient children? Gays? Rebellious women? Slaves? Can you actually define this God’s Law you speak of, or is it something with a superfluous definition that changes with each argument to tautologically satisfy the image of the “Perfect Christian Law?”
Those rules were for that society in that time.
Again, I don’t buy this for a second. What happened to “objective morality?”
Tim,
Much of what society does today is actually based on the Biblical principles of morality.
Ex: Felony punished by life sentence in jail or death penalty.
It wouldn’t be fair to let a rapist go free without charges, now would it?
It wouldn’t be fair to let a rapist go free without charges, now would it?
Do you seriously, honestly believe that Christians were the first and only crowd to believe in punishing crimes? How is that solely the territory of Christianity?
P.S.
In other news, here’s a good example as to why I don’t support blindly following religious convictions in any and all circumstances:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/03/30/why-is-religion-an-excuse-for-criminal-behavior/
Mr. Garwood. Are you then saying that god wanted to stone unruly children?
Toby,
Are you saying that if an unruly child kills their family, they shouldn’t get punished?
**There are things that must get punished to stop that behavior from further happening in society…***
Toby -
God commanded that the Israelites do this. If this is His perfect will or His permissive will is above my ability to say. If you’re familiar with the terms, I assume this is satisfactory.
As to what should we do today, in a perfect world, we’d maintain the equity of that law, since it expressed a truth about God. i.e. we should make our homes safe places for guests. Though we no longer party on the roof in all parts of the country, the case law gives us a direction in deriving an equitable statement. Same for a bull goring a man – if his master knew about this behavior before and didn’t destroy the bull, he is liable.
And a big p.s. – the Israelites maintained Levitical cities of refuge, where one could flee capital punishment if accidental death had occurred. This is but one incomplete example of the often-forgotten mercy balancing the “hard” justice of the Law. And though so many participants seem to argue as if this wasn’t true – the death penalties were maximum penalties …parents often disciplined with less than capital punishment! They were instructed, as we are by the bible and even our human reason, to discipline their child for their own good.
-Matt
…and we’re pretty far off the OT. Round and round we all go. I’ve said enough to contribute my off-topic two cents. Sorry
I love talking about this stuff more than anything… even my extensive knowledge of random facts related to music trivia… which is saying something 
Peace,
Matt
Andrea: Much of what society does today is actually based on the Biblical principles of morality.
This depends, I think, on your definition of society here.
There are no countries which I can think of that don’t frown upon rape and murder.
There are many countries which I can think of that have not been founded or based upon the Bible.
If Biblical principles of morality were especially unique, I would expect to see a big difference in the laws of countries around the world, based on their foundational ideals. I do not. (This is similar to the problem I brought up before about how Christians and non-Christians perform on various moral measures.)
Andrea: It wouldn’t be fair to let a rapist go free without charges, now would it?
I don’t want to speak for Tim, as he seems quite able to speak for himself, but what has Tim ever said that would lead you to believe he believes that a rapist or murderer should go free?
Toby: Are you then saying that G-d wanted to stone unruly children?
Andrea: Are you saying that if an unruly child kills their family, they shouldn’t get punished?
Andrea, again, what makes you believe that this is what Toby was suggesting?
All children who kill their family are unruly (by definition).
Not all unruly children kill their families.
Are you suggesting that since some unruly kids go on to kill their families, that all unruly kids should be stoned? Or are you just pointing out that unruly children who also commit terrible crimes deserve punishment (again, I don’t think there is any disagreement on this here)?
It’s as if this conversation just took place:
Jim: I don’t think blond people are somehow inherently immoral.
Elliott: Are you saying that blond people who rape children aren’t immoral?
Matt,
I will try to give you a more thought out reply tomorrow. I do understand that stoning was a maximum penalty, but that does not change things for me. I feel like saying it’s just a maximum penalty that rarely happens is like saying “I only commit adultery when I’m really tempted. It’s just the worst thing I do, not something I do all the time.” I am not saying this is the same, but do you see what I mean?
And I agree fully that one must discipline their children. (As I said, I simply prefer time-out to stoning.) But I think it confuses the issue to jump right to murder, since this was not the case that was originally mentioned. Jumping to a case which is more easily justified (though in my personal view, still not justifiable) does not solve the problem. (Though I understand why it’s difficult to avoid at times. So, Andrea, I understand your logic, but still want to get at the deeper issues)
But like I said, I will try to form a more coherent response later (though we’ll probably have more tangents to discuss by then). I just want to make one more comment, (half)-jokingly.
Matt: Those rules were for that society in that time. To implement one out of context from the others is of course offensive
Moral relativism anyone?
Regarding DNA and information theory I believe the argument for design goes like this:
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled the proof. All you need is one.
Luke,
Unruly: Not submissive or conforming to rule; ungovernable; turbulent; intractable; refractory; lawless: an unruly class; an unruly wilderness.
In other words an unruly person doesn’t keep the law. They break the law. Breaking laws=punishment or correction.
Which I think you agree.. correct?
“Jim: I don’t think blond people are somehow inherently immoral.
Elliott: Are you saying that blond people who rape children aren’t immoral?”
Luke, not just a random person… we are talking about a lawless person. They are lawless for a reason, don’t you think?
-They must’ve committed a very serious crime (this unruly or lawless person) to deserve a serious punishment.
Nowadays instead of stoning, we got the death penalty. Keeping the law= good. Breaking law= consequences.
Nice James!
You’re right. No code or language occurs naturally. Intelligent intervention is required.
“Andrea: It wouldn’t be fair to let a rapist go free without charges, now would it?”
Isn’t it in the bible that the ‘punishment’ for a rapist is that he has to marry the woman he raped? Great! So a guy has raped you, and then you have to marry him. Our present system certainly does NOT rely on this idea.
James: “If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled the proof. All you need is one.”
Sure: DNA!
But seriously, your argument (which you’ve cut and pasted from elsewhere) is nonsense. It could be applied to anything. For example:
1) All codes that we’re aware of are created by humans
2) DNA is a code
3) Therefore DNA was created by humans.
You could come up with hundreds of other fallacious examples.
Also, as said before, there are plenty of people who understand DNA better than you who don’t conclude that it is evidence of a deity. I believe you are misusing the word ‘language’, ‘information’ and ‘code’ when applying it to DNA. These are used metaphorically in this context.
Just a bit of googling give me many counter-examples to your ‘proof’.
1. The magnetic striping of the mid-ocean ridges carries information. It is thus a naturally occurring code.
2. Planetary orbit around the sun is a code, since from our perspective on the third rock from the sun, this movement transfers information we interpret as the passage of time
By the way, does anyone else see a whole lot of irony in Matt Garwood ending his posts with ‘peace’ after spending several lines defending slavery and public stoning of children?
Matt: “the death penalties were maximum penalties …parents often disciplined with less than capital punishment! ”
I’m not concerned with parents that managed to restrain themselves from slaughtering their own kids, I’m talking about a so-called ‘moral system’ that even allows for the POSSIBILITY of stoning your own child. It should never be considered ‘ok’. Like Luke, I really am astonished by this.
“If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled the proof. All you need is one.”
Honey bee dancing.
-They must’ve committed a very serious crime (this unruly or lawless person) to deserve a serious punishment.
Nowadays instead of stoning, we got the death penalty. Keeping the law= good. Breaking law= consequences.
So am I to believe that you support the execution of young children? Do you also by any chance support the execution of the mentally ill?
And here’s the other comment I made (it’s still being moderated), sans the link, while it’s still relevant:
It wouldn’t be fair to let a rapist go free without charges, now would it?
Do you seriously, honestly believe that Christians were the first and only crowd to believe in punishing crimes? How is that solely the territory of Christianity?
P.S.
The argument that we must find some kind of naturally-occurring code to “disprove” the theory of ID is laughable at best; DNA is itself such a code. And I doubt that finding any other such code is helpful to make the case, as the Christian is likely to simply interpret it on the same basis that they interpret DNA — that it’s a code, and was therefore created by a conscious mind.
So even if such a code did manifest (as another poster has pointed out), it’s not likely going to change any minds because there is an at-ready excuse to tautologically justify it into the Christian view.
Matt: Those rules were for that society in that time. To implement one out of context from the others is of course offensive
Moral relativism anyone?
Back atcha. my point, and I’m sure your smiley indicates you understand this, is that these stern punishments (clearly further than most are willing to go, when raised in a modern society) were appropriate in the context of their society. When saying “You fool”, i.e. publically mocking someone, was not considered freedom of speech, but rather offensive public conduct and personal offense. When the required code of conduct is elevated, including the education of the child from youth to adhere to said code, the punishments then and ONLY then fit the crime. Hence my support of the system and not one out-of-context punishment associated with it. Stoning children in a culture that has tacitly taught them a low standard of conduct, implying that anything up to murder will only get them sent away til 18 years of age with a sealed record… I’d say that’s definitely wrong. The child is flexing against the boundary given. To stone a child who consistantly publicly mocks the authority of his or her parent, whom the God of the universe commands them to obey, who admonishes them for years to submit to their society’s rules, who has made known with tears and all graveness that this path leads to further sin and will demand a price… yes.
Surely we can see that difference – I know many don’t agree with me, but this view is a consistent outworking of Christianity. I don’t start at the point of Theonomy and build my faith – I start with the BIG things (God’s existence, God’s intervention in history, God’s redemptive work through Jesus Christ, historical evidence, evidence of change in my own life, etc.) and end up in the land of theonomy. I am willing to change my view on theonomy, but sooooo much hypocrisy must occur for a Christian to condemn the Old Testament as barbaric, but the NT as peaceful. Jesus was VERY condemning of sin in the NT, and grace/mercy are likewise VERY present in the OT… but indentured servanthood, divorce, theonomic law, etc. these all make it hard for a non-believer to see the Gospel essence that gives us Christians hope.
Perhaps I and others can do a better job of not muddying the issue. I just don’t mind talking about the stuff – maybe I’m in error if I’ve made it sound like the thought of human suffering was ever something I’m fond of. Clearly that is not Christian. But to say I’m ambivalent about sin is equally offensive to my God. To be consistent, one must not sacrifice the clear admonition of scripture to “love God and hate sin” for the equally important “love thy neighbor”. To harmonize and reconcile the two is not easy, but I believe it can be done, with consistent application of scripture. Clearly, the alternative is a subjective moral code – one which binds no one but the person to whom it is “truth”.
Peace (which I mean to each other AND God, fwiw)
-Matt
“To stone a child who … yes.”
You are a monster. If there was a God then I would pray that you never have children.
You’re entitled to your opinion, Andrew. And thanks for reading my entire posts – the one where I went into detail about the difference between this culture and that… where I explained I would personally hate to ever see that happen… where I explained that I would never “shoehorn” in an out-of-place regulation into a culture without the same standards, but that taken as a whole I see the Biblical code of conduct as the best option.
Feel free to judge me when you’ve walked in my shoes – when a parent is so out of control of their child that they break laws without fear of repercussion. Threaten and menace the community. Intimidate those around them with guns and carry through on those threats. Those “children” and yes I grew up with this behavior as young as 9… have been failed by their parents, and were punished similarly to an adult behaving the same way. It IS heartbreaking, but unjust to treat it as just “growing” pains, since the majority in our modern society don’t ever consider these actions. Much less in ancient Israel, owed (I believe) to the high expectations and seriousness of consequences.
And again to be clear, I am not promoting how the Jews lived – they were in many ways more sinful than today… but the code given to them – the moral code – is a code that I believe most of the world does embrace.
Peace,
Matt
You are a monster. If there was a God then I would pray that you never have children.
Btw, my new child, a precious gift from God, will be raised to obey God’s law and the civil law, which God has put over us. I in no way plan on going against the law, unless it tells me to commit a crime against a specific command. He will be raised the same. Children that are raised this way need not fear THIS culture’s punishments. They will in fact be lights to the world.
Peace,
-Matt the monster
“Feel free to judge me when you’ve walked in my shoes”
I don’t care what shoes you walk in – stoning a child to death is WRONG. And yes, I will call anyone who says otherwise a monster.
Andrew, how old is the child discussed in the OT case law in question, in your estimation?
-Matt
Matt, to be honest I feel sullied by this entire conversation.
The reason I ask is that it seems by reading the passage in context, we have someone who has habitually mocked their parents’ attempts at controlling them according to the law. They are of drinking age, and a constant public drunk. I advocate, as indicated before, a continuation of the EQUITY of the law. Our society defines a resonsible person of drinking age in this culture as 21 years old. Not so in their culture – the age of accountability was different. So to oppose the public execution of a person flagrantly ignoring the law. Remember, THEIR law of civil conduct was not substantially different than their religious laws of conduct – they were essentially equal. Not so here. By remaining holy and devoted to God, the Israelites enjoyed the blessing and favor of God. I would argue that this hasn’t changed, in principle. But our national laws were not different in equity from those biblical ones discussed. After all, the case law is nothing but the “Ten Words” (aka commandments) applied to everyday life. To dishonor your mother and father is do break one of 10 main “fountains of law” – a direct violation of both God’s law and their civil law, since they were in essence the same – a “theonomy”. Therefor I maintain that the punishment for this crime was an appropriate application of their religious and civil laws. It was high crime to publicly and repeatedly and drunkenly dishonor your parents, because they believed it was a threat to national security… God would surely not bless national Israel if they forgot his laws. history seems to have born this out to be true through their repeated judgments.
Looking at the equity of the law, if one of our “main” laws were broken, we still expect capital punishment – murder. I maintain that the higher standard and the higher level of punishment, brought over TOGETHER in equity would be a good thing for our nation. But (and I can’t help but think you’re still misunderstanding this) I would abhor the idea of only one or the other, and not both, being instituted in modernity.
Let’s put this topic to rest. I’ve presented a fair defense for the “why” I believe… I’m not convincing anyone. Thank you for the engaging discussion, though. I still pray my atheist friends will meet God where they need to meet him – intellectually.
Peace,
-Matt
Andrea: Unruly: Not submissive or conforming to rule; ungovernable; turbulent; intractable; refractory; lawless: an unruly class; an unruly wilderness.
In other words an unruly person doesn’t keep the law. They break the law. Breaking laws=punishment or correction.
Which I think you agree.. correct?
Yes, I feel as though I have said this many times now. I am sorry if I am not being clear enough. I have, nor has anyone else on this board said that a murderer or rapist should be allowed to go free sans punishment. That said, I think you are jumping to only specific parts of the definition you gave above. Unruly does not always mean unlawful (just as unruly does not always equal murdered). My daughter can be pretty unruly at times, she hasn’t broken any laws.
Andrea: They must’ve committed a very serious crime (this unruly or lawless person) to deserve a serious punishment.
Nowadays instead of stoning, we got the death penalty..
I disagree that we now have the death penalty. First of all, the case I originally brought up (and I’m sorry if this has simply gotten lost in the crosstalk) was not about murderers or rapists, but children who are stubborn and rebellious. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
We most certainly do not have the death penalty for such offenses in our society. As I said in my previous comment: Jumping to a case which is more easily justified (though in my personal view, still not justifiable) does not solve the problem.
Second of all, we do not execute minors in the United States (or, as far as I know any Western democracy), even for far, far worse offenses. Since Roper v. Simmons (a 2005 Supreme Court case) the practice has been ended. Furthermore, I do not believe that at least since modern times, anyone who would have been considered a “child” in Biblical times has been executed in this country.
Andrea: Keeping the law= good. Breaking law= consequences.
I wrote a long post about this, and have said many times now that I agree fully. I simply think the punishment should fit the crime. I am revolted by the idea of stoning a child(!) for rebellious and unruly behavior — for stubbornly not listening to the voice of their parents.
Unlike Matt, I am not a moral relativist, and I think that stoning children for such offenses is always wrong. I am honestly sorry that you disagree with this statement.
Matt,
I don’t discount that societies are different and one cannot take a practice out of context and expect it to work in another society. Like I said above though, I am not a moral relativist, Some things are, in my view, simply wrong. They always have been and they always will be wrong. Because of this, I simply don’t understand and will not agree with your view. It is not that I am unable to imagine a different society with different functions and customs, so I imagine child stoning in our society instead; it is that I believe that stoning of children for stubbornness and rebellion is always wrong. Always meaning always.
Now, here are some other problems I see with your reasoning. On the one hand, you seem to say that our society is so bad, because we do not have this larger system of laws and rules, but at the same time you admit that even with these rules, with the death penalty being available for offenses such as adultery and rebelliousness in children, that society had many problems. So on one hand you’re saying it would be nice if we had this larger set of laws, customs and rules because our current society is suffering from disorder. Yet on the other hand, you admit that societies that had these rules, customs and laws were still disorderly. So I don’t see where any of this gets us. It seems to me that you’re saying that if everyone just followed G-d’s law, then we wouldn’t have these problems. But if everyone followed G-d’s law, why would we need these drastic punishments for non-violent offenses perpetrated by children?
Here is a larger problem that I see in your reasoning.
You said: The parent oftentimes has as much or more of the blame as the child does for a child’s running off into a metaphorical ditch.
(emphasis mine)
and: when a parent is so out of control of their child that they break laws without fear of repercussion.
