Sometimes I wonder. Other times I'm encouraged. Recently cipher wrote:
Some of the Christians who comment here are ignorant and ignorant of their own ignorance. They cannot be reached by us at this time. A Biblical scholar recently concurred:
But keep in mind one thing; these Christians are reading what we write and that is a good thing. We are planting seeds of doubt. I think one of the goals on this Blog and on other forums should be to plant enough seeds of doubt that Christians will want to read a whole book that expresses these same ideas, and you know which ones I would recommend. ;-) Keep in mind that most people cannot be reasoned out of their faith because they were never reasoned into it in the first place. They were brainwashed, indoctrinated and/or enculturated to believe (however you want to describe it), as David Eller shares in the first chapter of The Christian Delusion
. So to skeptics I say, try to keep this in mind. Although, ridicule can be effective and it's a great way to vent.
David Eller recently emailed me that Christians have "a different set of eyes then we do, and they cannot see what we see. Criticizing them, even poking them in the eye, simply does not improve their vision. They are deep inside a Christian box, and until they see the box and the world outside of it, their view is fatally limited." My goal, as frustrating as it is sometimes, is to help them step outside the box and see it for what it is. And I think I'm doing this as best as is possible, so I will continue.
I have found that more times than not it takes a personal crisis before a Christian is willing to consider our arguments. The crisis could potentially be an intellectual one, but most times it is some sort of tragedy. Then he or she will be willing to consider the seeds of doubt we planted. Coupled together with the loss of a loving Christian community and bingo, they can become skeptics. Also keep in mind that since there are many former believers who have become skeptics we know these believers can become skeptics too.
I get emails from readers of this Blog who have never commented here. Many silent people are reading this Blog. And DC is making a difference. That I know for sure. So I keep on keeping on. While changing the minds of brainwashed people is one of the hardest things a person can do, especially by simply typing words on the internet like I do, it's precisely because it's such a big challenge I like to do it. And I have learned quite a bit myself in the process. Learning is it's own reward.
Just so you know, I am dedicated to helping change the religious landscape and I will do so as long as I have breath. I do so for the countless numbers of people who were forced to keep silent their whole lives or risk persecution, torture, and even death. I will not let their tears and blood be shed in vain. I stand on their shoulders. They gave me the freedom to do what I do with only minimum annoyances. I do so for Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll and Joseph Lewis who were our fore-bearers and my heroes, as are others like the so-called New Atheists who all pioneered the way for the rest of us. And most of all I do it for the women. Historically they have been oppressed by religion in all parts of the globe down through the centuries. I hate what it has done to them given the patriarchal nature of man-made religions, and I do mean man-made. They need liberated from this pious nonsense, although in our day the women are doing that job on their own without any help from me.
Thanks so much for all of your support. Thanks also to some of the Christians here. Some of you make me think and have actually helped make my arguments better. ;-)
John...As I told you recently - I can't understand why on earth you want to waste your time arguing with these imbeciles. The evidence now suggests strongly what I've suspected for decades; they're neurologically impaired and are incapable of change. They are, for all practical considerations, developmentally challenged (fundies, let there be no mistake - yes, I'm calling you mentally retarded), and giving them occasion to view themselves as being on equal footing with you is a fatal error. If you want to continue to waste your time - this is America, knock yourself out. I have better things to do. Even when I have nothing else to do, it's still more worthwhile than this.I understand the sentiment.
Some of the Christians who comment here are ignorant and ignorant of their own ignorance. They cannot be reached by us at this time. A Biblical scholar recently concurred:
Everyone is an expert on the Bible. This is one of the factors that provides professional biblical scholars with generous ulcers. Everyone is an expert because they know what they believe about the Bible. The difficulty is very few people actually know much about the Bible. Link.Dealing with these type of Christians is annoying and I attract them here like flies because I write so people can understand. I don't use Greek or Hebrew nor do I use symbolic logic or math. I can in varying degrees. I just don't. So any Christian who can read can also understand what I say. I do this on purpose because I want to reach Christians. But most of them cannot be reached. Not at this time, and not by me. That's why I do not respond to some Christians here, because I can see them coming. And that's why I appreciate so much the skeptics who do, because I would get way too frustrated on a daily basis if I had to do so.
But keep in mind one thing; these Christians are reading what we write and that is a good thing. We are planting seeds of doubt. I think one of the goals on this Blog and on other forums should be to plant enough seeds of doubt that Christians will want to read a whole book that expresses these same ideas, and you know which ones I would recommend. ;-) Keep in mind that most people cannot be reasoned out of their faith because they were never reasoned into it in the first place. They were brainwashed, indoctrinated and/or enculturated to believe (however you want to describe it), as David Eller shares in the first chapter of The Christian Delusion
David Eller recently emailed me that Christians have "a different set of eyes then we do, and they cannot see what we see. Criticizing them, even poking them in the eye, simply does not improve their vision. They are deep inside a Christian box, and until they see the box and the world outside of it, their view is fatally limited." My goal, as frustrating as it is sometimes, is to help them step outside the box and see it for what it is. And I think I'm doing this as best as is possible, so I will continue.