Yet, you defend the stoning of children to death, and don’t advocate for any punishment for the parents. Do you see the deep problem with this?
Furthermore, I was wondering if you could comment on John 8. Where Jesus seems to do something which would far from endorse the practice of stoning. He is very aware of the context of the society and all of the other things you mention, yet seems to be on the other side of the issue from you and Andrea.
Oh ok I understand now Tim. I thought you meant that you guys didn’t agree in punishing someone when they committed a crime.
-I guess we’re on the same page on that note….
BUT….
A lot of you guys just take what the Bible says and unconsciously add negative connotations to the way they did things.. which is out of context.
What Jesus did was extend grace as God incarnate – Israel’s king. I’m with you in respect that he showed mercy in this case… but let’s not paint an incomplete picture of Jesus. He was pretty judgmental when he drove the sellers out of the temple, when he called the pharisees vipers, sons of their father the devil, a serpent.
Is this passage showing a normative event for all readers to follow? If this is always the case, then no one should ever be punished for their crimes, as they would always be punished by people who have sinned similarly in their hearts, if not in deed. I don’t think Jesus was advocating an overthrow of any and all punishments or reasonable law. He speaks later that we should respect the law given over us, as all authority is God-given, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s… Give to God what is God”… so that can’t be it.
In my view (which may not account for much, as I have not studied this particular issue in the same depth as others,) he was teaching the Pharisees a lesson about hypocrisy – they had lusted in their hearts, the same crime as adultery in God’s eyes. That said, I believe there is ALL KINDS of room for mercy within the law. But a law which never eventually leads to punishment doesn’t “strike fear into the hearts of evil doers” to quote Batman
And therefor does not constrain the sinful impulses of the wicked, and fulfill its role in protecting the populace.
Man, I hope I answered it… let me chew on that some more, Luke – great point. See above for my “gut reaction” but lemme reserve the right to go… “wait, that was stupid”. ‘Preciate it!
As to parents, it is simply not ALWAYS the one to blame, but it is rare for them not to bear some of the burden. Therefor it would be WAY more difficult to assign blame and prove it in the parents’ case.
-Matt
Matt,
To be clear, it’s not that I was saying that John 8 undoes your entire argument. But I also think it’s an episode you can’t ignore. I just wanted to see what you thought about it.
As far as the argument about parents goes, do you see my larger point? You seem to believe that the problems of children are really brought on by their parents (at least in many cases), but see no problem in giving these children the ultimate punishment, and in a cruel way to top it off (and say that the parents do bear some of the burden to justify the view). Isn’t the child in such a case already a victim? And then you advocate punishing that victim for the exhibiting the symptoms of their victimhood? Do you see my point?
Andrea: A lot of you guys just take what the Bible says and unconsciously add negative connotations to the way they did things.
I am not sure if you’re including me in this group or not, but could you provide an example of what you mean?
Hey Luke,
What I mean by “you guys just take what the Bible says and unconsciously add negative connotations to the way they did things”.
Is that you guys are missing the point. Humanity fell because Adam and Eve disobeyed. Most of the “atrocities” in the O.T. are the ones that people did, God was always trying to set them straight.
If Adam and Eve would’ve actually obeyed God then humanity would’ve been perfect and the problems we are discussing wouldn’t have even been there… and they did it out of their own free will. God didn’t make them disobey. They CHOSE to disobey.
Do you understand what I mean?
Andrea,
You guys are missing the point. Humanity fell because Adam and Eve disobeyed. Most of the “atrocities” in the O.T. are the ones that people did, G-d was always trying to set them straight.
How is this adding connotations though?
Can you clarify your own views on this for me? Do you believe that stoning children for being stubborn, rebellious or even habitually drunk is acceptable in any society or any context? And that is it acceptable to G-d?
Or do you believe that such actions are the despicable actions of a fallen humanity, and are clearly wrong?
Thanks,
Luke
Matt,
To be clear, it’s not that I was saying that John 8 undoes your entire argument. But I also think it’s an episode you can’t ignore. I just wanted to see what you thought about it.
you’re dead to rights correct, sir. It’s percolating on the ol brain right now…
-Matt
…and seriously, what’s with the “no vowels” in God’s name thing? Is this respect or derision?
Matt,
…and seriously, what’s with the “no vowels” in God’s name thing? Is this respect or derision?
Certainly not derision. You can scroll to the top of the comments to read more. Mark asked me this question early on.
Luke,
“Or do you believe that such actions are the despicable actions of a fallen humanity, and are clearly wrong?”
Yes sir. Those actions came about because of fallen humanity.
It’s our fault, not God’s.
Yup, I got these arguments from Perry Marshall at http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com.
Calling DNA itself a naturally occuring code is begging the question for naturalism.
Calling DNA a code, language, or information is a perfectly accurate description and is universally accepted in biology since the 1960s.
Honey bees dancing is a product of their DNA which doesn’t answer where the DNA came from.
A code is defined as communication between an encoder and a decoder using agreed upon symbols that transmit information independent of the communication medium.
There is no encoding/decoding mechanism inside the mid-ocean ridges. Not until an intelligent mind from outside the system comes and interprets the data. Same with planetary orbit and the passage of time. They move, but an intelligent mind outside of the system assigns values to their movement.
Inside the system of DNA there is information transfer, whether or not there is an outside interpreter who assigns values and symbols to it.
I also want to be clear and say that I am not myself Jewish, it is simply out of respect to those who might be put in a difficult situation by receiving something from me containing the full word.
Or maybe I’m just weird….
Well what d’ya know – respectful discourse… on the internet!
Good call, Luke. Deferring to the brother who might be troubled by this or other “hang-ups” is also a NT Christian command, but the vowels is not one I’ve been made aware of or convicted of. Congrats – you’ve given me even more to consider today.
-Matt
And I just want to throw this out there, as a fence-breaker… I realize there’s some pretty polarizing topics floating about here, in this thread and others. I hope my opinions and questions haven’t offended, but if they have, know that it is unintentional.
AND let’s be very clear here, if you become a more firm Atheist because you have evaluated the information from the “Christian” side, then I can deal with that. In the same breath, though, I hope some of you have some new thoughts as a result. I admit, in public record, that Andrew, Tim, and my new e-quaintance Luke have done this for me, as much as or more than Andrea, Dr. Turek, Mark, Emily, or any other fellow Christian. Thank you for helping me fulfill a real obsessive quest in my life right now – to try my faith and see if it be lacking. I am less sure of some things and more sure of others because of this. If you fault me, at least let it never be said that I wasn’t serious about trying to be consistent.
Peace (seriously)
-Matt the monster
To stone a child who consistantly publicly mocks the authority of his or her parent, whom the God of the universe commands them to obey, who admonishes them for years to submit to their society’s rules, who has made known with tears and all graveness that this path leads to further sin and will demand a price… yes.
This is twisted. I can almost see a sinister grin cross your face (in my mind) as you rub your hands together and say this. Makes me think of some kind of vengeful overlord.
Not to imply you’re such a thing….just that anyone who could say that without batting an eye has some issues that I cannot address, as far as I can see. One really, truly must believe that we have no true conscience of our very own (as an aspect of our humanity, not as a gift from God) in order to really believe this.
Surely we can see that difference – I know many don’t agree with me, but this view is a consistent outworking of Christianity.
Exactly; as I said earlier, there are some things that I simply think should not be done (barring any scenarios involving dilemmas caused by the action itself being performed — i.e. responsive situations), and stoning children (to death) falls under that. There is simply no excuse, Biblical or otherwise, that will make me accept that. Killing children because they are disobedient does not solve anything; it simply tries to literally throw rocks at the problem instead of fix it.
I don’t start at the point of Theonomy and build my faith – I start with the BIG things (God’s existence, God’s intervention in history, God’s redemptive work through Jesus Christ, historical evidence, evidence of change in my own life, etc.)
If that’s the case, then I have one more reason not to be a Christian as far as “morality” goes….
maybe I’m in error if I’ve made it sound like the thought of human suffering was ever something I’m fond of
It’s not that you’ve made it sound as though you’re “fond of it,” per se….it’s just the way you doublethink around it. “I think it’s terrible….but it has to be done because God said so.” That sort of thing; and then the attempt at earthly rationality you use — that acting in vengeance against a child whom you feel has rebelled against authority unjustly is justification for massacring them — makes my skin crawl, to put it simply.
Clearly, the alternative is a subjective moral code – one which binds no one but the person to whom it is “truth”.
What I can’t seem to convey to you is that even “objective moral code” does not bind anyone in any way. What does it mean to be “bound” by the code? What does it mean that you “have” to be moral?
The answer here is usually that you have the choice to do it, or to not do it. In which case….it’s not a law! It’s not objective in any sense if it can be violated, if it can be disobeyed. Natural laws do not exist in that way. Physics do not operate in that way; rationality does not operate in that way; logic and reasoning, the Law of Non-Contradiction, none of them operate in that way. So how is it a law, in any sense of the word? Because “God said that’s what a law is?” Because we’re supposed to suspend the definition of the word “law” as it’s traditionally defined for this one particular instance? That makes no sense.
Feel free to judge me when you’ve walked in my shoes
What, did you stone all of your children?
Threaten and menace the community. Intimidate those around them with guns and carry through on those threats. Those “children” and yes I grew up with this behavior as young as 9… have been failed by their parents, and were punished similarly to an adult behaving the same way. It IS heartbreaking, but unjust to treat it as just “growing” pains, since the majority in our modern society don’t ever consider these actions. Much less in ancient Israel, owed (I believe) to the high expectations and seriousness of consequences.
Nobody here has ever said that children should be exempt from any kind of consequences. In fact, I have agreed with you that in the instance of an immediate threat, I would rather see a malicious child killed in self-defense than I would an innocent bystander die for no reason. What has been disagreed with is the extent to which you take these crimes; if a child murders someone in cold blood, and he or she testifies in court in such a way as to show a firm understanding between “right” and “wrong” (i.e. they have no mental disability or delusional capacity that would chemically prevent them from being able to discern things like social standards, stigma, consequence and violence), then that is a different argument. I still disagree that he/she should be massacred for the crime, but it’s a no-brainer that some action must be taken. In any other case, mental rehabilitation is the only rational solution, if you truly value human life, and if you truly believe that every life is worth saving (even those who have “sinned”).
The reason I ask is that it seems by reading the passage in context, we have someone who has habitually mocked their parents’ attempts at controlling them according to the law.
IT DOESN’T MATTER! I see no reason to accept that children should be murdered; unless the child was an active, torturing servant of Adolph Hitler himself in the midst of WWII Germany, there is simply no clear justification for murdering a child after the fact. Once the crime has been prevented (or committed), there is simply no need to kill anyone. If you say anything otherwise, then you clearly do not value all human life; just “good, well-bred Christian” life. Which is clearly more “Aryan Supremist” than any other worldview save for Hitler’s.
It was high crime to publicly and repeatedly and drunkenly dishonor your parents, because they believed it was a threat to national security…
While G.W. was President, that probably would’ve flown as an argument….I mean, given the whole “gays marrying is a threat to national security” vibe. Did you guys lobby in that direction, by any chance? The “Stone Bad Kids” act of 2007, or something?
Looking at the equity of the law, if one of our “main” laws were broken, we still expect capital punishment – murder.
I can’t speak for you, but I’m among those opposed to the death penalty, always have been. Although there’s nothing Christian about that either way; FTR, my opposition is not rooted in Christianity or an opposition thereof.
Let’s put this topic to rest. I’ve presented a fair defense for the “why” I believe… I’m not convincing anyone.
At least you know when to quit….and I don’t even feel the need to dignify that with a “while you’re ahead,” either….
I simply think the punishment should fit the crime.
Funny, I agree with this as well, and it’s somewhat supported by the Bible. “Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth;” not “life for an eye, life for a tooth.” You don’t kill someone because they took something from you, or harmed you in some way, unless it’s immediately necessary to defend your life. If we start saying people should be able to murder or cripple each other as punishment, then we’re no better than the Islam theocracies of the Middle East. Remember that case with the Muslim man who threw acid in the woman’s face? Remember how the court responded by ordering that the man be doused in acid, as well? That’s the kind of theocracy I deeply fear seeing America transformed into; some kind of neo-Biblical Fascist reinterpretation of Biblical torture law.
A lot of you guys just take what the Bible says and unconsciously add negative connotations to the way they did things.. which is out of context.
Let me phrase it this way….my mind is open to 99% of the things in this world, and killing children (for any reason) is not one of them. I know there are extremists on the religious end of things, and I know that they don’t always represent the majority of the Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish, etc.) system of beliefs. But these extremist beliefs I’m hearing defended here — such as stoning children simply for being disobedient — are so far beyond the spectrum of things my mind is open to that I simply cannot conceive, with any degree of effort, of a situation in which I could stone a child to death (or witness a child being stoned, or learn of it later on) without feeling a knot in my stomach. The idea that humans can ever do such a thing without feeling guilt, remorse, or any sense of impending moral consequence is quite disturbing to me. It’s the very idea that these sorts of things are not perpetrated by most American Christians that has kept me from completely downright opposing Christianity my entire life. It’s what keeps me from viewing these people as a serious threat to the safety of other people.
Now you may or may not condone these things, but I will say this: If you do, then we must simply disagree at that point, because no matter how open-minded I might be in other areas, there is simply no excuse in my mind for such behavior as killing a child for being disobedient. None. Ever. At all. Even if God says so. And you can quote me on that last one. If you would use those words against me later based solely on this conversation, then I have nothing to say to it, anyway, because I stand by them; if God thinks that massacring children is okay for any reason, then it follows that He is not a God but a sadistic demon that does not deserve my belief or my worship (assuming He exists in the first place, but that’s a separate discussion).
but let’s not paint an incomplete picture of Jesus. He was pretty judgmental when he drove the sellers out of the temple, when he called the pharisees vipers, sons of their father the devil, a serpent.
So which is the “right” way? It sounds to me like you’re saying, “Well, sure, he did it that one time, but what about all the other times?” It seems that you’re the one painting an incomplete picture of Jesus by trying to fully interpret his actions and beliefs based solely on the harshest examples of his teachings.
He speaks later that we should respect the law given over us, as all authority is God-given, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s… Give to God what is God”… so that can’t be it.
Hey, I’ve actually read that part! Holy crap, a Bible verse I recognize 0_0
[/irrelevant nugget]
Humanity fell because Adam and Eve disobeyed. Most of the “atrocities” in the O.T. are the ones that people did, God was always trying to set them straight.
This will probably head off into another tangent, but I’m just so very curious….I still don’t understand how, even from a Biblical standpoint, the actions of Adam and Eve (assuming they occurred in exactly the way they’re portrayed) somehow bear on the entirety of mankind. Why blame the offspring of these two? The children weren’t even alive when the first “sin” was committed; so how does that make sense? Because humans are “inherently evil?”
How does that jive with the idea of humanity before the fruit of knowledge was devoured? If Eve had never eaten the fruit, and they had reproduced in the Garden of Eden, would humankind still be “evil-natured?” Why or why not?
As for OT “atrocities”….well, it’s not really as atrocious as some things in there, but it still caught my attention nonetheless: why mention the thing about Lot’s daughters getting him drunk so he can knock them up? I understand that the Bible is made up of many books, not all of which are intrinsically linked (or even written by the same author), but this never made sense to me. It doesn’t bear on any moral truth, unless we read between the lines, and even so, all we get is some weird interpretations about exactly how important it is to reproduce (i.e. “it’s okay to be impregnated by a relative if that’s the only option other than to not reproduce at all”). I just don’t get it 0_0
Keep in mind, I’m not holding you as some final authority on the subject….I’m just conducting some research, is all, and I like to hear differing feedback from multiple sources.
I hope my opinions and questions haven’t offended, but if they have, know that it is unintentional.
Although I am a bit appalled (I’m not as shocked as some, as I know people who think like you do exist; so I’m not really surprised, just a bit disturbed), don’t take it as a personal attack. Most of the time, people like you and I would be able to live next door to each other and not ever know there was such a difference in beliefs. It’s only when these kinds of issues come out that people start to make snap (or even well-considered) judgments of one another’s character. And although I completely, fully and 100% oppose any sort of train of thought that leads one to belive that killing children for being stubborn or rebellious is “okay” (or, God forbid, “necessary”) in any circumstance, I ask that you at least try not to take that as an assault on character.
The only way any of this connects to the character of the people involved is that it takes a certain kind of person to believe in certain things….and obviously we’ve set that much aside, as we’re not throwing spears or hand grenades at one another….0_0
P.S.
Another HUGE predicament between myself and Christianity is the idea of “cutting off the damaged segments” of society. In the case of stoning children….as it’s been explained, you seem to view children who behave in such a way as “damaged” because of the conditions surrounding their upbringing. It’s been said that, if they had been reared properly, they would not degenerate into such rebellion. However….if they do, for whatever reason, you seem to believe that there is no recourse but to kill them.
Forgive me for being utterly confounded by this belief. It takes a HUGE leap from “punishment” to “massacre,” almost as if the desire to massacre exists independently of the child’s actions.
Tim,
Even if it was us, and not Adam and Eve we probably would have fallen too.
Adam and Eve gave authority to the devil because they obeyed him instead of God.
Ex: Lets say I’m married to Joe and he’s a very nice and righteous man. But one day I become attracted to Pete, because he’s good looking. So I divorce Joe and marry Pete. Turns out Pete is jerk, deceived me by his good looks, but I married him so now I gave authority to him. Now my life is going to be a whole lot different than it used to be.
-Once the authority was given to the devil, then sin entered the world, and we became fallen individuals.
Why?
Sin entered the world and from sin comes all the things that aren’t pleasing to us.
If you have a pool and poison enters the pool, it poisons all the water in it. Pretty much what happened with us.
But God has provided a way out of this, to where we are made clean in His eyes, through Christ. Jesus cleansed us from our sin by taking the punishment we deserved Himself. Like a friend taking a bullet for you.
**It’s like He drank the entire pool of poisoned water, so we wouldn’t be poisoned. But we have to go to Him first, in order to be made clean before God.
** It is fair that God has provided a way out.
You said you were wondering, so there you go…
By the way Tim,
I think you are the one that has it twisted.
If you are a strong Darwininst then those that aren’t “fit” for society are the ones that get eliminated. So Darwinists are the ones that would come to the point of not helping the sick because you wouldn’t want to pass that trait on. You see how all that evolution/darwinist stuff is messed up.
In the Bible it never says you should kill innocent people.
That’s why the 6th commandment is “You shall not murder”.
Ex: Lets say I’m married to Joe and he’s a very nice and righteous man. But one day I become attracted to Pete, because he’s good looking. So I divorce Joe and marry Pete. Turns out Pete is jerk, deceived me by his good looks, but I married him so now I gave authority to him. Now my life is going to be a whole lot different than it used to be.
Bad analogy. If you could dump the first guy, what’s to stop you from dumping the second guy?
Sin entered the world and from sin comes all the things that aren’t pleasing to us.
Really? Because to you guys it’s apparently not a sin to murder rebellious children. And that doesn’t make me happy at all. So by your definition of “sin,” it’s actually the things that are displeasing that come from a life that is “free of sin.”
If you have a pool and poison enters the pool, it poisons all the water in it. Pretty much what happened with us.
….except we’re not water molecules, so it doesn’t work that way.
If one guy does something wrong, do you punish his children and grandchildren (and all of their offspring for the rest of eternity) for that? According to the Bible, yes, you do. Hence my rejection of that princple.
But God has provided a way out of this, to where we are made clean in His eyes, through Christ. Jesus cleansed us from our sin by taking the punishment we deserved Himself. Like a friend taking a bullet for you.
A bullet that only even hurts you if you pretend it’s there~
If you are a strong Darwininst then those that aren’t “fit” for society are the ones that get eliminated.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. If you can’t win the battle, make a straw man and tear it down. Works every time.
You are so desperate, it hurts….
In the Bible it never says you should kill innocent people.
Nope, just rebellious children.
That’s why the 6th commandment is “You shall not murder”.
“Murder” being defined as “killing that I don’t approve of.” “I” being “God.” Any killing can be tautologically justified against the original definition of “murder,” because the definition is not solid. It can change as easily as human whim. So I am less confident in your definition of “murder” or “wrongful killing” than I am in my own.
“If you are a strong Darwininst then those that aren’t “fit” for society are the ones that get eliminated.”
Strong Darwinist just means you strongly accept the evidence that evolution occurs. Would you say that if you accept that the holocaust occured then that means you support mass murder? No, you just accept the fact that it happened.
Also, you don’t understand the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’. The ‘fittest’ could easily be the weakest or smallest animals in a group. It’s not a ‘might is right’ observation.
“To stone a child who consistantly publicly mocks the authority of his or her parent”
What do you reckon the odds are that back then they used to stone a load of kids who were just autistic? I’ve got an autistic nephew – you could say he ‘mocks his parents’ authority’, but it’s not really his fault. His brain is wired differently from ours. He can remember the order of a whole pack of cards, but he can’t understand simple instructions. A couple of thousand years ago he’d have been tortured to death with rocks by a baying crown of ‘moral Christians’.
What do you reckon the odds are that back then they used to stone a load of kids who were just autistic? I’ve got an autistic nephew – you could say he ‘mocks his parents’ authority’, but it’s not really his fault. His brain is wired differently from ours. He can remember the order of a whole pack of cards, but he can’t understand simple instructions. A couple of thousand years ago he’d have been tortured to death with rocks by a baying crown of ‘moral Christians’.
Andrew,
I had never considered this, but you’re absolutely right. Very sad…
Matt, I know you said that this topic was closed, but I wonder if this adds any perspective for you. Do you believe that the general order of society is worth the sacrifice of those we may simply not understand?
“What do you reckon the odds are that back then they used to stone a load of kids who were just autistic?”
Andrew,
It’s obvious Christians wouldn’t do this because from birth they could tell something is wrong by comparing them to the other kids. So obviously a kid like this would never get stoned. They don’t stone people randomly. Like you don’t give random people the death penalty or a life sentence in jail.
-Absolutely NOT how the Bible states things. In the Bible it always works out fairness not cruelty. At least the things that God ordains. Now the people in the Bible a lot of them tripped out against God. God didn’t ordain it that way. ** Again they are the ones that mess up and rebel against God. It has nothing to do with Him.
Well, first of all, yes it does make me pause. But the question you ask, Luke, is phrased in an unintended straw-man fashion. I am not advocating that the ULTIMATE reason we should hold a biblical standard of conduct (in modern equity – discussed above) is for the general order of society, although that is certainly a major part of it. The ultimate reason unrepentant sinners were punished was to bring glory to God. It’s been said that God is glorified through both His mercy and damnation on sinners – the first showing his merciful goodness, and the other His justice in punishing them for a crime they committed against an eternal creator. Neither element of His character should be emphasized in a vacuum, at the expense of the other.
Remember, Israel was well aware, through generations of walking with God, that tolerating sin in their midst offended God. So while mercy should be a cornerstone of any Christian’s life, when mercy (or grace) is maintained in such a way as to never condemn any criminals (against man or God), it has become a thoroughly foreign type of mercy, Biblically speaking.
Short and sweet. Trying not to ramble
Peace,
Matt
I made you guys an analogy…
Richard, Chris, and Gary are friends. Richard and Chris are atheists and Gary is a theist.
———————————————————————————————
Richard: Guys look! There’s a cake in the kitchen counter! How did it come to be?? How did it get there?? I wonder how…
Gary: I don’t know man but somebody or something had to make it, in order to put it together.
Chris: No Gary, the foods could’ve assembled themselves together to make this cake.
Richard (whispers to Chris): Man, that doesn’t make sense homie…
Chris: Uhh… over billions and billions of years…
Richard: Bingo!
Gary: Are you guys serious? You really think the cake came to be by chance?
Chris: It’s not chance dummy. It’s called the process of Natural Selective Foods. The foods select the most beneficial ingredients to make themselves into cakes!
Gary: Are you nuts?! Things don’t ‘just’ happen, you know…
Richard: Gary, just because you don’t know how cakes are made doesn’t mean you have to resort to someone supernaturally putting this together.
Chris: Yeah! To make cakes you just mix flour, eggs, butter, and milk together and put it in the oven.
Gary: It doesn’t matter if you know how it works. That still doesn’t explain how it came to be a cake!
Richard: OBJECTION! You see Gary this cake is vanilla. We don’t like vanilla. Maybe if it was chocolate we would think of it possibly being made by someone. But since it’s vanilla, forget about it. Only possible through the process of Natural Selective Foods.
Chris: Such a great idea Richy. We need to make a book! How about we call it uhh.. ‘ The Origin of Foods’!!
Richard: That is a great idea Chris. Now lets get out of here. Us ‘brights’ can’t be hanging out with dumbo over here.
Gary: Uhh.. guys.. there a note here.. it says “To: Richard, From: Teresa”.
Chris: A note?? Probably a person like you trying to deceive us made that up. We don’t buy it!!! You’re in denial Gary, admit it. Never mind you’re just not as bright as us!
Gary: You guys have lost it.. I’m outta here!
Richard (says to Chris): It’s ok buddy he’s just not at our level.
———————————————————————————————
You guys shouldn’t just accept what the ‘culture’ tells you is true…. Come on now. Think about it. We have a Creator. It’s obvious!
The ultimate reason unrepentant sinners were punished was to bring glory to God.
That’s exactly what I was getting at much earlier, before the slavery and killing children issue came to light; that Christianity is utterly meaningless in the true sense, because all meaning is derived toward the worship and “Glory” of God, which you take to be self-evident and therefore definitionless….and so the only way to even derive any significance, metaphorical or otherwise, from serving God is to simply accept that “God is good” with no standard by which to judge that Goodness (or even what that goodness is). You’ve changed the terms “good,” “generous,” “worthy,” and “loving,” among many others, such that they no longer really describe anything, they simply allude to another definition that is neither clear nor evident. Thus, ambiguity.
The problem with all this being, if you change “good” so that it simply refers to God (and not something desirable or preferable, as “good” refers to in common English), then it is no longer self-evident that “good” is really “desirable” or “preferable” in any sense. Why should we care what is “Godly?” Let’s say something is “Good” in the sense that you mean it; if we follow the reasoning all the way to the top, all we wind up with is, “It brings glory to God.” What does that mean, and why should I care?
I’ll give you a cookie if you can answer the above paragraph without mentioning “Hell” or eternal damnation of some sort as a coercive argument.
Richard: Guys look! There’s a cake in the kitchen counter! How did it come to be?? How did it get there?? I wonder how…
Gary: I don’t know man but somebody or something had to make it, in order to put it together.
Chris: No Gary, the foods could’ve assembled themselves together to make this cake.
Richard (whispers to Chris): Man, that doesn’t make sense homie…
Chris: Uhh… over billions and billions of years…
Richard: Bingo!
Gary: Are you guys serious? You really think the cake came to be by chance?
Inaccurate on so many levels. For one, cakes do not have a habit of systematically assembling themselves over periods of time, as biological cells and other lifeforms do. If they did, then your argument here comparing cakes to universes and life would be more accurate, but they do not, and so it’s moot.
Second; there’s nothing about atheism that says you have to believe that the universe came to exist by some kind of magical “chance.” It’s not “God or chance.” That’s a 100% false dichotomy.
Third; this is no different than your poorly-constructed DNA argument; there is nothing I could show you that does manifest naturally over time that you wouldn’t simply claim as a “work of God” instead of a natural occurrence. So the whole case is entirely pointless, as it’s broken and biased beyond judgment from the start.
You guys shouldn’t just accept what the ‘culture’ tells you is true…. Come on now. Think about it. We have a Creator. It’s obvious!
(1) What is this “culture” you keep talking about? First it was “Teh Medias,” now it’s “Teh Cultures!” What’s next, “Teh Knowledges?” You know, I once heard a pastor refer to logical reasoning as “The Beast of Logic,” and then again later as “a tool of Satan.” Are you going to follow that line of thinking (or rather, not thinking) as well?
(2) No, it isn’t obvious. You could easily prove that if you could point to some literal proof instead of metaphorical, quasi-poetic “evidence” that relies on the existence of physical media to prove a point that you claim cannot be communicated by said physical media….or citing these claims of “obviousness” about this and that. It’s ludicrous, I say — ludicrous!
It’s obvious Christians wouldn’t do this because from birth they could tell something is wrong by comparing them to the other kids. So obviously a kid like this would never get stoned.
“Obviously.”
How do you define “obvious,” I wonder? By what standard is something “obvious?” Do you believe there is such a thing as “objectively obvious?”
Because in my dictionary, it says that obvious means “easy to see; plain to understand; Evident.” And these are all very subjective things; if you are not a rocket scientist, then rocket science will not be “obvious” to you when you see it in action. If you are not a follower of a certain religious cult, then the influence of that cult’s deity will not be “obvious” to you because you have not accepted that cult’s tenets as self-justifications for themselves.
“Obviously.”
In the Bible it always works out fairness not cruelty. At least the things that God ordains.
In your opinion.
P.S.
Is something wrong with the site, or is it just me? 0_0
Mark,
Thanks for your response. As you might have expected there are still a lot of things I don’t understand.
So if you roll all of G-d’s “omni’s,” you end up with a being worthy of worship. Do you see what I mean?
So it all still comes back to a circular argument.
G-d is defined as a being who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipresent.
Then we say that a being which has those qualities is worthy of worship, so how is that not just saying: G-d is worthy of worship because He’s G-d?
As far as some of your more specific comments I perhaps agree with you that some of those characteristics might warrant admiration. But I don’t understand how admiration turns into worship. Either way, I personally wouldn’t say that I admire a dump truck or a lion. If a dump truck could haul twice as much, I would be no more likely to admire it. I don’t think I would worship a dump truck, no matter what it could lift.
It seems that you are impressed with power, like a dump truck or super-nova, for example. On one hand, I suppose I understand; on the other I think I am somehow naturally distrustful of power (a very powerful man Andrew mentioned, Hitler, once had a large hard in practically destroying my homeland), so it means little or nothing to me. Do you think you’re just impressed by power for power’s sake? Or is it because a powerful G-d can enforce His will — that he can punish you (eternally) for not worshipping Him?
Perhaps this will make more sense to me once we have more clarity on the following:
You asked me to expound on my answer that These standards are not separate from G-d and He is not bound by them, but they flow from His existence and are a part of His very nature. When I said He is not bound by those laws, I didn’t mean He may choose to break them.
If He cannot break them, is He not in some way bound by them? I don’t see how this can work both ways.
What I meant is that they are a part of His very nature and therefore he could not go against the good.
The same problem remains. What is good? How do you know G-d nature is good and not evil (or some combination of the two)? (Without putting forth a tautology, of course.)
In your answer, you’ve shifted the metaphorical goalposts a bit, but the goal is the same.
The problem remains: how does the idea of good have a definition? How does your explanation render the concept any more meaningful?
It seems that your answer allows us to answer Bertrand Russell’s charge that ‘good’ is based upon G-d’s whim (as you surely don’t accept a standard higher than G-d). Well, we now say it is not His whim, rather it’s something that is part of Him, not something He decided on.
This escapes the problem of G-d’s whim, but does not address the larger problem. If we phrase the dilemma as: is it moral because G-d says it is, or does G-d say it because it’s moral, then you still answer the former. (It’s moral because G-d says it and G-d says it because goodness and morality flow from Him.) Again, you only escape the charge that G-d decided it on a whim. You now say that it is good because G-d says it, but that G-d does not say it because of His whim, but because of some part of Him causes it. This adds nothing whatsoever to my understanding. (The problem never was that it was on some kind of whim that G-d determined these things.)
We still have the same problem, I think. How do we know that this nature, which is part of G-d, is good in any non-circular sense?
If this nature was actually mixed — sometimes good, sometimes bad, how would we know? How would G-d even know? (It seems to me the only way G-d could judge this nature of His is to make up some standard by which to judge, so maybe even the problem of whim is not gone.)
It’s as if you’re saying that G-d is spleeny because he has a spleen. But without some other definitions, that concept is circular and meaningless.
I hope that makes it a bit clearer, but I’m afraid I can’t explain such things without a great deal of metaphorical language.
You don’t need to apologize for metaphor or for length. One of my favorite books is Moby Dick, so…
So to answer your question, there are no examples of what G-d might do if He chose to do something “not good.”
So aren’t we admitting here that the concept is indeed completely devoid of meaning?
If G-d decided to create a race of men to rape every child currently on earth, you would say that this was “good?”
Then how can it be in any way meaningful that G-d is good?
In discussions like these, we often see the line from The Brothers Karamazov that without G-d everything is permitted, but it seems to me to be just the opposite.
[Luke] Said: “We each have some sort of standard of right and wrong (agreed?). (It doesn’t matter why we have these standards or where we believe they came from, the point is we have such standards.) We can all say: A is right, and b is wrong, and we can do this on a number of issues.”
I’d have to disagree with you on this one. The way we ground right wrong is very important.
Sorry, I meant that for the purposes of my question it did not matter. My point was that no matter where is came from we are able to say that A is good and B is bad. Or do you disagree with this as well?
The atheistss arguments against G-dd’s goodness are the same… At the best, the atheist can say they’re distasteful to him, not that they’re wrong.
I see what you mean, but I think Tim has commented plenty on this topic (in various topics and here). Honestly, I have not seen anyone give him any rational answers.
There is much I simply don’t understand about the concept of universal morality as it has been discussed on these blogs.
Let me ask this way, and perhaps you can help me understand. You say that an atheist cannot say something is wrong, but how does a Christian theist say it? From what I have read here so far (and I am here to learn, so this itself doesn’t mean much), it seems that a Christian theist can only say:
These things are distasteful to G-d.
Or am I wrong?
(And whether or not this has any meaning whatsoever all ties back to the problem we have with ‘good.’)
(It strikes me as strange that in this generation instead of mankind being on the witness stand on trial for his crimes, mankind has put G-d upon the stand is now grilling Him with questions.)
I don’t know if I agree with this statement on a factual level. Surely you have read the book of Job and (perhaps) the Revelation of Ezra. G-d has been asked difficult question for a long, long time.
I’m sorry this is so long, but there were a bunch of questions and I hope I answered them adequately for you. I also apologize for the length of time there, as my spare time has been greatly taxed of late.