I have found that more times than not it takes a personal crisis before a Christian is willing to consider our arguments. The crisis could potentially be an intellectual one, but most times it is some sort of tragedy. Then he or she will be willing to consider the seeds of doubt we planted. Coupled together with the loss of a loving Christian community and bingo, they can become skeptics. Also keep in mind that since there are many former believers who have become skeptics we know these believers can become skeptics too.
I get emails from readers of this Blog who have never commented here. Many silent people are reading this Blog. And DC is making a difference. That I know for sure. So I keep on keeping on. While changing the minds of brainwashed people is one of the hardest things a person can do, especially by simply typing words on the internet like I do, it's precisely because it's such a big challenge I like to do it. And I have learned quite a bit myself in the process. Learning is it's own reward.
Just so you know, I am dedicated to helping change the religious landscape and I will do so as long as I have breath. I do so for the countless numbers of people who were forced to keep silent their whole lives or risk persecution, torture, and even death. I will not let their tears and blood be shed in vain. I stand on their shoulders. They gave me the freedom to do what I do with only minimum annoyances. I do so for Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll and Joseph Lewis who were our fore-bearers and my heroes, as are others like the so-called New Atheists who all pioneered the way for the rest of us. And most of all I do it for the women. Historically they have been oppressed by religion in all parts of the globe down through the centuries. I hate what it has done to them given the patriarchal nature of man-made religions, and I do mean man-made. They need liberated from this pious nonsense, although in our day the women are doing that job on their own without any help from me.
Thanks so much for all of your support. Thanks also to some of the Christians here. Some of you make me think and have actually helped make my arguments better. ;-)
281 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 281 of 281Here's a serious question:
If Jesus wanted to save us, why didn't HE write the "Gospel According to Jesus"?
Bronx,
Back from my ride.
Bronx, do you come from a fundamentalist background? I'm not theologically liberal by any means, and do take the Scripture very seriously as an authority for the faith, and practice of the church.
But, it seems to me that not all Scripture is given to be interpreted in a literal sense, and I think it's important to consider the cultural context, as well.
I think it's probably going to be impossible to share together about all these differences in a few paragraphs on a blog. But, I'm goin try.
In my tradition, we see Scripture, as well as Christian tradition, and human reason informing our faith. But, above all, we think our trust in God, how we know about what He's really like is centered in the reality of the incarnation.
God loved us so much that He fully entered into human life, and suffering. He absorbed the consequence of sin, and evil so that we could fully share in His life, and be made like Him in love. So, Jesus Christ is Emmanuel, God with us.
It's through this living Word, that I would interpret Scripture, and view even the judgement of God.
I certainly struggle with some of these events recorded in the OT, such as the judgement of the Caananites. I"m not feeling that I have all the answers by any means.
I mean right now I could pull all these apologetics out of my hat, but at the end of the day, it's all speculation, isn't it?
Sometimes we can't fully understand all of the reasons why, or completely discern all of God's acts in history, events that occurred in another time, and in a radically different culture.
But, because my faith is rooted primarily in the incarnation, I'm feeling that I can so trust the mercy, and justice of the Lord. "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?"
Also, Bronx, I want to add, and I hope this makes sense to you..I'm feeling that the Scripture often does speak of God in anthropomorphic terms.
You know, I mean I don't think that God was literally having an on-going discussion with a person named Job, or granting this physical audience to Satan.
It seems to me this story is a Jewish folktale which certainly does contain deep truth, and illustrates God's faithfulness through everything, and that we can trust Him.
But, I personally would not see this story as literally, historically true.
I find that often when I share, and hear from people who are fundamentalists, or former fundamentalists, they can't understand. Their faith is totally tied to a certain view, and way of looking at the Scripture.
So, if this is altered, it's just like this domino effect. Everything else relating to trust in God comes crashing down for them.
Maybe part of it has to do with a difference in how our brains are wired. I tend to think in shades of gray about many issues, and not always in just black or white terms.
I would also add that I think centering meditation, and praises given to God is not so much for His benefit, but for ours.
Hope this helps.
@GearHedEd...I know you can't believe the Bible. Not on your own. I respond to you because I know God can save anyone even you. He may yet have mercy on you and God has chosen to save people by the proclamation of the world. You can't get to God on your terms only His. I may never get you to change your mind, but I'm going to leave that in God's more than capable hands. Other than that, let's say I changed my mind and rejected the Bible, why do you think I'm more invested in my position than you are in yours? You repudiate Christian Apologetics and admit that you refuse to consider the arguments of someone like William Lane Craig who used to be an atheist like you. Why would you not wanna know what changed his mind? I sense much fear in you.
Oh no, Bronx.