No worries.
The problem with all this being, if you change “good” so that it simply refers to God (and not something desirable or preferable, as “good” refers to in common English), then it is no longer self-evident that “good” is really “desirable” or “preferable” in any sense. Why should we care what is “Godly?” Let’s say something is “Good” in the sense that you mean it; if we follow the reasoning all the way to the top, all we wind up with is, “It brings glory to God.” What does that mean, and why should I care?
I’ll give you a cookie if you can answer the above paragraph without mentioning “Hell” or eternal damnation of some sort as a coercive argument.
… I don’t know, Tim. I’m not following… Attacking something like this from another angle can often help. IOW, not “why should I worship God”, since you don’t believe in one. I’m thinking (correct me if you feel I’m wrong) that any question beyond “is there a God” will be met with hostility since the root hasn’t been shown. It’ll all be tainted with hostility towards those “lemming christians” or those “child-murderers” or “God the egomaniacal fiend, ala Dawkins”…
Don’t know what to tell you. You expend a great deal of time and energy trying to tear facets of Christianity down, but I’m thinking nothing’ll change your mind in any of these discussions when the assumption that God is a myth is involved.
Hope you work it out – I think you’re quite smart, and I’d love you as a fellow sojourner thinking the hard questions about what to do in light of God’s existence.
Peace,
Matt
Vocab question – what do you call something that is root level knowledge that other knowledge is built on… the philosophy term? Primary knowledge? Like the knowledge that the world around you is real, or your senses are reliable – those root things… can’t google the right combo of words to get it.
-Matt
Watch this video it totally refutes atheistic naturalism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3nEhIlkFV8&feature=channel
The whole point of this article Mark wrote here is that God is worthy of worship because we owe our very lives to Him. Also that it’s impossible not to tell people about God when you truly get to know Him.
That’s the point.
Hi Matt, I’m not sure if this is what you are looking for but it sounds like you are describing epistemology to me. If you don’t already know what that it is,it is the philosophical discipline of how we gain knowledge. I don’t have much more than an amateur understanding of epistemology but I can tell you a couple things about it. Within epistemology you have four basic “laws” that correlate with the reality in which we live and is fundamental to making sense out of all philosophy, and all science. These four laws are:
1) The law of non-contradiction: Two contradictory statements cannot both be true.
2) The law of causality: Every effect must have a cause.
3) The basic reliability of sense perception.
4) The analogous use of language.
Again, these four laws form the foundation for which all knowledge is gained. Also, these are four laws that a Christian must always presuppose and defend against skeptics when trying to provide a rational basis for the existence of God. Any attack or disregard for any of these laws by a skeptic is always forced and temporary, i.e. they deny one of the laws to disprove the Christian worldview, and then turn around and use the same law to prove their own worldview. It is important to remember that the very sciences skeptics use to validate their own worldview use these laws. Imagine a world where science said that a woman is pregnant and is not pregnant in the same breath, or that there is an effect which wasn’t caused, or that we can’t rely on our senses at all to understand anything about the external world, or that we can’t use language to describe anything. How could you go about proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt?
“what do you call something that is root level knowledge that other knowledge is built on… the philosophy term?”
Axioms.
“Don’t know what to tell you. You expend a great deal of time and energy trying to tear facets of Christianity down, but I’m thinking nothing’ll change your mind in any of these discussions when the assumption that God is a myth is involved.”
Assuming some of your premises are true is often an unacknowledged olive branch that atheists offer theists. Were we to start our discussion at the beginning, it would be, like you say, a short and frustrated conversation.
“I’m thinking nothing’ll change your mind in any of these discussions when the assumption that God is a myth is involved.”
I don’t want to speak at length on behalf of others, but I think any atheist worth his salt should be able to easily articulate circumstances or experiences that would change his world-view. I can. Can you?
IOW, not “why should I worship God”, since you don’t believe in one. I’m thinking (correct me if you feel I’m wrong) that any question beyond “is there a God” will be met with hostility since the root hasn’t been shown. It’ll all be tainted with hostility towards those “lemming christians” or those “child-murderers” or “God the egomaniacal fiend, ala Dawkins”…
You clearly misread the topic (and my responses). For the sake of the argument of whether or not God should be worshiped, of course we’re assuming He does exist. But only for the sake of the argument. I have to clarify this because I know the minute I say, “So God says this,” or “God did this,” someone is bound to leap forward and shout, “A-hah! So you admit God exists!”
No, I don’t. It’s called a hypothetical -_-
In any case….no, I don’t believe your god exists. And no, I don’t believe He would be worthy of worship (based on what you’ve explained to me here) if He did exist. The reasons that you’ve offered (that I have discounted) have been discounted because they appeal to things that are not consistent — such as “He created us, therefore we’re bound to do as he says” (which makes no sense; we can choose to see it that way, of course — that’s morality, the choice, not the law — but there is nothing objective or final about that), or “he created the universe,” both of which are basically versions of “He’s really strong, so we should listen to what he says.” It’s the oldest and most socially-flawed incarnation of Follow The Leader.
Don’t know what to tell you. You expend a great deal of time and energy trying to tear facets of Christianity down, but I’m thinking nothing’ll change your mind in any of these discussions when the assumption that God is a myth is involved.
I don’t even have to try to tear Christian facets down….they do a fine job themselves, I just point them out. And instead of answering them, you get huffy, fold your arms and complain about the fact that I’m not so easy to convince.
I guess what I mean is….if God is real, and He represents some kind of truth that we all have as a part of our consciousness, then you are doing a terrible job of representing that truth to me here. I’ve come a long way to reconcile with myself, and when I measure that against the ideals you’ve presented here, I find them to be completely, almost unanimously incompatible. The “truth in my heart,” so to speak, does not reflect the “truth” of your “Creator.”
Vocab question – what do you call something that is root level knowledge that other knowledge is built on… the philosophy term? Primary knowledge? Like the knowledge that the world around you is real, or your senses are reliable – those root things… can’t google the right combo of words to get it.
I do believe it is called a “First Principle.” Although to assume that there is only one such principle per worldview would be a bit hasty, I think; it’s entirely possible that more than one First Principle exists within a single mind (i.e. two or more “givens”) that chain together to form the basis for an internally-consistent worldview.
Let me ask this way, and perhaps you can help me understand. You say that an atheist cannot say something is wrong, but how does a Christian theist say it? From what I have read here so far (and I am here to learn, so this itself doesn’t mean much), it seems that a Christian theist can only say:
As I see it, the difference between the theistic view of “Absolute Morality” and the atheistic view of the opposite, it works like this:
-) Christians believe that all people have the right to assert “rights” and “wrongs” and act thusly;
-) Therefore, it follows that if someone else acts in a way that a Christian deems “wrong,” then the Christian has a self-enforced “right” to act/speak against that.
-) Atheists* believe that nobody has the right to assert true “rightness” and “wrongness;” rather, that nobody has the authority to assert that which transcends the individual (granted that there is no way to check the balance that is required for such an act to be possible; we can see, and so we gauge our sight against that which others claim to see. Same with sound, touch, smell and hearing. No such measurement can be used with “rightness” or “wrongness,” and so no comparison is possible).
-) Therefore, it follows that, if someone does something that the atheist is personally threatened by (or feels that someone else is personally threatened by), then he/she feels obligated to act based on his/her own internal principles, based on the very idea that the other person has no right to assert his/her view in such a way as to encroach upon the lives or well-being of others. The atheist has no right to act, either, in an objective sense; there is no such thing as an “objective” right or an “absolute” right, because the very concept of “right” is subjective. And so there is just as much justification for the atheist acting in response — perhaps moreso — than for the person committing the offensive act.
So what we basically arrive at is a similar scenario from both sides; one simply asserts that their case is “true” and “transcendently objective,” whereas the other admits that we can’t know that for sure.
“The atheist has no right to act, either, in an objective sense; there is no such thing as an “objective” right or an “absolute” right, because the very concept of “right” is subjective.”
There are atheists who do believe there is something very much like objective right and wrong, though their definition of morality is different–something more like “human well-being.”
There are a couple Youtube videos worth watching titled “Sam Harris: Can we ever be right about right and wrong?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdQhLXTvNM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqF0jnv3tZY
Andrea: “It’s obvious Christians wouldn’t do this because from birth they could tell something is wrong by comparing them to the other kids.”
Right, and they’ll say ‘something is wrong with this kid – he must be incorrigible or filled with demons’. Anyway, Christians still do the equivalent with gays today. You can often tell a kid is going to be gay from the age of about 5 – they’re already displaying very different behaviour from other boys or girls respectively at that age. And yet they’re damned with the label ‘unnatural’, despite it obviously being completely natural behaviour for them.
I’m pretty sure plenty of autistic kids got stoned, along with kids with mental health issues, Down’s Syndrome etc. By the way, it’s autism awareness day today.
And instead of answering them, you get huffy, fold your arms and complain about the fact that I’m not so easy to convince.
? I was under the impression that the last 4 or 5 months I went above an dbeyond, in my free time, to do just that – answer them… and ask questions… and instead of throwing in your face the fallacies I assume are there, I respect your point of view and kindly probe further, all with the intent of understanding your worldview. Never did I resort to name calling (“monster”, etc.) nor insult you personally, so I don’t know where that’s coming from. Let’s be aware of loaded statements like the one you just used, Tim.
I have endeavored, as in the “real” spheres of my life, to represent Christianity as I understand it – nothing more. I’ve been open and honest, giving ground when I did not know an answer. My Bible commands me to treat others the way I want to be treated – and I believe that you and all the other non-theists are still created in the image of God and deserving respect, though you deny this belief.
Andrew – misdiagnosing an illness was and IS common among all societies – this is not Judeo-Christian territory only. And we’re dealing with (at least we were) a parent bringing a long-term rebellious, drunkard, lazy, law-defying, God’s wrath-inviting, drain on society. One tenth of their law – Honor they mother and father – was devoted to this. More if you see it in “Love the Lord they God” and other extrapolations of the principle of following hard after God. Centuries of judgments resulting from unpurged “leaven” in their midst had taught the Jews to be merciful, but not forever. For the sake of the “true” Israel, those who opposed the laws, WAY beyond the ordinary courses of discipline, deserved to either be banished or receive the maximum penalty.
Judaism was significantly MORE merciful than the alternatives in that time, offering cities of refuge, sacrifices, etc. Christianity comes along and raises the standard even more – pointing out that the internal life of a Jew was just as important as its outworking in his hands… think Sermon on the Mount, here.
The Bible describes Jesus as coming “full of grace and truth”. Balancing the two is at the heart of this discussion. Being all grace or ALL truth gives us either anarchy or totalitarianism. Individual mercy and grace, spreading the good news and making disciples of all men… The state wielding justice/truth, striking fear into criminals to protect the innocent… that’s the way I see it outlined by the end of the NT.
Peace,
Matt
“Never did I resort to name calling (”monster”, etc.)”
Oh come on, Matt, you say that you consider crushing children’s heads with rocks to be a reasonable form of punishment and you don’t expect people to find that monstrous?
By the way, “I’m not a monster, Tim!” from Spaced is my favourite line in any TV show, ever. It’s the way Peter Serafinovich delivers it.
Not toddlers, not adolescents – adults by every measurable standard in their community, as they are of drinking age – lazy, disrespectful (which I repeat breaks a very serious law with serious consequences in almost ANY Ancient Near-East culture), drunk, rebellious, and instead of having this person become the ruin of their whole community, bringing the wrath of God on all the law-abiding people, parents had the option of a MAXIMUM penalty of stoning.
All those shades of slight difference amount to something, Andrew. Crushing a child’s head with rocks is terribly misleading, as is the assumption that any parent then or now would desire such a thing.
-Matt
Of drinking age? That’s a meaningless term – it’s 21 in your country, more like 13 in France. What if the parents are psychotics? We’ve had a few cases in the UK of parents killing their children, just because they got fed up with their crying. Who decides where the dividing line is for ‘lazy and disrespectful’? That’s pretty subjective, no? The parents get to decide? Well there’s a great get-out for all those lousy parents out there! Sometimes parents are idiots, sorry but not everyone’s parents are fantastic.
Also, isn’t it a little odd to oppose abortion for a two day-old foetus, but see nothing wrong in allowing a parent to murder their child completely at their own descretion just because they don’t feel they’re getting enough respect from their kid?
“misdiagnosing an illness was and IS common among all societies ”
Right, that’s why it’s not a good idea just to stone people who may be ill. If someone’s committing a crime, then punish them in the ways we have in our laws. There’s a big difference between, say murdering someone and just being ‘lazy and disrespectful’. For a start, one leaves someone dead, the other leaves someone feeling disrespected.
Sometimes parents are idiots, sorry but not everyone’s parents are fantastic.
Matt has openly admitted this. He even went as far as saying that often parents deserve most of the blame. Which is why I don’t understand why the child should ever be subject to the ultimate penalty. This is openly claiming that it is fair for the less responsible party bear the brunt of the punishment. Something I personally can’t comprehend as just in any way. (I feel as though I have become numb to the general apologetic of child stoning, I can no longer keep shouting that this is wrong.)
As far as the killing of autistic and mentally disabled people, I disagree that it is obvious this did not happen (sorry). To me, it is actually quite obvious that it would have. And while Matt is right that misdiagnosis occurs and probably always will, this to me is a pretty good reason to not torture people to death. As Andrew has described it, an autistic person would fit the criteria set forth pretty well. As far as the drinking is concerned, I am sure that we are all aware that self-medication is very common among those afflicted with mental problems.
Judaism was significantly MORE merciful than the alternatives in that time
While I have no basis on which to factually judge this statement either way, here is the problem that I see: What we’re talking about here is a law given from G-d; it is G-d’s word. I would not expect it “significantly more merciful,” I would expect it to be perfect. Am I mistaken in this expectation? It is hard to see perfection when we can sit here, over 2,500 years later and be heartbroken over the fact that autistic and other innocent children were tortured to death in the name of the Law. I think when talking about the word of G-d, significantly more merciful is a pretty low standard.
As far as drinking age, I am quite doubtful anything like this existed, at least in any form close to what we imagine it. Overall, what would be considered an adult 2,500 years ago, would still be considered a child (minor) today.
Ranom: Andew, have you ever read The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time?
Never did I resort to name calling (”monster”, etc.) nor insult you personally, so I don’t know where that’s coming from. Let’s be aware of loaded statements like the one you just used, Tim.
Which loaded statement did I just use? I’m referring to your comments like these:
I’m thinking (correct me if you feel I’m wrong) that any question beyond “is there a God” will be met with hostility since the root hasn’t been shown. It’ll all be tainted with hostility towards those “lemming christians” or those “child-murderers” or “God the egomaniacal fiend, ala Dawkins”…
Forgive me if, after seeing your positions on child-killing and slavery, I’ve begun to see the other tenets of your religion as somewhat less important in context. Seeing what a view like yours can produce has given me another good reason to appreciate my non-Christianity.
Andrew – misdiagnosing an illness was and IS common among all societies – this is not Judeo-Christian territory only.
Misdiagnosing is not the same thing as “assuming there is demonry involved.” Misdiagnosing involves mistaking one genuine illness for another, based on similar symptoms; what people do when they execute children for being “demonically possessed” (hypothetically speaking, of course), is they assume there is something supernatural involved when that is obviously not the case.
And unfortunately for the Christian point, it’s only possible to “misdiagnose” someone with demon possession if one actually believes in demon possession….
Judaism was significantly MORE merciful than the alternatives in that time, offering cities of refuge, sacrifices, etc.
That reminds me of something I read in a magazine some time ago, about Globalism….someone defended shipping out a lot of U.S. jobs to China for a particular industrial effort. Someone else attacked the decision, pointing out that the company was only paying its Chinese workers $12 a day, whereas the American worker would be making that much an hour, at the very least. The corporate head responded, “Well, we’re still better than the native Chinese sweatshops….I mean, they only give them $6 a day! We give them twice that!”
The point being that, at the end of the day, exploitation is still exploitation, even if it’s slightly less severe. And tyranny is still tyranny, even if it’s less severe than other immediately present forms. I fully expect that, if there were such a thing as a singular, Ultimately Absolutely True form of Christian Morality and Social Law, then it would be the same from the very beginning, completely unchanging, because such is the nature of perfection — it needs no change. Whether or not they “raise the bar slightly higher” is irrelevant; either you’re spot-on, or you’re not. Otherwise, it’s not an absolute.
Not toddlers, not adolescents – adults by every measurable standard in their community, as they are of drinking age – lazy, disrespectful (which I repeat breaks a very serious law with serious consequences in almost ANY Ancient Near-East culture), drunk, rebellious, and instead of having this person become the ruin of their whole community, bringing the wrath of God on all the law-abiding people, parents had the option of a MAXIMUM penalty of stoning.