I just posted this long response to your second comment, and it looks like it didn't go through blogger.
I'll try again tomorrow.
Hope I didn't get it on the wrong post.
Oh, never mind, I see it now.
This is strange.
GearHeEd said of Marcus ..."You said in another thread that there IS evidence of the Hebrews wandering in the Sinai desert for forty years, and for "proof" you linked in to a webpage that showed a few pottery shards scattered on the ground and a map of where these shards were allegedly "found"."
GearHeED said .."Even granting that the location and dates of the shards places them in the right time frame according to the Biblical account, your source neglected to mention that the map data showed shard distributions only in the vicinity of KNOWN TRADE ROUTES from antiquity. This is a viable alternate explanation, and when combined with the FACT that there is no supporting evidence from Egyptian records relating to some 2 million people leaving Egypt en masse, (nor evidence of a huge group of wanderers later arriving in Canaan) you are left with the very real probabilities that
a) the alleged evidence may or may not show what you think it does (inconclusive), and
b) supporting evidence from external sources for the claims points FIRMLY in the other direction, leads to
the conclusion that you see only what you want to see. Confirmation bias."
Marcus McElhaney said..."@GearHedED
Where is your evidence? I've seen tons of evidences both side and i find your side wanting. you are biased against the Bible. How do you know you aren't letting your biases blind you? I'm asking because that is exactly what you are doing. You can't see it."
Conclusion: Bible "assertions" put forward by Marcus from the bible, must in Maucus view, automatically elevate! and approve! mythical bible storys written in the bible by people who would have! already surely known the area was a well know "trade route" ,above the likelyhood it was just that pure and simple ...A well used trade route! that then most surely! would also very most likely be found to also have! scattered pottery shards! even from that very same area.
Conclusing: Marcus simply sees these bible "assertion" to always over trump! some well known history and logic and common sense.
Marcus has simply outruled the very real possibilities, that the scattered shards of pottery, could just as easily! and even very likely!, be connect to those people who always happened to use this well known trade route.
Marcuses mind overuled these very real possibilities,simply because like children who fear monsters under beds, it suits that what his unquestioning fearful engulfed mind has already convinced him of.
Oooh and plus, remembering to be always overlooking these matters, brings far better job prospects! for the future of continuing on with being a C.O.G.I.C Pastor too.
GearHedEd clearing provided very possible good evidence which can easily explain another far more likely more logical reason.
Yet Marcus and faith ,simply blindly overlooks it ...Marcus also deceitfully! and wrongfully!! accuses GearHedEd of providing absolutely no other alternative evidence.
How can faithful people like Marcus ever really be trusted ??...And also even more important! why should we ever expect it any more likely! their faithful forfathers! would have likely been any more honest??
Hense why should the bible "assertion" stand above, the logical idea and good reason, of shards of pottery more likely existing simply because of being on a popular trade route.
Marcus,
WLC was never an atheist like me.
"Craig was born in Peoria, Illinois, grew up in Keokuk, Iowa and was raised in a non-religious family which included a father who was a railroad executive and World War II veteran, his mother, a homemaker, an older sister and younger brother.
Craig became a Christian at the age of sixteen,..."
William Lane Craig
Again, you twist what you think you know to satisfy your thinking.
I explained why you must cling to your position already, and why if I was to find a change of heart that it would cause MUCH less steress on me than for you to change yours.
And when you say "You can't get to God on your terms only His", you're granting to me the right to believe that there is NO God, that there are NO terms, and that there is NOWHERE to go to be with the non-existent god.
You said,
"...let's say I changed my mind and rejected the Bible, why do you think I'm more invested in my position than you are in yours?"
I'm saying that even if you WANTED TO reject it, you would have to face a personal crisis, and that you therefore would NOT change your mind. It would be too difficult.
I don't hate god. I just don't believe there is such a being. Simple as that.
Marcus said "...why do you think I'm more invested in my position than you are in yours?"
Because as a minister, presumably at least a portion of your livelihood is dependent upon you being invested in your position.
Grace,
In my view, the defining characteristic of a fundamentalist is one who refuses to ascribe moral responsibility for the existence of evil to God. This appears to be your view and makes you a fundamentalist as far as I'm concerned.
Fundamentalist have turned their backs on human morality, as feeble, faulty, and evolving as it may be, in favor of a mystical, through-the-looking-glass version of morality which insists that actions which most humans would call evil and irresponsible, are to be seen as good. A fundamentalist is motivated through threats and promises to ignore and suppress his uneasy gut feelings about the morality of a God who allows countless numbers humans to use their sin infected brains to reason their way into hell. How do you explain your allegiance to this idea?
Grace,
I'd really like to hear your thoughts on an article by Jeff Schweitzer that appeared in today's Huffington Post.
Why Free Will, Prayer, And An Omnipotent God Are Mutually Exclusive
Marcus.
Read the link in BronxBoy's post, and tell me if I didn't say EXACTLY the same things to you.
I'm not asking you to believe what it says.
But every time I bring this stuff up, you call it a "Red Herring", as if that solves the problem.
Just so you know, it doesn't, and he cites EVERY objection you've made almost verbatim.
The only difference between what I posted here and the HuffPo author is that he has more room to discuss these things.
My version was necessarily brief.
John,
There's a problem. When comments to this particular post arrive in my email and I click the link back to this particular post, only one page of comments show up (ending at 6/15/10) with no indication that there are subsequent comment posts available. In other words, there's no indication of "newer" or "newest". This appears to be a problem when your post generates an enormous amount of comments.
Not sure if you can do anything about it, but thought you'd appreciate a heads up.
Interesting Bronxboy47. I suppose their are just too many comments by now. I'm shutting this topic down anyway. It's run it's course. Have it out on a different topic.
Cheers.
Because of a request this post is open for comments again.
I thought it had run aground but I guess not.
@GearHedEd....I'm a software Engineer. None of my financial livelihood comes from my church. Nothing. I have job. This is another example of how you make assumptions that are not true.
As for "the problem of evil" argument. I disagree that you or the author of the article BronxBoy47 linked have came up with anything new or compelling. At least he attempted but failed to respond to objections to his argument. That is more than what you did. I've seen a lot or responses. I've been saving and bookmarking such things for months now. see my list here.
However I will be writing a response specifically to this article sometime today.
Marcus said,
"@GearHedEd....I'm a software Engineer. None of my financial livelihood comes from my church. Nothing. I have job. This is another example of how you make assumptions that are not true."
Whose comprehension sucks?
You're responding to something Ryan Anderson said.
And it's even on THIS PAGE, Marcus.
Open your eyes.
This is a perfect example of you ignoring the evidence that's RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU FACE to claim something that you BELIEVE is true.
You should quit before you make a REAL fool out of yourself.
And "As for "the problem of evil" argument..."
The HuffPo article was about the incompatibility of free will with an omniscient god. The 'Problem of Evil' only came up in the article incidentally.
You missed THAT, too.
Marcus, you FAIL at every step.
Let's hear where you think the logic in the article is flawed?
You, Marcus, have never countered an argument here effectively.
All we ever hear is:
"This is what the Bible says", or
"God is Omni-(X,Y,Z), and he can do that even if you don't believe it", or
"You don't understand the scriptures", or
"Your reading comprehension is faulty", or
"You haven't proved that" (while neglecting to offer ANYTHING besides the occasional apologist webpage).
Here's a tip:
I may not bury my nose in the Bible as much as you do, but I read it a LOT more than most Christians do, because I want to KNOW what's in it.
Invariably, when I'm accused of not knowing some facet of scripture, the objection is founded on either a single, usually cryptic translation, or some claim that I'm not 'rightly dividing' the Word, or some such nonsense.
Bottom line:
If believing in your religion makes you happy, I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with that.
But it in NO WAY requires that I'm subject to your delusions.
@GearHedEd...I'm sorry I should have addressed the answer to where I get paid to Ryan and not to you. Find I made a mistake. I never claimed personal infallibility. The Bible is infallible.
As for your Bible literacy, I think I've more than documented that you may know more than many Christians about the Bible, but your understanding is flawed. I mean that you have said things that it does not say. For example you have said that the Bible says that humans have free will (and in your ramblings I take it you mean libertarian free will). It does not say that. There are other examples. Instead of just admitting you have misrepresented what the Bible says you just default to that is nothing but fiction. You don't know what's in it. Point to single time I have told you your Biblical exegesis is weak and then justified it on a single translation.
You cannot discuss the problem of evil without free will and vice versa. They are inextricably linked. The argument made in the article is the same tired one: There can be no God because evil exist and free will is not viable explanation to reconcile that fact. Weak. My full explanation is coming.
You can't discount the links I use without explaining why they are not valid is silly. Just because you don't think "apologetic" websites are evidence doesn't mean that they do not have not valid evidence on them. Who made you the standard for evidence? If you want to prove that you have more than your say-so, go ahead.
As for the article, i want to give it the time it deserves because I got to admit that it's well written and it is the best argument for atheism which is prtty sad considering how weak it is in the face of logic and scripture and history and science. Wait for it...it's coming later today.
You have made a lot of claims about Christians and the Bible. You feel justified to challenge the Bible. I agree you have that right. You don't seem interested in dialogue. If you are going to make claims about truth, you should be prepared to defend them when they are challenged. If the point of this blog is to pontificate about people and things you don't know about without challenge - let me know.
Realize as well, Marcus, that you're not the only one I engage in these debates.
The comment,
"Invariably, when I'm accused of not knowing some facet of scripture, the objection is founded on either a single, usually cryptic translation, or some claim that I'm not 'rightly dividing' the Word, or some such nonsense."
was not directed at you in particular, but at everyone on the Christian side that I blog with.