It doesn’t matter. If you kill someone, they are gone. They are dead. They are never, ever coming back. Jesus isn’t going to resurrect them. They are dead. That is so very, very final, and I think that either you don’t grasp that, or you don’t care; either way, I find it very disturbing. Disrespecting someone — intentionally or not — is a finite action (and for the record, no, disrespecting someone is not a “punishable offense” in modern culture; the cause must be rooted in something that can be proven in court); killing someone is a permanent action. I simply do not understand how, in any case, a parent could murder their child for being disrespectful (or for any other reason). That’s taking back years that are spent rearing, teaching and maturing, and a person like you is willing to just wipe it all away because of a snide comment or two (or maybe five or six? The line seems so fine with you, yet it seems so arbitrary to me; you tell me how many mean things a kid has to say before the parent is “justified” in slaughtering them, or how many times they have to get drunk).
All those shades of slight difference amount to something, Andrew. Crushing a child’s head with rocks is terribly misleading, as is the assumption that any parent then or now would desire such a thing.
Again with the doublethink, which is also very misleading; “as if any parent would desire such a thing.” Yet they would still do it! You can lie to yourself and say, “I don’t want to do this,” and then do it because you think God told you to, but that doesn’t change a thing. You’re still killing a child, and you’re still condoning it. The fact that you’re “saddened” by this act of which you are fully aware and fully capable of preventing does not make the act itself any more acceptable to someone like me. In fact, that makes it worse, because you are fully aware of what you are doing and you still choose to do it.
If there has been any point you’ve made to me that proves Christian “morality” is anything but, it’s this one.
Also, isn’t it a little odd to oppose abortion for a two day-old foetus, but see nothing wrong in allowing a parent to murder their child completely at their own descretion just because they don’t feel they’re getting enough respect from their kid?
Once you’re alive, OT/NT law says that the government or the community have the right to take away your life for pretty much any offense….and anyone who gets between the government’s right to take your life and the government’s right to make sure you stay alive until they have a chance to take it, is considered “immoral” by some twisted logic. Sure, they’ll kill you as a “maximum penalty”….but that doesn’t change the fact that the punishment doesn’t really have to fit the crime. Are you kind of a jerk? Does everyone in the neighborhood just kinda not like you for a variety of reasons? Are you by any chance a kid? Well, lucky you, we’re gonna stone you to death today, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
That’s why I don’t understand these claims that America is “a Christian nation.” We do no such things; we don’t execute town drunks, we don’t murder bratty kids. We punish people who do those things.
[/rant]
“Andew, have you ever read The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time?”
Yes, it’s excellent. My sister in law said it was fantastic too, and perfectly captured her son.
“I feel as though I have become numb to the general apologetic of child stoning”
Me too. Thank God (!) that my sister in law isn’t a Christian, so I don’t have to fear that she will one day break her son’s legs with boulders, and crush his fingers with flint, put out his eyes with flung pebbles, and smash his little head in with sharp rocks. Matt may think it’s a shame that these things will never happen, but he’s yet to convince me that I’m wrong.
Let’s just hope that Matt’s children never develops any mental health problems. Please Matt, please get them diagnosed first before you reach for the gravel and stones to slaughter them.
Let’s just hope that Matt’s children never develops any mental health problems. Please Matt, please get them diagnosed first before you reach for the gravel and stones to slaughter them.
I’m beginning to think that for all your deep thoughts you don’t read so well.
Or else this is calculated misunderstanding.
Ok – last time, let’s focus, guys. I believe that the Jewish civil law was a reflection of the moral law, given by God to Moses and certified with many signs and wonders. In that moral law, God commanded that children should honor their mother and father. Therefor, to dishonor your parent is to rebel against the king, that is God. In conclusion, i believe that their harsh penalties were appropriate and reflected a grave seriousness toward Yahweh and continuuing in His blessing, which was removed many times for tolerating sin among His Holy People.
Now, our civil law is BASED on Biblical principles, but it is nowhere near a one-for-one copy. Our law has always been and will always be obeyed by me. The moral law is what I am bound to. Not the civil law which was a Jewish expression of said moral law three thousand + years ago. I have never hurt a child, nor do I desire to do that. Because our country’s gov’t has been put over us by God. What is lawful in ancient Israel is not lawful here, and that’s fine.
By saying that the civil Judaic law was appropriate for their time and place in history, in no way am I advocating “shoe-horning” in those type of punishments into our society. I do not desire to ever see this kind of punishment inflicted, just as they didn’t back then. Any parent who gleefully hurts their offspring has no love of God in them. If this happened back then (as it does now) it does not abolish the “right” ness of taking God’s law serious.
My heart is captive to God’s moral law, which is an expression of His character. The civil law of my country expresses (less than it used to) similar morals.
Clear? I think i’m done with this – keep your bait, guys
-Matt
Matt: “In conclusion, i believe that their harsh penalties were appropriate”
Fine, Matt, I believe you’ve made your opinions crystal clear. I’m just waiting till Frank Turek’s done with his Hitchens debate so he can come out clearly either against your opinion here or for it.
If he supports you, I’ll write to Christopher Hitchens and advise him next time he’s debating Frank, if the latter brings up morality then Hitch is simply to ask him whether or not he believes it was ever appropriate to bludgen children to death with rocks and stones.
By the way, I’d love to see someone make another version of that ‘Cruel Logic’ video discussed elsewhere on this site. Except instead of a psycho with a blowtorch, it’ll be a Christian with a bunch of rocks. And instead of a professor tied to a chair, it’ll be a frightened child, begging for his life while the Christian spouts the kind of ‘stoning apologetics’ we’ve all read on this board.
Matt:
“Therefor, to dishonor your parent is to rebel against the king, that is God. In conclusion, i believe that their harsh penalties were appropriate…”
I think that it wasn’t the people’s civil law, as you suggest, but a commandment directly from god:
“Whoever curses his father or mother must be put to death. He has cursed his father or mother and deserves to die.” — Leviticus 20:9
Isn’t it god speaking here?
“The moral law is what I am bound to. Not the civil law which was a Jewish expression of said moral law three thousand + years ago.”
Again, this is coming straight from god, if I’m reading the passage correctly. This isn’t a Jewish consensus on how to apply god’s moral precepts. It’s god telling people that they must execute anyone who curses his or her parent.
“I do not desire to ever see this kind of punishment inflicted, just as they didn’t back then.”
Why not? It’s a commandment from god.
“…keep your bait, guys.”
It’s not bait. The authors of this site think that the Christian world-view is the best fit for the experience we have of this world (best box top) and that Christian morality is written “on everyone’s hearts”. From what I can see, this is not true for me, and it’s not even true of many people who call themselves Christians. So the question naturally follows: can you, as a Christian, wholeheartedly embrace your god’s rules? Or are your more nuanced views an admission that you prefer the less capital secular laws of the US?
Coylh -
darn good points. Lemme think. I’m not afraid to admit I’m wrong, if convinced. I hope we all are here.
-Matt
Just quickly (more later if possible, Coylh)
The Lord decreeing something to the Israelites may or may not be normative for all time. Example – food restrictions. A king is able to decree that something must be done in a season or for a reason, until it is no longer needed. A gut response might be – God determined that His people were so unbelievably susceptible to the surrounding pagans and their influence in Canaan that He instituted a series of regulations to keep them separate and pure, as the “seed” of Genesis 3:15 was to come from this people, and the people must be Holy.
I dunno – first thought in my head about that. What say you?
-Matt
Funny how you sometimes end up listening to yourself and go “whoah…”. While still convinced that God’s regulations and punishments for the Israelites were just, according to His character and revealed moral law, were they normative? Jesus changed a whole lot in reference to law and regulations, from diet to day of the sabbath, …. hmmmmmmm
Any Christian on-lookers want to weigh in on this one?
-Matt
Sorry, but this is jumping back a bit and addressing some non sequiturs.
DNA as a code. What else is like that? Atoms. Formed from subatomic particles in the nuclear blast furnaces of stars. So “coded” that they make a nice table based on size and properties. They even make up DNA.
Andrea’s talk of Darwinism lacking compassion. And similarly the argument (not put forth here) that morality and kindness has to come from a creator, not DNA.
I have a son. He’s two. I was sitting with him eating lunch a few days ago and leaned over to him as he picked up a french fry. “Can I have that,” I asked and opened my mouth. He put the fry in and laughed. Anyone else ever do this? I thanked him and on we went with our lives. A thought occurred to me as I was eating. “Why did I just do that?” I didn’t have any reason behind it. I’d done it hundreds of times before. Why did I do that? I (and many of you have too) had unconsciously been teaching my son to share. And it had nothing to do with reason or theology. DNA everyone, it sure is something.
Ok – last time, let’s focus, guys. I believe that the Jewish civil law was a reflection of the moral law, given by God to Moses and certified with many signs and wonders. In that moral law, God commanded that children should honor their mother and father. Therefor, to dishonor your parent is to rebel against the king, that is God. In conclusion, i believe that their harsh penalties were appropriate and reflected a grave seriousness toward Yahweh and continuuing in His blessing, which was removed many times for tolerating sin among His Holy People.
Exactly; anything can be twisted into a direct rebellion against God, even if it’s several steps removed. Kid rebels against parents —-> disobeying commandment given by God —-> direct rebellion against God.
What about a kid who feels that he or she knows “God’s truth” better than his/her parents? Perhaps his parents are pro-choice and he’s anti-choice, and he disrespects his parents based on that? What of that?
What is lawful in ancient Israel is not lawful here, and that’s fine.
I still don’t understand this. Why is that fine with you? What is the difference (besides changing social heirarchy, which shouldn’t affect moral “absolutes” at all) between our society today and the society of “back then?”
Any parent who gleefully hurts their offspring has no love of God in them.
There’s that trick again; anyone who gleefully hurts their offspring. Not anyone who hurts their offspring, just anyone who enjoys it. It’s okay to hurt your kid as long as you think you’re serving God by doing so. Am I correct?
I have a son. He’s two. I was sitting with him eating lunch a few days ago and leaned over to him as he picked up a french fry. “Can I have that,” I asked and opened my mouth. He put the fry in and laughed. Anyone else ever do this? I thanked him and on we went with our lives. A thought occurred to me as I was eating. “Why did I just do that?” I didn’t have any reason behind it. I’d done it hundreds of times before. Why did I do that? I (and many of you have too) had unconsciously been teaching my son to share. And it had nothing to do with reason or theology. DNA everyone, it sure is something.
This is my theory:
For many people, I think kindness is just instinct. We’re social creatures, and as long as we acknowledge and accept our humanity (and all the things that encompasses), we basically “know” that we are made to be social, and so our actions are sort of pigeonholed into that lifestyle. We’re generally inclined to do things like, as you say, share, and invite others to participate in things we enjoy, because that is how we form bonds with others, and those bonds pull us out of our own isolation and bring us to the point that we are generally most happy — when we have someone to care about, and friends to hang out with, and things to do.
Matt,
I fully believe that you would never consider stoning your child.
What troubles me is that you are unable to unequivocally say “stoning children is wrong.” This is an opening which, to me, should not exist. We simply disagree on this. I say the same thing of your inability to unequivocally say “slavery is wrong.”
What really interests me about this is the accusation often thrown at guys like Tim and Andrew that they can’t say something is “wrong.” Again, there’s the line I mentioned in an earlier post that without G-d everything is permitted. But just looking at the conversations here, it is you and Andrea, the theists, who are more permissive. This is an odd and perhaps even unexpected dichotomy.
Given the point that Andrew brought up about autism, etc, I find this position even more astonishing.
When I asked if the general order of society is worth the sacrifice of those we may simply not understand, you said that I was unintentionally setting up a straw man (it was unintentional). So let me ask it this way — is anything worth sacrificing and killing those we may simply not understand?
I comprehend your points about dishonoring G-d, but what do you think dishonors G-d more: cursing one’s parents or torturing a child to death? (As you’ve fully admitted, it is often the parents who are more at fault anyway, not to mention the cases of autism or mental impairment which we’ve been discussing.) If your answer is the former, then we will simply have to agree that we have no common ground here.
Matt, I don’t want to be nor do I intend to be presumptuous, but I sincerely believe that if Andrew and I got you really, really drunk, to where your guard was down and you were completely honest about what is in your metaphorical heart, you’d gladly agree with us that stoning a child is always inexcusable.
If I am right about this, then I sympathize with your position. On the one hand you “know” that stoning any child, let alone an autistic child is, well, monstrous, on the other hand, you revere a book which clearly sanctions it.
Tim,
As far as the pro-life kid with pro-choice parents the answer is easy: Rainy Day Women # 12 & 35.
Luke
Atoms can be arranged in a variety of ways. It’s not until an intelligent source comes and makes an encoding/decoding system about how to measure atoms in a variety of ways that we can organize them into a swell pattern based on size, electron configuration, etc.
Remember: You only need one example of a code that does not have a conscious mind as a designer to topple Perry’s argument.
As far as the pro-life kid with pro-choice parents the answer is easy: Rainy Day Women # 12 & 35.
I spent about 25 minutes Googling and Yahoo! Answers-ing that, and I still have no idea what you mean by that….I get that it’s a Bob Dylan song about some stuff, but….ah, I’m lost
It’s not until an intelligent source
Problem: That intelligent source? It has to be made of something. Intelligence is not some magical substance that exists independently of matter; it’s a process that requires synaptic reactions, which require brain tissue, which requires cells, which require atoms…..so that doesn’t make sense.
Something must exist prior to creating, an uncaused first cause.
If you are going to look at things materially, think about this:
You make Bread from>Flour> from Grain > from grain Seed> from uhh.. that’s where it STARTS.
God existed prior to creating. He is spaceless- He made space. Immaterial- made material. Timeless- Made time. God is infinite. You can only have one infinite being, you can’t have two infinities.
- Similar to you drawing a picture. You draw the picture, but you are NOT the picture.
Here watch this: Faith and Science- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEi5UpHUD1g&feature=channel_page
Yes, atoms can be arranged in a variety of ways. I’m not saying that the periodic table is the “code system”. The atoms themselves are. They are not consciously designed. They formed in stars and in reactions with each other form molecules. If you or whoever is saying that DNA is some grand code then the grander code is atoms and molecules that make up not only DNA, but everything else. Try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis. There are several theories out there and the great thing about science is that until the correct theory is found everything is considered. But the problem with religion is it has one answer, one stance. It never changes until science kicks the legs out from under it (kind of like the idea that when you sneeze a devil is trying to come out or get in or whatever). Only then will religion’s stance change and that’s usually the next bit of science that hasn’t got a solid theory.
Tim: “Intelligence is not some magical substance that exists independently of matter”
“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.”
- Norbert Weiner, MIT Mathematician and “Father of Modern Cybernetics”
Unless, of course, an encoding and decoding system can arise naturally.
“Information is information, neither matter nor energy. Any materialism that fails to take account of this will not survive one day.”
Information in the literal sense is a configuration of matter and/or energy.
Secondly, these vague arguments from authority are not really getting my jive….
Unless, of course, an encoding and decoding system can arise naturally.
That’s a bit of a complex statement; you’ll have to be more specific. What part of the system do you think cannot “arise naturally?”
Concerning the topic of Old Testament law: I am a fairly new Christian, and by no means a Theologian. If you really want answers that make sense about this very controversial subject, I would recommend seeking out a qualified theologian. R.C. Sproul, Ravi Zacharias, and John Piper are the first few that pop into mind at it’s very easy to find free information from them via the internet and itunes, and they have all written many books. Anyway this is my answer, it is by no means exhaustive, but it is what I have come to understand so far about the harsh OT laws.
First, I would like to remind the Christians posting here of the absolute sovereignty of God that is taught in the scripture. We may not understand everything he does, but we can be assured regardless through careful study of the scripture and our own God given reason that we have enough reasons to trust in his decisions, even though we may not understand them.
With that being said, I don’t claim to know why God does everything he does. If I knew that, I suppose I would be God. I know that he reveals to us what he wants us to know, and keeps to himself what he does not. But from what I understand of what God has revealed to us on this subject are several things: First God has a master plan, and that these rules he gave to the Jews were part of that plan. The laws were never intended to free people of their sin, they were given to show us that we are all sinners, and we all fall short of the glory of God.
Second, all sin is essentially equal in the eyes of God. You murmur a curse word or you molest an innocent child, it all leads to the same place: It makes you a sinner, fallen in nature, undeserving of the glory of God, and unable to save yourself. Now, that is not to say that the scripture teaches that God doesn’t recognizes the heinous difference between the two, because it teaches that he does, and that he will punish each person based on just how evil their sins were (and reward those based on how “good” they were), but ALL unrepentant sin leads to the same place, eternal separation from God.
Third, the hearts of the Jews of the OT had grown very hard. They worshiped false idols even while Moses was on the mountain talking to God almost face to face. The religious leaders were full of hypocrisy, one of the things Jesus showed the most disdain for in all of NT scripture. I have trouble trying to explain this part, but essentially God had to work with the Jews in a way they would understand, that didn’t violate their free will. This caused him to in a sense conform to the hardness of their hearts, and allow for many laws that after the arrival of Jesus, would no longer be tolerated. Again, as a Christian I believe this is all part of his plan.
Do I think it is horrible that children could be stoned to death for what we now view as such a trivial offense? Yes, of course I do. And you know, I believe God does too. I believe if he is absolute holiness it sadness him in a way we will never fathom to have to allow the child to be stoned because his chosen peoples hearts have grown so calloused to his love.