But I AM interested in dialogue; my primary objection to your "dialogue" style is that you ALWAYS adopt a position of authority, and I bristle at that. It's OK to admit that you don't know once in a while, especially if the only alternative is to proclaim "God is the Answer!".
I'm not perfect, either, but I don't see where appealing to scripture can help me advance and get "better" (whatever THAT means!) if I don't take action on my own to "better" myself.
You'll no doubt reply that any effort of mine without approval and backing from god is doomed to fail, and I disagree.
Your continual demand for me to provide "proof" is silly. You and I both know the different arguments exist in detail and are out there. I don't BELIEVE that you'd seriously consider the 'evidence' I could provide (and you KNOW exists!), so digging it up and posting it here is so much pissing in the wind. And you know it.
The way I see it, you look at the side you want to believe, and anything that supports your worldview is "evidence", while I have seen the "evidence" on both sides and CONTINUE to investigate the Bible (I have three on the desk in front of me as I type this: a KJV, an NIV, and a Revised KJV, as well as several books on the history of the Bible), even though I don't believe in it as "revealed truth".
And I also have a Civil Engineering degree.
So I don't accept things on "authority".
@GearHedEd
I write and speak the way i do because i have looked at both sides and I'm convinced. You saying the bible is wrong doesn't anger me and strike out at you with anger. Why? Because I'm comfortable with what I believe and after careful consideration I'm convinced. I don't need to doubt but just weight and test all the evidence that I can. And by refusing to look at alternative conclusions based on evidence means that you have not looked at everything available to you. For example you said you won't read William Lane Craig's work or look at any of his evidence. What sense does that make? When I know I don't know something I freely say that. The reason I'm so sure that the Bible is true is because of the evidence I have seen, read, and experienced. I demand proof because i wanna know why you think the way you do? What did you do to come to the conclusion you have made? I see nothing wrong with asking for that. I am more that w8illing to to look at and evaluate any evidence you provide but you have straight said that you refuse to look at certain people's data and conclusions. That's not what a scientist/engineer does. You seem to think I have come to the conclusions I have come to because I have not looked at the evidence but by closing yourself to evidence how do you know that I don't have access to evidence you have not seen? I want to know if you have evidence I have ot seen.
"For example you said you won't read William Lane Craig's work or look at any of his evidence."
I don't care how many PhD's the guy has; He's an advocate of "Creation Science" or "Intelligent Design" and a fellow of the Discovery institute.
There is conclusive "evidence" that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago.
His "evidence" can be nothing BUT apologetics, other than just plain "wrong".
Age of the Earth
Extinction of Dinosaurs
Transitional Fossils
Radiometric Dating Techniques
Kansas Evolution Hearings
Note: "The scientific community rejects teaching intelligent design as science; a leading example being the United States National Academy of Sciences, which issued a policy statement saying "Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[8]"
Creation-Evolution Controversy
Note: "Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earth’s history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts.
—National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism[11]"
Marcus said "This is another example of how you make assumptions that are not true."
No it's not. I said "presumably".
But I would still presume that much of your social status is tied to you being invested in your position. But I could be wrong, I'm wrong a lot.
Arguments from Religion:
The Exodus
Note: "With the exception of those conservative scholars who insist on Mosaic authorship of the Torah, scholars agree that the Exodus account is a composite literary construct, composed and edited from smaller units transmitted over centuries to achieve theological and historical coherence.[1] Recent research has identified more and more of the Exodus material as coming from the Israelite monarchy and the Exile, times long after the 2nd millennium epoch in which the narrative is set, and the original base of the story becomes corrspondingly more and more difficult to identify.[2] While the overall intent of the narrative is historical, it is not history in the modern sense, but as a theology set against a historical background, illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, the Children of Israel, and that it is therefore inappropriate to approach miraculous events such as the burning bush and the plagues of Egypt as if they were actual history.[3]"
Deluge Myth
Note: "The publication of The First Fossil Hunters by Adrienne Mayor, followed by Fossil Legends of the First Americans, have caused the hypothesis that flood stories have been inspired by ancient observations of seashells and fish inland and on mountains to gain ground. Though the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, and Chinese all commented in ancient writings about seashells and fish that they found inland and in the mountains, it was Leonardo da Vinci who postulated that an immediate deluge could not have caused the layered and neatly-ordered strata he found in the Italian Apennines. The Greeks hypothesized that Earth had been covered by water several times, and noted the seashells and fish fossils found on mountain tops as the evidence for this belief. Native Americans also expressed this belief to early Europeans, though they had not written these ideas down previously.[citation needed]
Some geologists believe that quite dramatic, greater-than-normal flooding of rivers in the distant past might have influenced the legends. One of the latest, and quite controversial, hypotheses of this type is the Ryan-Pitman Theory, which argues for a catastrophic deluge about 5600 BCE from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black Sea. This has been the subject of considerable discussion, and a news article from National Geographic News in February 2009 reported that the flooding might have been "quite mild".[26]
There has also been speculation that a large tsunami in the Mediterranean Sea caused by the Thera eruption, dated ca. 1630–1600 BCE geologically, was the historical basis for folklore that evolved into the Deucalion myth. However, the tsunami hit the South Aegean Sea and Crete; it did not affect cities in the mainland of Greece such as Mycenae, Athens, and Thebes which continued to prosper, therefore it had a local rather than a regionwide effect[27].