I am not here to try to naively convince you that it is such a good thing that God allowed that to happen. But I do believe that if God allowed it to happen that way, there was a greater reason for it that in the end is ultimately our fault, for we are the ones who have turned away from God and chosen to write our own destiny. This is the price we have paid for desire to have equality with our creator. You don’t have to believe that. The God I believe in loves every one of his children so much that he gives them the ultimate privilege of free will.
My point of view presupposes several things here, all taught in the scripture: God is the creator of life, he is absolutely holy, and absolutely sovereign. When God ends our life on this earth, or commands us to put to death those who have sinned, he is absolutely just in doing so.
So why don’t we put kids to death anymore? A number of reasons.
The most important is Jesus. God sent his only begotten son, out of sheer love for his creation, to live and die for a people who are undeserving. Jesus taught us that we are all sinners and have no right to throw stones against other sinners when we are sinners ourselves. Jesus released Christians from the bondage of the Old Testament law and commanded that we love our God and our neighbors as we love ourselves. He taught us to let the Holy spirit guide our actions.
You know this post isn’t really some philosophical based, logically formed argument. I am sure if you want you can find many things I’ve wrote tonight to pick at in order to further your disbelief of God, but you were asking why the God we believe in is the way he is, and this is, in my young Christian understanding, the best answer I can give at the moment. I really encourage you to seek answers to tough questions like this from Christians much more mature than I am.
Have morning formation at 0600 tomorrow and have to be up in like 5 hours. So cheers, mates. I look forward to hearing your criticisms of my comments.
This caused him to in a sense conform to the hardness of their hearts, and allow for many laws that after the arrival of Jesus, would no longer be tolerated.
I understand what you’re saying, but the problem with this has already been addressed by persons other than myself; if we can explain away the inconsistencies of the OT compared to contemporary Christian interpretations by saying, “Their hearts were too hard, so he changed his tone so they would understand”….then how do we know what else He hasn’t told us about because “our hearts are too hard?” Or do you mean to imply that we’re somehow “perfect” now in that God doesn’t need to lie to us anymore? In which case, how do you know that?
And you know, I believe God does too. I believe if he is absolute holiness it sadness him in a way we will never fathom to have to allow the child to be stoned because his chosen peoples hearts have grown so calloused to his love.
As for this, while the rationality is mostly internally consistent, I can’t help but disagree on the basis that it seems to place responsibility on the “adults” of society, so to speak; because their hearts were hard, it’s necessary to slaughter children….because the hardness of their elder’s hearts caused them to be reared in such a way that they “deserved death” according to OT law.
Forgive me if my case here seems unusually nitpicky….but keep in mind, the claim being made is that God is “perfect,” especially in a moral sense. So you can imagine how any little inconsistency to that end, no matter how seemingly infinitesimal, could discourage me from believing that.
I am not here to try to naively convince you that it is such a good thing that God allowed that to happen. But I do believe that if God allowed it to happen that way, there was a greater reason for it that in the end is ultimately our fault, for we are the ones who have turned away from God and chosen to write our own destiny. This is the price we have paid for desire to have equality with our creator.
Well, it’s good that you don’t presuppose how easy or hard it will be to make your case to somebody. But all of those other things you say, about desiring equality with your Creator….naturally, as an atheist, I don’t think that’s a motivating factor in disbelieving in God. That’s a big problem I’ve always had with Christian argumentative principles, is that they argue from within Christianity in such a way that it’s impossible for a “non-believer” to really take it seriously. For example, you argue here that I have decided to “write my own destiny,” or “desire equality with our Creator.” The difference is that (a) to me, writing one’s own destiny (so to speak) is the only way to be; there is no other choice. And (b) I don’t desire such an arrogant thing as equality with a presupposed God; I simply don’t believe He exists.
You know this post isn’t really some philosophical based, logically formed argument. I am sure if you want you can find many things I’ve wrote tonight to pick at in order to further your disbelief of God, but you were asking why the God we believe in is the way he is, and this is, in my young Christian understanding, the best answer I can give at the moment. I really encourage you to seek answers to tough questions like this from Christians much more mature than I am.
On the one hand, I’m surprised at the humility of your case; it certainly beats out the tone of some of the other posters here, and I have to say that even though I largely disagree with your points, I’m always more eager to respond to someone who is willing to acknowledge exactly how much of their belief system is personal acceptance; I also appreciate that you have yet to play the “obvious” card. Just saying, that sort of thing is easy to appreciate
Have morning formation at 0600 tomorrow and have to be up in like 5 hours. So cheers, mates. I look forward to hearing your criticisms of my comments.
I know the feeling; I lose track of time writing up responses here like I’ve never lost track of time before~
P.S.
I’m always more eager to respond to someone who is willing to acknowledge exactly how much of their belief system is personal acceptance;
I realize that probably sounded a bit smarmy. It might help to acknowledge that any internally consistent belief system is based on personal acceptance; I just meant that some belief systems are a bit more intellectually dishonest than others, in that they tend to imply that there is one “obvious” truth that everyone “just should” choose to believe in, because it’s “obvious.” That’s a frustrating case that, in my experience, never leads anywhere.
Amen Michael! That was an awesome explanation! Wow….
Tim,
This is where I get my ‘obvious’ word I always say.. in other words.. it is clearly seen….
Romans 1:20-21 :
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
So if the Christian position is that God/Jesus was incapable of doing wrong because He was God — and whatever God does is right, why is it not meaningless to claim Jesus was an acceptable sacrifice because he was free from sin?
If all is allowed for God, He could have snorted cocaine, blown a male hooker, and performed a couple of abortions before being crucified. Would not have mattered per what you have explained above.
Now some of you will say I have exaggerated to make my point – guilty as charged. But maybe Jesus would have had a really good reason for the nose candy, the pay to play, and the abortions. After all the ways of God are mysterious and beyond mans’ understanding. It seems the claim of Jesus being a perfect sacrifice is an awfully hollow claim.
Barry
“Information in the literal sense is a configuration of matter and/or energy.”
Matter and energy can be configured in many ways but only a mind can give it meaning. Also, information can be stored or transmitted via matter and energy, but information starts with intelligence.
What part of an encoding or decoding system cannot arise naturally?
The information itself cannot arise naturally because all codes, all languages come from a mind. Purely material processes of only matter and energy cannot account for the information in DNA.
Tim: I spent about 25 minutes Googling and Yahoo! Answers-ing that, and I still have no idea what you mean by that….I get that it’s a Bob Dylan song about some stuff, but….ah, I’m lost
Ouch… sorry man.
That’s what I get for trying to be clever. You asked what should happen to that kid. My answer was that since he is disrespecting his parents, obviously, he should be stoned (“everybody must get stoned”). This is a sad predicament for him, since he was just trying to do and believe the right things (the first line of the song is” “they’ll stone you when you’re trying to be so good”).
See, I was in a hurry so I though I would write a quick and concise post… I see it didn’t work. Sorry about the 25 minutes you’ll never get back. (I will refrain from any more wit and keep my posts nice and dry from now on.)
On another note:
Michael: This is the price we have paid for desire to have equality with our creator.
Tim: Naturally, as an atheist, I don’t think that’s a motivating factor in disbelieving in G-d.
I think perhaps he means the original sin of Eve and Adam…
Barry said: So if the Christian position is that God/Jesus was incapable of doing wrong because He was God — and whatever God does is right, why is it not meaningless to claim Jesus was an acceptable sacrifice because he was free from sin?
It would be a hollow claim if he weren’t also a true man who was born under the law (had to follow the 10 commandments, was also tempted to sin against every single one as well), but as true God he was able to keep the law perfectly, which redeemed us for when we break the law, and now we enjoy the afterlife.
“Remember: You only need one example of a code that does not have a conscious mind as a designer to topple Perry’s argument.”
James, we already gave you several examples. You lost this one many times over.
Here’s another stupid sylogism for you:
1. All moving things we know of that are designed are machines
2. Machines have no minds
3. Humans are designed
4. Therefore humans have no minds.
See how easy it is to come up with something like Perry’s faulty logic?
James: “The information itself cannot arise naturally because all codes, all languages come from a mind. Purely material processes of only matter and energy cannot account for the information in DNA.”
Minds _are_ matter and energy for a materialist. I don’t see the conundrum.
Matt: “I’m not afraid to admit I’m wrong, if convinced. I hope we all are here.”
It’s doubtful. It’s almost a rule, in my experience, that theists can’t even _imagine_ a hypothetical situation or experience that would cause them to change their minds regardless of how unlikely or preposterous that situation or experience would be.
My theory is that theists lose their ability to make judgments and weigh their experiences. For example, there are a number of easily describable events that would shake my confidence that my view of the world aligns with reality. What can really impress a theist though? Talking animals? Fire breathing dragons? Flying horses? These things are par for the course in a theist’s outlook. If the kids in living room came in and exclaimed “We saw a blue and red elephant, and he said to gather umbrellas!” I would think they were watching cartoons. The theist can’t be so sure; there’s really nothing which can strain the conviction of someone who thinks anything is possible. (If you’re not on board with me here, say the following out loud: “It’s impossible for my god to create a red and blue elephant who desires umbrellas.”)
So, while I appreciate the gesture of friendly open-mindedness, what would prove to me that you’re sincere is your ability to articulate some circumstance or experience that would actually convince you otherwise. In other words, “I would become an atheist if…”
I’m willing and able to plant the goal posts, so to speak. Are you?
Coylh… thanks for the vote of confidence
And after all we’ve been through 
Seriously, man – you don’t know me, so let’s not do that. I meant what I said. I’m willing to reconsider my view on theonomic issues like the one we’ve been discussing if convinced.
Am I willing to reconsider my view on God’s existence? Based on the incredulity of the supernatural, which by definition is outside of the regular pattern of things? Many months ago I posted a “manifesto” of sorts which explained the train of my logic.
Basically, I’d need to see logic satisfactorily shown to be debunked (see the transcendental argument) as a transcendental, non-material mind is responsible for logic, one example of something that is not dependent on the material world. If I could be shown scientific evidence of something creating itself, I’d be inclined to refute the Kalam argument, which is pretty convincing, at least to me and Dr. Craig. I currently am unable to imagine an eternal universe, since actual eternalities seem suspect to me. Those are two goalposts, so to speak, for me.
I’d also have to do a lot of forgetting – God has been answering prayers and performing “supernatural” things in my family for more than a generation – and my folks come from Atheists-in-practice parents. My tongue was miraculously healed when I was a child, after almost biting it off. Our church prayed and the next morning it was completely healed without any sign of trauma. My parents received audible messages from God about my drug use in the middle of the night, which led them to catch me and discipline me as a teenager. Money appearing when there was none to be had for surgery, or car troubles stopping after prayer and tythe…Those are no where near the sum total of existential arguments for my personal belief in God, but they are some that come quickly to mind.
The Bible is a whole other discussion, but the existence of A God who seems to answer prayer and whose Bible has transformed my life for the good of all around me… I guess there’s a lot of goalposts for me. But they’re there – I’ve had many crises of faith, valleys in religious lingo… Always came back to a life of peace in God.
Peace,
Matt
Matter and energy can be configured in many ways but only a mind can give it meaning.
And meaning is a subjective thing that does not literally, objectively exist. It can only be configured based on logical principles based on the way physical aspects operate.
The information itself cannot arise naturally because all codes, all languages come from a mind.
That’s a flawed statement that I can’t really talk about, for reasons I’ve already explained; the very claim you’re making here is an assumption in itself. And by asking for evidence to the contrary, you’re only creating the illusion that you will accept such evidence….for the “evidence” is DNA, magnetic stripping of the kind mentioned here….
See, I was in a hurry so I though I would write a quick and concise post… I see it didn’t work. Sorry about the 25 minutes you’ll never get back. (I will refrain from any more wit and keep my posts nice and dry from now on.)
No need for apologies; I’m just glad there was some information for me to go on. At least you didn’t expect me to just conditionlessly believe what you had said
But seriously? I don’t consider any time where I learned something a waste, even if it was something that I hadn’t originally set out to learn~
I think perhaps he means the original sin of Eve and Adam…
Ah….well, it still closes that venue off to me.
It would be a hollow claim if he weren’t also a true man who was born under the law (had to follow the 10 commandments, was also tempted to sin against every single one as well), but as true God he was able to keep the law perfectly, which redeemed us for when we break the law, and now we enjoy the afterlife.
I don’t see how that answers the question….all of those things supposedly stem from his nature as God. So it’s no surprise that God (or an avatar thereof) would be able to do those things. Whereas a human who faced such temptation in such a way would be considered phenomenal. If Jesus had been a normal man, then the sacrifice may have had some meaning….but given that Jesus was supposedly an avatar of God Himself, the whole deal loses significance in my mind because it was like God cutting off a finger that will grow back in 2 seconds.
Minds _are_ matter and energy for a materialist. I don’t see the conundrum.
The only “conundrum” is the assumption that more than that is necessary, which is only present in a strictly theological worldview.
I currently am unable to imagine an eternal universe, since actual eternalities seem suspect to me.
Do you not understand that God is supposedly an “actual eternality?” Why is that only improbable with regard to the physical universe?
The Bible is a whole other discussion, but the existence of A God who seems to answer prayer and whose Bible has transformed my life for the good of all around me… I guess there’s a lot of goalposts for me. But they’re there – I’ve had many crises of faith, valleys in religious lingo… Always came back to a life of peace in God.
I am always just a bit put off by the idea that God actually answers prayers. Let’s say He’s real….if He has a plan, then He has that plan independently of your (and my) existence, and there’s nothing that you or I could do to change that. Praying is just asking, “Hey, God, is this in your plan, or not?” And if it is, then you get it regardless of what you pray, and if it isn’t, then you don’t. Praying does not change a single thing with regard to that. I suppose one could interpret it as a sign of dedication or loyalty or something, but this is one of the things that’s always confounded me about Christianity; in other religions, prayer is more of a mindset-stabilizer, or a meditatory act. It’s not usually rooted in personal desire.
I am always just a bit put off by the idea that God actually answers prayers. Let’s say He’s real….if He has a plan, then He has that plan independently of your (and my) existence, and there’s nothing that you or I could do to change that. Praying is just asking, “Hey, God, is this in your plan, or not?” And if it is, then you get it regardless of what you pray, and if it isn’t, then you don’t. Praying does not change a single thing with regard to that. I suppose one could interpret it as a sign of dedication or loyalty or something, but this is one of the things that’s always confounded me about Christianity; in other religions, prayer is more of a mindset-stabilizer, or a meditatory act. It’s not usually rooted in personal desire.
Nah – nothing that wierd. We’re commanded to, so we do. We have examples and examples of people who pray ceaselessly getting their prayers answered. This is one place where knowing a bit of Greek comes in handy. Many many times the tense of “prayer” is present active indicative, meaning to pray and continue praying (or is praying)… Assuming God exists and is telling the truth about having a plan for us and working all things for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose… we should expect many of our prayers to be unanswered – if we are desirous of something that will not bring us closer to our ultimate goal – of glorifying God. Oftentimes we learn more in the lean times of unanswered prayers and valleys then we do it the fat times of blessing. I know I have.
-Matt
There have been several Christian groups that have tried to ‘prove’ that prayer works. You know, comparing patients in hospitals that are prayed for with those that aren’t. They always come up with zilch. My Dad was a big time Christian, as are many members of my family. DIdn’t stop him dying painfully of cancer. For every Christian who prays for someone who gets better, there’s another who sees their loved one die. It happens just about exactly as one would expect it to over the laws of averages if prayer made no difference whatsoever.
Also, funny how God never cures amputees…
It’s also funny how my tongue works great
Hi Tim,
You said, “That’s a big problem I’ve always had with Christian argumentative principles, is that they argue from within Christianity in such a way that it’s impossible for a “non-believer” to really take it seriously.”
I think I understand what it is you are saying, and in a way I agree. I almost didn’t write any post at all on the subject because of the very reason you just listed.
No one can deny that the existence of God is arguably the most emotionally loaded issue humans can debate. What one believes about the existence or non existence of God will affect almost every single action that person does, every day of their natural life. And I won’t disrespect you enough to pull your chain and say that I am neutral about wanting God to exist and that I’m just following the evidence. I want God to exist.
I didn’t when I was an atheist and first started to seriously examine my naturalistic worldview under a microscope, and I still didn’t once I was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he does exist. But once I did submit myself to him, I had so many things change in my life that now I do love him and want very much with all of my heart for him to exist. If you showed me 100% undeniable proof that God doesn’t exist and the whole universe has always existed eternally, and we really are random atoms smashing together, I don’t even know if I would get out of bed the next morning. Nothing would matter to me anymore.
And I think any honest skeptic can admit he subjectively doesn’t want God to exist. One of the most perplexing things to me is that there is just enough evidence to believe in God if you want to, and disbelieve in him if you don’t. I’d like to think that when I started my intellectual research and my soul search I did a fairly good job of separating myself from the desires of my heart and following where I thought reason was pushing me to go, but how objective can I have really been?
So anyway, the whole thing with your point is that I think there are two ways to argue about God and his character. The argument of whether he does or exist or not, based on what we as humans all agree on is objective ways to obtain knowledge, i.e. the law of non contradiction, the law of causality, the basic reliability of sense perception, and the analogous use of language.