Another theory is that a meteor or comet crashed into the Indian Ocean in prehistoric times around 2800-3000 BCE, created the 30 kilometres (19 mi) undersea Burckle Crater and generated a giant tsunami that flooded coastal lands.[28]
It has been postulated that the deluge myth may be based on a sudden rise in sea levels caused by the rapid draining of prehistoric Lake Agassiz at the end of the last Ice Age, roughly 8,400 years before the present.[29]"
More arguments from religion:
The Fall of Man
Note: "Christianity interprets the fall in a number of ways. Traditional Christian theology accepts the teaching of St Paul in his letter to the Romans[7][non-primary source needed] "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" and of St John's Gospel that "God so loved the world that he sent his only son (Jesus Christ) that whoever believes on him should not perish, but have everlasting life".[John 3:16][non-primary source needed]
The doctrine of original sin, as articulated by Augustine of Hippo's interpretation of Paul of Tarsus, provides that the fall caused a fundamental change in human nature, so that all descendants of Adam are born in sin, and can only be redeemed by divine grace. Sacrifice was the only means by which humanity could be redeemed after the Fall. Jesus, who was without sin, died on the cross as the ultimate redemption for the sin of humankind.
The dominant view within Christianity is that the serpent of Genesis was an incarnation of Satan, based on the reference in the Book of Revelation: "He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years."[Rev. 20:2][non-primary source needed]"
(when they say "non-primary source needed", they mean that the source is in the reference, i.e. 'self referential', and therefore suspect).
@Ryan
sorry, wrong again.
@GearHedEd
William Lane Craig and many proponents of Intelligent Design do not deny that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. You would know that if you'd ever really looked him up.
I'm not a young earth creationist and neither is Dr William Lane Craig.
Bronx,
I think I can know this not simply by the witness of Scripture, or the Christian faith, but by my own experience, and objective observation of cultures all over the world.
People everywhere are alienated, and divided from one another. As a micro-example of this, Bronx, look at how folks respond to difference with one another in conversation on this very blog. Often, it is certainly not with kindness, or genuine caring.
(I don't feel that all of this can be explained merely by evolutionary advantage.)
In my personal life, I can hurt the people I love the most, sometimes without even knowing. Even when I do good, if I search my heart deeply, my motives are often mixed.
Even the best fall terribly short of the perfect love of God expressed in Christ.
And, it seems to me that the whole scope of human history shows that overall we can't simply "fix ourselves, by ourselves."
Don't get me wrong, Bronx, I'm not arguing that human are worthless, and incapable, humanly speaking, of doing good. Of course, not.
The paradox is that we are also "fearfully and wonderfully made," created in the image of God,
But, at the same time, yes, we have become in a deep measure broken, and fallen, Bronx.
But, what is your opinion?
I don't know how much longer we're able to keep sharing. I think the comments in this thread are closing.
But, Bronx, I have appreciated talking with you. Every blessing, and deep peace to you, Bronx.
Bronx,
It's not my view that people reason their way to Hell, or that everyone apart from conscious faith is heading to Hell.
I actually think that everyone who seeks truth will eventually come to God in Christ, either in this life, or the next.
Bronx,
I will try to read the article, and comment tomorrow.
It looks like the thread is going to stay open after all. :)
Grace,
Consciously or unconsciously, you are either within the walls or at the gate of the Universal Salvation Compound. Everything will be okay in the end, is what you're saying.
It's obvious your theology is reflective of your gentleness of spirit--but, I'm afraid, you remain a heretic in the eyes of the majority of Christians.
As far as my angry attitude goes, try debating day after day with folks like D.S. Harvey Burnett and Marcus, and see how sweet tempered you can remain.