And then there is the argument of his character, which as a Christian I will presuppose that he does exist and that he is the source of everything that exists in the universe. This is the only point of view I really know how to use at this time when defending his character in the scripture, and in my studies I still haven’t come across any one who really defends it any other way. Which leaves the skeptic saying, “Wait a second, who said he existed in the first place, and even if he did exist, why would I really believe he was absolute good?”
That’s why I like to limit arguments with skeptics to the first type. If I can prove to them a rational basis for the existence of God, that opens up their intellect to the idea that supernatural cause can exist, even if we don’t fully understand how, and I can then move to a rational basis for explaining his absolutely holy character, which will now be a lot less harder for them to stomach.
So in this case, my amateur logic is as follows: Presuppose for the sake of argument he does exist and that he is the source of this universe. (My wife is hounding me to get off the computer so I’ll keep this short, I should probably wait until later where I can give a more thought out response, but I really want to get a response back to you and hear what you think. So anyway…) Why is he then good? Two reasons come to mind. First I think we can best understand this if we look at the way in which we understand good and evil as it relates to reality.
Is evil better than good, in the moral sense? Is not more accomplished through good than through evil? Example: I have seen many people respond in anger to someone who wronged them, and I have never seen that person really change his ways when the victim who was wronged responded with anger. They just become defensive. But I’ve seen countless cases of men and women who were doing wrong to people, and when they were responded to with love, sometimes even by the victims themselves, it changed their entire lives, for the better. It all goes back to the old saying, two wrongs don’t make a right. As a Christian I am taught when I am treated disrespectfully to react with kindness, not in kind.
I think that to deny that good is better than evil doesn’t really correlate with reality as we experience it, and I would run full speed in the other direction from any worldview that doesn’t match up with reality as we experience it.
So how do we describe evil? We seem to describe it as a disease, a depravity, a lack of good, and that good is better than evil. We feel that it is not right. This leads me to believe that there is not a source of evil, but rather evil is the lack of a source of good, the separation from good. Just as there is no source of darkness, for when it is dark it is because of an absence of light.
So my question is, if God is the source of all creation in the universe how could he create creatures with the moral capacity for good if he were evil? A purely evil being has no capacity to preform or create anything good. But if he is the source of everything, and there is good and evil in this world, than is he not the source of both? Again, evil is described as a lack of good, a sickness. It doesn’t have a source itself, just as darkness doesn’t. It is what happens when you move away from him, just as darkness is what happens if you shut off the light. Therefor it appears logical to me that a self existent being can exist who is a source of absolute good, but can create beings that have the capacity for evil.
Again this argument presupposes many many things, so I understand if you have a lot of objections to it. Look forward to speaking with you again, until next time. -Mike
Nah – nothing that wierd. We’re commanded to, so we do. We have examples and examples of people who pray ceaselessly getting their prayers answered.
And we have just as many examples and examples of people who don’t pray ceaselessly and still get what they want, or who don’t pray and don’t get what they want, or who pray and still don’t get what they want.
Also, if you pray ceaselessly and every now and then a prayer gets answered, that’s not proof that God answers prayers. It’s proof that you pray a lot, and so whenever something good happens, you automatically attribute it to prayer. Correlation =/= causation; just because you prayed and it happened doesn’t necessarily mean that the prayer is what caused it to happen.
I’m not saying that means the prayer didn’t cause it to happen; I’m just saying that it doesn’t make it certain that it did.
Also, funny how God never cures amputees…
Apparently, God can’t cure anything that couldn’t also be explained by a medical procedure working out successfully.
It’s also funny how my tongue works great
I’m trying to find a tactful way to say “I just don’t buy that, for a number of reasons.”
I think that to deny that good is better than evil doesn’t really correlate with reality as we experience it,
I don’t think that anyone would deny that self-evident “goodness” (again, defined not as God’s character itself, but as the self-evident common-sense revelation that “good is better than bad”) is better than self-evident “badness;” if someone thinks something is good, and they think something else is bad, they’re always going to seek what they think is good. Their reason for thinking something is “good” might not coincide with, say, my reason for thinking something is good — i.e. they think it’s good because it glorifies God, whereas I think it’s good because it limits suffering and overall improves the safety of the enviroments where we live and raise/support our families — but at the end of the day, I think that no matter what view you hold, it’s very easy to say that “good is better than bad.” I’ve never met anyone, Christian or atheist, who has denied this. The problem stems not from this base acceptance, but from how to arrive at a reliable definition of “good” and “bad.” What is good? What is bad? How do we decide what we think is “good?” That’s the question I think you’ll find the most contentiousness regarding. Some (like myself) believe that goodness is a subjective concept that we as humans have created, and that we’re also tasked with defining. This doesn’t mean that “whatever we say becomes the law of goodness;” rather, it means that it is our responsibility to discern and support our definition of “good,” and to constantly hold it up to scrutiny to keep ourselves from overzealously supporting that which may not be so ‘good’ after all. Others believe that it is a law above ourselves.
What I find most interesting is that, while I don’t believe that there is an objective moral law that reigns over us, it doesn’t seem to me that the idea of objective “morality” (as some call it) is completely incompatible with the nature of subjective morality.
So my question is, if God is the source of all creation in the universe how could he create creatures with the moral capacity for good if he were evil?
I have a very, very difficult time articulating exactly what it is about this analogy I don’t like….it’s very easy to understand this analogy on the surface — that God is like a lightbulb, and that “evil” is like the darkness that exists where there is no light — but no matter how nicely it all comes together, what it boils down to is this: when we try to define “God” as “goodness,” and define “goodness” as “Godly,” we create a paradox. If God is the source of Goodness, that means that He is the source of Himself, and that “Himself” is the source of “Him.” That sounds strange, but what I’m trying to communicate is that it creates an endless loop; imagine the two as dictionary definitions:
God (n.)
1. (see ‘goodness’)
Goodness (n.)
1. (see ‘God’)
It’s very confusing….and the only way to truly clarify this statement is to define what these terms are, from outside of this loop. In other words….if we use the lightbulb analogy, we have explained that God is good, and good is God….but that presents a problem with the original definition of “good” we used earlier, that ‘self-evident desirabillity.’ One specific term can have more than one definition, but it can’t have two separate definitions that operate at the same time; good can mean “self-evident” in one case and “godly” in another, but it cannot refer to both “godly” and self-evident desirability at the same time. That would be like using the word ‘animal’ to describe both a dog and a cat at the same time — they are both animals, yes, and the term would be appropriate if you were describing one or the other….but if we have a dog and a cat in a room together, and you say, ‘the animal,’ how do I know which one you are talking about?
To sum it up: I understand very well the case you are trying to make, defining God as inherently good and evil as the lack of His influence. The issue that faces me is that, in doing so, you have removed the facet of “goodness” that implies self-evident desirability, and thus are burdened with explaining why God’s “goodness” is self-evident.
Again this argument presupposes many many things, so I understand if you have a lot of objections to it. Look forward to speaking with you again, until next time. -Mike
Actually, I really only have one objection; presupposing the things you do here, of course, would clear up 99% of the problems I have with it, and so I won’t go into that. The only real “beef” I have is the one I outlined above.
To sum it up: I understand very well the case you are trying to make, defining God as inherently good and evil as the lack of His influence. The issue that faces me is that, in doing so, you have removed the facet of “goodness” that implies self-evident desirability, and thus are burdened with explaining why God’s “goodness” is self-evidently desirable.
Typo
Tim, I’ve been nothing but kind and open and honest. Please explain
It’s also funny how my tongue works great
I’m trying to find a tactful way to say “I just don’t buy that, for a number of reasons.”
Are you saying I say the wrong things… In other words, is this you being clever? If so, please let’s not be so juvenile. And if you actually meant physically… have you talked with my parents? Because them, me, and the brothers and sisters who prayed were all witnesses of the event…
Frustrated at the general lack of profesionalism on internet forums,
-Matt
“And I think any honest skeptic can admit he subjectively doesn’t want God to exist.”
Not the case for me at all. Although would you say you subjectively don’t want the Muslims God to exist? Or Shiva?
And I think any honest skeptic can admit he subjectively doesn’t want God to exist.
Not the case for me at all.
Michael,
What leads you to this conclusion? It seems to me to be far from self-evident. I actually think most people would hope for a good G-d to exist. I don’t have empirical evidence for this, of course, but it just seems natural to me. I mean, everyone is faces with difficulties at one point or another, wouldn’t it be nice if there was a big brother of sorts watching over all of this, making sure it works out in the end?
Here is an extreme example, but I think almost everyone on this earth can relate to some degree.
If an atheist has a child who is abused by someone, don’t you think they would find extreme comfort in being able to believe that there is a benevolent being with a master plan. That the abuse hasn’t happened for absolutely no reason and has absolutely no redeeming value… It’s just this worthless, evil thing that has ruined their lives.
I mean, even non-personal things like the fact that a child starves on this earth every few seconds. If there is a G-d who is watching for the overall good, then maybe that’s something we can handle. If it’s all final and just worthless suffering then…
Personally, I can’t think of a good reason why someone wouldn’t want a good G-d to exist. (Not saying there aren’t reasons, but nothing logical leaps to my mind at the moment.)
Sorry, I am very tired, and know what I am trying to say but realize that I am not saying it well. (If my point doesn’t get across I will try to clarify later.)
My question, or rather questions, Mr. Garwood, is were you examined by a doctor when as a child you bit your tongue? If so, did he/she send you away untreated? Were you not taken to a doctor with this severe injury (the way the statement was worded implied that it was a severe injury)? And how old were you?
Tim, I’ve been nothing but kind and open and honest. Please explain
I mean exactly what I said; I can’t honestly say that I believe that you were “magically healed” as a child. There’s an interesting video that I’d like to show you that explains in detail why I feel this way, but I don’t have access to it at the moment. I’ll link to it later.
Frustrated at the general lack of profesionalism on internet forums,
-Matt
“Honey, come on to bed, it’s late.”
“Not now!”
“What’s the matter?”
“Someone’s wrong on the internet!”
–Internet Comic, “Duty Calls”
Michael: “And I think any honest skeptic can admit he subjectively doesn’t want God to exist.”
This is not true for many. I find this line of thinking to be a kind of rationalization for theists. Let’s see if you have had these kind of thoughts:
1. God is so obvious to me.
2. He must be obvious to everyone else too; it even says so in the bible.
3. Those sneaky atheists can’t really honestly disbelieve in god then; they must be pretending.
4. Why would they pretend? Hmm. Aha! They don’t _want_ to believe in god.
I can tell you without hesitation that I would be pleased to find that a caring deity exists, and I’m a skeptical atheist.
“Seriously, man – you don’t know me, so let’s not do that.”
That’s true. One of the first things I like to know about someone when having more than a casual conversation about beliefs is whether I can reason with you. And, regardless of what you believe in the particulars, someone who can’t change his or her mind strikes me as inherently unreasonable.
“I guess there’s a lot of goalposts for me. But they’re there”
It was difficult to parse your answer, but I can see some effort being expended. My goal posts are considerably easier to describe. For example, I would instantly become a Christian if I was levitated into the sky, had the cruelty of hell justified to me, then had my previous day’s private thoughts told me, while news helicopters circled about filming the event. This would be an insignificant exertion for an omnipotent and caring deity who exists. Also, this is just one of a thousand scenarios I can imagine which would make me believe.
Coylh: “Michael: “And I think any honest skeptic can admit he subjectively doesn’t want God to exist.”
This is not true for many. I find this line of thinking to be a kind of rationalization for theists. Let’s see if you have had these kind of thoughts:
1. God is so obvious to me.
2. He must be obvious to everyone else too; it even says so in the bible.
3. Those sneaky atheists can’t really honestly disbelieve in god then; they must be pretending.
4. Why would they pretend? Hmm. Aha! They don’t _want_ to believe in god.
I can tell you without hesitation that I would be pleased to find that a caring deity exists, and I’m a skeptical atheist.”
Let me rephrase that then, I mean any honest skeptic can admit he doesn’t want the God of the Holy Bible to exist. Do you want that God to exist? I am assuming you don’t, because if you did you would probably find a way to convince yourself. Either way I wasn’t pointing that out to convict anyone of anything, only to show that belief or non belief in a biblical God is an extremely subjective thing, no matter how objective we think we are being.
Hi Andrew, you said “Not the case for me at all. Although would you say you subjectively don’t want the Muslims God to exist? Or Shiva?” I would say yes, I subjectively don’t want either of those Gods to exist. I will be first to admit I don’t even know who Shiva is, nor do I know much about the Muslim religion or how they define God. However, from what I have learned about the Muslim religion is that it’s own religious text has many contradictions that can’t really be logically reconciled.
I already know what you are going to say, so does the Bible! Me personally, I haven’t found that yet. I have heard many accusations that sound like a contradiction on the surface, but once you dig deeper into the issue you find that the problem the skeptic has can actually be demonstrated as logically reasonable. For example, how can a God exist if we follow the law of causality which states that every effect must have a cause?
The skeptic asks if every effect must have a cause, what caused God? The answer to this I would say is that God is a cause, not an effect. The law does not state the every cause must be caused, only that every effect must have a cause, and that we live in a cause and effect universe. God transcends this universe, he exists outside of it’s laws. He is not created, therefor he does not require a creator. He is self existent.
I understand none of what I have just said can be empirically verified, nor do we experience anything in the universe which is self existent, or uncaused, however it is important to understand that what I said is from a philosophical, logical stand point, reasonable. It doesn’t violate the laws of reason that we have discovered. This is where the naturalist and the theist differ:
The naturalist believes everything has to be explained empirically to be considered true, which is a logically self defeating statement, because that statement itself can’t be empirically tested. The theist believes in a sense of supernatural, and I believe we have good observable reason to do so, such as the phenomena of human conciseness, which science has in no way demonstrated it is determined by our genes. Or observed miracles, or the philosophical understanding that there is nothing that can come from nothingness, so therefor something must have always existed in one form or another, and science has not offered any empirical evidence of self existent matter that has existed for infinity. There is not a single thing that has been observed as infinite, infinite is a concept that exists only in mathematics.
But I am starting to machine gun you here, and that’s not fair for me to do. I just got back from deployment and my wife is really wanting my attention, I hope to read and write more to you guys later. -Mike
What about jesus telling his disciples that he’d return before some of them died?
“Toby R. Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:41 pm
What about Jesus telling his disciples that he’d return before some of them died?”
Hi, Toby. I am assuming you are referring to Matthew 16:28. Jesus says: “I assure you: There are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
When interpreting a part of scripture that is unclear is important to consider and compare it with the rest of scripture to learn its meaning. This question here is fairly simple to answer. The key word in this passage is the word see. According to the scripture, the apostle John saw Jesus coming in his glory through revelations, and then recorded them in the book of revelations.
You can attack these things externally if you’d like, but internally the scripture is consistent in this case.
Let me rephrase that then, I mean any honest skeptic can admit he doesn’t want the God of the Holy Bible to exist. Do you want that God to exist? I am assuming you don’t, because if you did you would probably find a way to convince yourself.
Thus far? I’m not sure which answer to give you. On the one hand, as it’s been said, if there existed a god whose purported actions did not fill my heart with dread (so to speak), and that god was truly omnibenevolent by some definition that is not self-defeating or circular, then no, I don’t think I would have a problem with that god, if in fact it existed. On the other hand, the god of the OT — and Jesus of the NT — are not exactly figures that inspire feelings of gratitude and worship in me. Condoning slavery — in any form, for any reason — is a definite red-flag, and so is the act of stoning children (or the advocation/apologetic thereof).
Although….what I believe is what I believe, independently of what I want to believe. I think there is some truth to the statement that all humans have some bias in them….but at the same time, I think that to write off any perspective which does not coincide with your own as “irreverant bias” is dangerously faulty. My own biases can only delude me so much before I realize what I am doing and say, “This isn’t real, I can’t keep living like this.” Where I am in my life right now, if I tried to look at what you (and Matt, and Turek, and many others) say here and tell myself, “God does exist,” and deny the nature of my humanity, then I would be plagued by the doubt, the possibility — in my mind, the strong possibility — that God may not exist, or that there may exist some god that is not equivocable with the one I worship. I would be lying to myself.
I owe it to myself to be honest with my beliefs. If I have any reason to believe there is a God, then that reason will be acknowledged…..but the same is true of disbelief in God. As long as there is doubt, I will never claim the certainty of God’s existence that is claimed by the majority of Christians. It is simply not apparent to me. The mind knows when it’s being lied to, and any attempt to do so will be quickly and brutally torn asunder.
tl;dr version: Bias is enough to tip the scale towards or away from belief in a god….but to any rational human being, it’s not enough to make the case.
Michael “Do you want that God to exist? I am assuming you don’t, because if you did you would probably find a way to convince yourself.”
You don’t understand that wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true.
As for your question, do I want the biblical god to exist–I have mixed feelings. As far as gods go, he’s not the worse we could have. On the other hand, it’s troubling that it’s so easy to imagine improvements in his character. This is not something I would anticipate in a morally perfect being.
Hey Tim, I’m curious, if God is not the objective standard for morality than how do we define right and wrong?
Also I wonder, if God does exist and he created the universe and everything in it, than how is it circular to say that what God says is good, is good? If God created us, he has the right to take us. If he imparted us with some of his wisdom, then there must be things we will never understand about him. When we say we won’t worship him because the scripture shows he condoned slavery, are we not limiting his actions to what is right and wrong for us? It is wrong for us to take a life unjustly, but how could it ever be wrong for the God who is so powerful that everything that we know exists came into existence by the mere power of his voice? I guess I’m saying if God was powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it I’ve ever experienced, I am going to take his word for it when he says doing what he says is good. That is where my faith comes in.
However, I do believe the scripture teaches that God does not violate the laws of logic and reason he imparted us with, so how is believing he is good because he is God circular? I am pretty new to logic so I don’t understand much about it yet.
Hey Coylh, I understand that just because we want something to be true doesn’t mean that it is true. What I was implying was, as an atheist turned theist, when it comes to the subject of objective belief in God, the “evidence” is open enough that we can interpret it based on our own subjective feelings. This is why it makes it so hard. I come across objections every day that make me question my faith, but I’ve found most of them go away if I look deeper into the objection, and if it doesn’t, all I can do is continue to have faith (reasonable trust in God based on what he has revealed to us, not blindness) that this paradox (apparent contradiction on the surface, but not an actual contradiction) will one day be made clear to me.
Hey Tim, I’m curious, if God is not the objective standard for morality than how do we define right and wrong?
That’s the challenge of the human experience, my friend. There are no easy answers.
Also I wonder, if God does exist and he created the universe and everything in it, than how is it circular to say that what God says is good, is good?
How is it not a complete non-sequitur? What about creating implies anything about “objective rights?” How does the act of creating something corellate with “objective rightness?”
I guess what I’m saying is, I don’t see anything inherent about the act of creation that would immediately lead one to assume, “That guy is the source of morality.” Creation is not an act of morality; it says nothing about morality, and implies nothing about morality. Here’s how I see your position on this:
1) God created everything;
2) ????
3) Therefore, God is moral.
I simply don’t understand it.
If God created us, he has the right to take us.
I won’t say that I think it’s “wrong” for God to take a life, per se, but I still don’t see how creating life implies that it’s “objectively okay” to take it, either.
are we not limiting his actions to what is right and wrong for us?
As opposed to what? What He says is right and wrong changes with the tide; who’s to say that in another thousand years He won’t come down and tell us all that being gay is “okay?” He did it with slavery, after all. Am I right?
It is wrong for us to take a life unjustly, but how could it ever be wrong for the God who is so powerful that everything that we know exists came into existence by the mere power of his voice?
I’m not making the case that it is wrong; I’m asking you how you make the case that it is right. Power, in my view, does not inherently corellate with morality.
I guess I’m saying if God was powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it I’ve ever experienced, I am going to take his word for it when he says doing what he says is good. That is where my faith comes in.
Case in point; I do not accept that immense, even infinite power is a substitute for morality.
However, I do believe the scripture teaches that God does not violate the laws of logic and reason he imparted us with, so how is believing he is good because he is God circular?
It’s only circular if you apply the rationale that Turek and Matt Garwood have been using; that “goodness” is ingrained into God’s essence. The reason that doesn’t make sense:
-) In order for something to be ingrained into your nature, that something has to exist, independently, such that it can be described as being “ingrained into your nature.”
-) Thus, in order for us to say that “goodness” is ingrained into God’s nature, we have to define what “goodness” is and how it corellates with God’s nature, or vice-versa.
-) If we simply define “goodness” as “God’s will” or “godliness,” then it creates a paradox; if they are the same thing, then one cannot be ingrained into the other, because they are the same. They cannot be the same, because “goodness” is “self-evident desirability,” and “godliness” is “the will of God.” That’s like saying that God is ingrained into himself.
“I come across objections every day that make me question my faith, but I’ve found most of them go away if I look deeper into the objection, and if it doesn’t, all I can do is continue to have faith…”
Actually, that’s not your only other option. You could change your mind.
But, as I’ve said before, this is not something that comes easily for theists. It wouldn’t surprise me, for example, if you were entirely unable to describe a specific obstacle to your faith that would overcome your desire to believe. In other words, I doubt there’s any experience, information, or scenario which would move you to disbelief.
When interpreting a part of scripture that is unclear is important to consider and compare it with the rest of scripture to learn its meaning. This question here is fairly simple to answer. The key word in this passage is the word see. According to the scripture, the apostle John saw Jesus coming in his glory through revelations, and then recorded them in the book of revelations.
You can attack these things externally if you’d like, but internally the scripture is consistent in this case.
No, Michael… with all respect, this is a great example of bad scholarship by people who want to sell sensational books within Christianity (pre-mil rapture folks). The Greek is clear – Christ said He would “come” within that generation. You seem to be committing a rather common fallacy of reading the NT record as a 21st century guy instead of as a first century Jew. Literary analysis – a fabulous field of research – looks to find what was the ORIGINAL author’s message to his ORIGINAL audience. Theological extrapolations may be there – application of a text is often made within scripture. But the original audience knew this language – it was Torah. God often “came” in judgment. This exact EXACT language was used throughout the Torah – when God came, people trembled. The Septuagint’s translation is an excellent window into the Jewish understanding of the text – seeing which words they used to translate which concepts. Remember it was Greek-savvy Jews who produced the Septuagint…
In a nutshell, Christ did indeed come (in the same sense the Torah spoke of – the way the audience would’ve understood it – in judgment) bringing with Him all of the calamities that were prophesied in the Pentateuch. See Josephus’ records, read the covenant-breaking curses throughout Deuteronomy, check out Last Days’ Madness by DeMar for a wonderful look at what Christians have been told is in the Bible vs. what is actually there. It was a real eye-opener for me, and after studying Greek and seeing it for myself IN CONTEXT, I saw what I hope you will see – another consistent interpretation of a prophecy which has grounding in history.
Peace,
Matt
p.s. be encouraged – be a Berean and see if I am right. Read these things in context. Learn what a “hermeneutic” is and discover what your presuppositions are before digging into a text. To God be the Glory – who cares if I’m right or wrong.
Coylh: I could change my mind, but why would I change my mind when reason and logic has already proven to me that it is reasonable(from an objective, logical stand point) to believe in God, and God himself has persuaded me emotionally that he is a real entity that can (and has) actually change my life for the better.
I’m not asking anyone to believe in God unreasonably. If you can’t come up with a reason that appears reasonable to you to believe in God, than by all means, please don’t. God wouldn’t want that, and neither do I. That is why I believe in separation of church and state, of a non-religious government, of a free society with religious freedom, including the right to not believe. The scripture teaches that God gave you that right, so why should any man take that from you?
My only duty as a Christian is to give you a reasonable, logically sound position for the existence of God. It’s on you if you choose to believe or not.
In AD 70 Jerusalem was overtaken by Titus and the Roman Armies. Not one stone was left atop another in the Temple. This happened because gold had melted down into the cracks during a Jewish revolt-started fire. Titus’ soldiers took brick by brick apart til the found any salvageable gold. The Christians did indeed flee to the mountains (after Titus’ army “mysteriously” withdrew for a day.)
Rapture theology puts forth prediction after prediction that require such unbelievable manipulation of the texts, from inserting huge gaps into Daniel’s 70 weeks to assuming Jesus didn’t understand what He said in Matthew 24 (which makes a lot more sense when read FOLLOWING the previous chapters… context, context, context.)
Christ came in AD 70 and judged the Jews who had rejected Him – DeMar’s Last Days Madness is just a FABULOUS resource for more reading on the subject. Also Kenneth Gentry’s “Beast of Revelation” which focuses on dating the book of revelation and examining the fall of Jerusalem to see if it does indeed fit the prophecy concerning “the end” – and I stand utterly convinced of this point. You owe it to yourself to investigate this – you’ll get charged up like I did seeing God’s word fulfilled, and seeing how it changes the way you live today.
Peace,
Matt
Let’s refresh our memories with Perry’s original syllogism:
1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.
Regarding (1): DNA is a code, it is information, it is language. Just like language has characters, DNA has nucleotides. Language has letters, DNA has codons. Language has words, DNA has genes. Language has sentences, DNA has operons. Language has paragraphs, DNA has regulons.
All of the instructions in DNA determine what your characteristics are. One strand of DNA in your skin cell has all of the information for the rest of you inside it. Like a book is more than ink and paper it’s printed on, your DNA contains plans and information independent of the nucleotides it is made up of. There is a specific correspondence between the information in DNA and your physical real self. The perfect definition of a code.
Others codes are English, Chinese, bird mating calls, music, and radio signals. They all involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or some plan independent of their medium. All of those codes, however, are derivatives of DNA.
Regarding (2): The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy cannot be proved from a prior governing mathematical principle, but no known exception has ever been observed. But the difference between matter and energy and information is that we create information every day, and we also observe that only minds create coded information.
Regarding (3): So, since DNA is a code, and we observe that all codes come from minds it follows logically that DNA came from a mind.
Andrew: You’re right, your syllogism was faulty.
Tim: Magnetic striping of any sort represents nothing other than magnetic striping. There is no transmission of an idea/plan/instructions that is independent of the magnetic striping. Saying that DNA is natural, therefore DNA arose naturally is circular reasoning.
Michael: “I could change my mind…”
I hear you, but I haven’t seen any indication that you actually could. I can’t help but notice that you haven’t described a specific obstacle to your faith that would overcome your desire to believe. I’m not saying that you should change your beliefs, I just suspect that you can’t.
Andrew: You’re right, your syllogism was faulty.
You got it. As was yours. Well done.
But the difference between matter and energy and information is that we create information every day
….by organizing matter and energy and attributing subjectively agreed-upon meanings to them. We do not literally “create” information; it is not a substance that we bring into existence. You seem to be using the term “creating information” as a literal action, which I take issue with.
For example, spoken language; it’s not a literal thing that actually exists somewhere. It’s a configuration of soundwave patterns that we appropriate meaning to based on the exact differences in patterns; we come to a mutual understanding that certain sounds represent certain concepts, and so when one person makes a certain sound, the other person can say, “Oh, he is referring to that concept.” Hence, words.
They all involve a system of symbols that represent ideas or some plan independent of their medium.
Ideas/plans that people agree are represented by those medium.
-) Words do not objectively have meaning; they only mean what people understand them to mean.
-) The ideas are already there in our minds; the words are just a configuration used to express/translate them from one mind to another.
So, since DNA is a code, and we observe that all codes come from minds it follows logically that DNA came from a mind.
DNA is not a code in the same sense as language. DNA is not a conscious, subjective expression of thoughts; language is. DNA expresses no thoughts or feelings of its own, it only correlates to physical traits. Assuming that all thoughts and such things are transcendent (as per Christian argumentative stance), DNA does not “stand for” anything “transcendent” or metaphysical, as it’s claimed that thoughts do — there is no “thought,” “feeling,” or “opinion” that is expressed by DNA, nor is there any “concept” that is expressed by DNA. Merely physical characteristics, from the color of one’s skin down to the exact flow of synaptic reactions/responses in the brain.
There is no transmission of an idea/plan/instructions that is independent of the magnetic striping.
The same is true of DNA; there is no “plan” or “idea” expressed by DNA, only physical attributes. You’re bending the definitions of these words to suit an otherwise faulty syllogism.
Saying that DNA is natural, therefore DNA arose naturally is circular reasoning.
No more so than saying, “That machine is unnatural, therefore it was designed.”
When I use the word “natural,” it means “as it arose naturally.” When you use it, you mean, “As it was designed by God.” So naturally (see, there’s that word again), there is going to be some conflict as to the nature of “nature.” This doesn’t surprise me.
To me, if something is natural, that means that it exists on its own in nature. Machines are not natural; video games are not natural; computers and airplanes are not natural. Animals are natural; bodily functions are natural; DNA is natural.
Even if DNA was the ONLY code that did arose naturally, the syllogism still doesn’t work. To say ‘to prove this wrong you must come up with a counter example that is NOT DNA is simply false. I could use the same arguing tool thus:
1. All religions are false
2. Christianity is a religion
3. Therefore Christianity is false.
You can prove this false if you can give me any example of another religion that contains no falsehoods.
See what I’ve done there? Hows about:
1. Whales are larger than a house
2. All mammals are smaller than a house.
3. Therefore whales are not mammals. Unless you can give me an example of another mammal that is larger than a house.
Here’s another naturally arising ‘code’ for you: the rings in a tree telling you how old it is.
Problem is that it is YOU making the claim that all codes are designed. It is up to YOU, James, to prove it.
What you’ve got is another version of Paley’s Watch, which Hume showed was a nonsense argument even before Darwin. What would you conclude about a watch that you’ve found? Perhaps that it was designed by a committee, not a single person. If it contained faults, you’d conclude that the creator was incompetent. So lets look at DNA – full of dead information. Humans have the DNA to synthesis our own vitamin C – but its slightly broken, as it is with apes. Therefore we’re vulnerable to scurvy. Does this mean if our DNA was designed that the creator was incompetent?
Re: using terms not applicable to DNA
Hubert Yockey wrote a book called “Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life” in 2005. In it he shows that the coding process in DNA is exactly identical to Caude Shannon’s (father of information theory) mathematical theory of information. He says:
“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”
Definition of information:
Information is represented symbolically, it’s content is distinct from the medium that carries it. It is neither matter or energy, although information can be stored by matter or transmitted by energy.
Tim:
Language is a way of communicating information from one place to another. DNA communicates within itself to transfer information from a DNA source, encodes it from a DNA alphabet to an mRNA alphabet, genetic noise gets added during the transmission of mRNA, it gets decoded into a protein message in a totally new protein alphabet.
Andrew:
Tree rings: Within the system of a tree, does the tree decode its own rings? Does it observe the pattern of its own rings and use that information for some purpose? Does it create a measuring device to measure the width of each ring to see how much growth took place during the past year?
Paley’s watch: Before being built, watches and life forms can be represented symbolically by some form of a language. An idea for a watch had to come about before the watch was created. It doesn’t matter if the idea was transmitted to a blueprint or just kept in someone’s mind before implementing the design. DNA can be represented with symbols just like Chinese or music. In any language, an idea will always come before its implementation.
Dead information in DNA: It’s a good thing that DNA is also full of live INFORMATION too.
Re: the challenge to prove that all codes are designed – No one can prove that all codes come from a mind, just like no one can prove that matter and energy are always conserved. We observe that matter and energy are always conserved and there is no reason to doubt it. We also observe that codes/information/languages come only from minds.
James: “No one can prove that all codes come from a mind”
Thank you. And there endeth your argument. The case rests.
Thank you. And there endeth your argument. The case rests.
Well, that’s short – what about his point with reference to matter and energy? His point was that observation leads to a general truth. We’ve been down this path before, Andrew – I believe we got to the point where just about nothing would satisfy your definition for “proof” of anything. When one can no longer accept the science one holds up as unifying everything apart from a creator, things get really hard to discuss. Because eventually we end up having to deny our senses, which I believe is where a previous thread sort of fizzled.
-Matt
We also observe that codes/information/languages come only from minds.
No, you assume. DNA is not observably derived from a conscious mind; that is an assumption you make by faultily comparing it to things such as language.
“I believe we got to the point where just about nothing would satisfy your definition for “proof” of anything. ”
Er, no – that was when YOU denied the mountains of proof of evolution. I did nothing of the sort, Matt.
James: “No one can prove that all codes come from a mind”
Andrew: Thank you. And there endeth your argument. The case rests.
Weak.
Tim:
Inside of DNA is the instructions for the assembly of a complete organism. Like English has a 26-letter alphabet and computers have a binary language, DNA has four symbols that make up its alphabet. Just like any other language, DNA, with its the use of only four letters, symbolically represents precise instructions for what makes you have your certain blood-type, male/female, two legs, etc. You could take the order of those base pairs and store it on a hard drive, paint a picture of it, speak it over a loudspeaker to your whole town, or shove it into a human cell nucleus and all of that information would still represent you.
All languages involve a speaker and a listener. All languages have an alphabet, syntax, semantics, intent, and some form of error correction to make up for lost language. DNA has all the characteristics of this.
Mathematics is a code that has no designer. Mathematics is something that exists whether there is an intelligent being around to think about it or not. It’s the sound of the tree falling when no one hears it. The basic rock bottom of mathematics is enumeration. One star, two stars, three stars. Exponential growth. Addition. Subtraction. It is the naturally occurring code of quantization.
Mr. Garwood. Are you a preterist? What you said sounds that way:
“Christ came in AD 70 and judged the Jews who had rejected Him–”
I don’t know the ins and outs of preterism, but doesn’t that essentially mean that people are wasting their time thinking their god is lurking around the corner, waiting to come back?
I am – not a FULL preterist (the folks that believe God is never coming back in any way) because I believe this is the most consistent position to take, if one is going to claim the Bible records the words of Christ faithfully. Matthew 24 is particularly troublesome for my pre-mil friends. Lots of mental gymnastics to get around what it so clearly says (again, read it in context with the previous chapters).
Didn’t know how many folks on here would be familiar with the term, but yes, in general it applies.
-Matt
As troublesome goes it would be also so with mark 9:1 and luke 21:32.