I would still be interested in hearing your take on the specific points raised in the Schweitzer article
Teach the Controversy
"Teach the Controversy is the name of a Discovery Institute campaign to promote intelligent design, a variant of traditional creationism, while attempting to discredit evolution in United States public high school science courses. The central claim the Discovery Institute makes with 'Teach the Controversy' is that fairness and equal time requires educating students with a 'critical analysis of evolution' where "the full range of scientific views" evolution's "unresolved issues", and the "scientific weaknesses of evolutionary theory" will be presented and evaluated alongside intelligent design concepts like irreducible complexity presented as a scientific argument against evolution through oblique references to books by design proponents listed in the bibliography of the Institute-proposed "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plans. The intelligent design movement and the Teach the Controversy campaign are directed and supported largely by the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, Washington, USA. The overall goal of the movement is to "defeat [the] materialist world view" represented by the theory of evolution and replace it with "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
The scientific community and science education organizations have replied that there is no scientific controversy regarding the validity of evolution and that the controversy exists solely in terms of religion and politics. A federal court, along with the majority of scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, say the Institute has manufactured the controversy they want to teach by promoting a false perception that evolution is "a theory in crisis" due to it being the subject of purported wide controversy and debate within the scientific community. McGill University Professor Brian Alters, an expert in the creation-evolution controversy, is quoted in an article published by the NIH as stating that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution" whereas intelligent design has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
With the December 2005 ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, wherein Judge John E. Jones III concluded that intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents", intelligent design proponents were left with the Teach the Controversy strategy as the most likely method left to realize the goals stated in the wedge document. Thus, the Teach the Controversy strategy has become the primary thrust of the Discovery Institute in promoting its aims. Just as intelligent design is a stalking horse for the campaign against what its proponents claim is a materialist foundation in science that precludes God, Teach the Controversy has become a stalking horse for intelligent design. But the Dover ruling also characterized "teaching the controversy" as part of a religious ploy."
Wedge Strategy
The wedge strategy is a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,[1] which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to "defeat scientific materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions".[2] The strategy also aims to "affirm the reality of God."[3] Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.[4]
The wedge metaphor, attributed to Phillip E. Johnson, is that of a metal wedge splitting a log and represents using an aggressive public relations program to create an opening for the supernatural in the public’s understanding of science.[5]
Intelligent design is the religious[6][7] belief that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not a naturalistic process such as natural selection. Implicit in the intelligent design doctrine is a redefining of science and how it is conducted. Wedge strategy proponents are dogmatically opposed to materialism,[8][9][10] naturalism,[9][11] and evolution, and have made the removal of each from how science is conducted and taught an explicit goal.
The strategy was originally brought to the public's attention when the Wedge Document was leaked on the Web. The Wedge strategy forms the governing basis of a wide range of Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns."
My bad, I got WLC confused with Ken Ham.
Still the Discovery Institut's manifesto isn't about Knowledge", it's about cramming their pseudoscience down the throats of unsuspecting children, and THAT'S BAD.
BronxBoy thanks for posting that link (Huffington post)it connects real well with what ive been discussing elsewhere lately with a christian fundy on another blog.I think it explains the whole problem pretty well.
It says..."before taking a one-day vacation, he decided, unlike with beavers or parrots, to give his new creation the ability to choose a path not preordained by god. This divine grant of free will solves the dilemma because people can choose to be evil without implicating god. Whew!"
By reading her remarks it seems to me maybe? Grace see`s all the bad attitudes in humans, as some down fall.IE humans through Adam and Eve fell,and so then all us humans are now imperfect.Or something like that.
But what happened?, did all the animals go and fall too.For instance horses are not always in good moods,sometime they too get irritable,one might bite the other horse on the butt for instance.And the irritable horse will also! often be seen to blatantly show sign of obviously automatically knowing its done something wrong too.So whats the rub ?, do animals also know about some of these "supernatual imposed" objective morals faithful folks like our Harvado keep harping on about?.Maybe the adam and eve horse of old times, wrongfully listened to the old talking snake too?.Which caused all the horseys to become "fallen" also?.
Or more likely "all beings" just simply are not ever so very perfect.They all have a wild side! to them,and old "instincts" leading back to times before we all learned to become more "civilized" and "domesticated".Instincts we often still need to try our best to overcome,so we can live in more harmony.The only real problem is we are imperfect beings,and simply just not gods like some of our minds sometimes tend to dream of.I think its our minds that try and "imagine ourselves" in the image of gods that we also happen to create.
And Bronx i think you hit the nail on the head, we cannot always be placid and calm and oh so very sweet.There is also times when we do! have good reason! to bite the butt of another horse.Even in discussions if we dont have ways to "display" our personal dislike of the endless pompous rhetoric thats intellectually vacuous for instance,how ? then are folks ever supposed to learn we are just not interested! in endlessly listening to such rubbish that leads nobody anywhere?.We would really need some folks to become part mind readers right?,for them to learn! without any need for us to display any dislikes.
In my opinion humans can sure do lots to make their lives much better for everyone,but expecting to ever likely attain total perfection, to me seems a kinda very utopian thought.Its beings creating a utopian picture of themselves, in a image of godly figures! they also happen to picture and create as well within their very own minds.
The more i study other people and think about these things, the more it seems to become so obvious to me that humans really aint anything more than another animal/being , with brains that in many ways are just far much more advanced.
In that huffington post artical Bronx posted, a commentor at the bottom called Revrod1 argues against human use of "common sense".He as a faithful person suggests the bible explains that thats when humans will go and get themselves in trouble...Use of the natural mind somehow is to be thought something terribly dangerous ..L.o.L.
But how crazy is that?...So then when and where do we decide we should use common sense and/or stop using it?.Who decides?.The prophets again?...Pfttt still man!
Only when reading faith books and following faith thought and practices?.
How terribly conveniant!.But what a complete farce!.
It seem in my opinion so obvious this idea of stopping use of common sense and the natural mind when dealing with certain matters of faith, is another invention of those faithful leaders who wished to be able to continue to just keep inforcing their faith on humanity.
BronxBoy said.."As far as my angry attitude goes, try debating day after day with folks like D.S. Harvey Burnett and Marcus, and see how sweet tempered you can remain."
Yeah its nearly enough in the end, to force almost anyone, to start to morph into macro evolution and possibly even turn into a crocoduck.
You either bite!, or sadly simply end up letting yourself be "driven" towards turning a little quackers!.
Grace ..One quickly learns to remember to forget the old outdated and unproven theory of perfection, whenever dealing with some "funny old fossils" like our Harvey and Marcus :)
"Many philosophers accept that arguments such as Plantinga's free will defense (in brief, that God allows evil in order to achieve the greater good of free will) are logically possible and thus successfully solve the logical problem of evil in terms of human action; the question of how free will and God's Omniscience are compatible remains however."
Problem of Evil
possible.
I guess that qualifies as "evidence", too...
Response to Jeff Schweitzer: Why Free Will, Prayer and an Omnipotent God Are Mutually Exclusive
Two things, Marcus.
The Bbble CANNOT stand as evidence for the claims within it,
And LOGIC is NOT defined as whatever you decide is "right" according to the Bible.
I read your screed tis morning before woerk, and ALL of your wrguments (with the exception of the ones that fit your self-serving definition of LOGIC given above) fall into the categories:
"This is what the Bible says", or
"God is Omni-(X,Y,Z), and he can do that even if you don't believe it", or
"You don't understand the scriptures".
Your post is so weak, I can't even find words to describe just HOW weak it is.
But you don't care, because the auudience in that blog are a bunch of God-bots who nod an say stuff like "Praise the Lord, Amen!", and "Mm-hmm. You got that right!"
Those people wouldn't know LOGIC if it fell on them, and could not care less. You're preaching to your choir on that page.
But take away the Bible verses, the flawed LOGIC, and there's not a single worthy refutation in the whole post.
See this for some examples of logical arguments. These arguments are more in the form of a Euclidean Geometry proof, where premises must be without fallacious reasoning to be included.
And quoting the Bible to prove the things claimed in the Bibnle is fallacious. It's called Begging the Question.
"Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise."
Begging the Question
SO:
To refute what the HuffPo guy wrote, with any hope of NOT looking like an uneducated Bible-Thumper, you have to find extra-Biblical LOGICAL grounds to attack him on, because his arguments are NOT FALLACIOUS.
Please pardon the typos.
@GearhedEd...calling my logic flawed does not make it so. Could you be more specific. Also can you show how the Bible really fits what the author says about God? If you can't then he was refuting the wrong god that we all agree do not exist. I had to use the Bible to how that the god he described is no the God of the Bible.Doesn't matter if you think the Bible is true or not...he said some things about the God of the bible that is not true. How about explaining how he was right about what he said the Bible says about God and how I'm wrong. I wrote my analysis there because I have plenty of room. Be free to explain where you think I missed it.
This is the reason why guys like WLC get advanced degrees in philosophy: so they can develop arguments that can (supposedly) stand on their own without resorting to logical fallacies.
@GearHedEd
Um He supposedly was using the Bible to show a contradiction in the character of God(as expressed in the the Bible) and the reality of evil. His whole point was the Free will doesn't answer the question. the only way to answer h9im head on is to show that he misrepresents the God of the Bible how can I do that without using the the Bible? He should have kept the Bible out of it if it's not allowed in such a discussion. Where did he get the idea that people believe that God is all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing if not from the Bible. Quoting philosophical definitions is truly begging the question which was: how come my argument were flawed? Schweitzer used only his logic and what he understand about God from misreading the Bible.
Bronx,
I read the article. God have mercy!
Better minds than mine have struggled with these issues for centuries.
No way we can know the definitive answers, IMO.
I do think it's possible for God to allow evil, and ultimately work through difficult circumstances for our good, without endorsing, or creating the evil.
When I was this young girl, I remember very deeply struggling with how a good, and loving God could allow evil, and so much suffering in the world. (I was actually agnostic at the time.)
Bronx, I"m not going to be able to explain this in words, but I received this sense of the deep wisdom of the almighty, and my own finiteness, and ability to fully know or understand.
It was like this Jobian existential experience.
I think it's fine to engage our minds to explore these questions, and issues. But, the truth is we're not going to have absolutely definitive answers this side of eternity.
No use gettin "our knickers in a twist," if we disagree. :)
Have you ever had a chance to read "The Case For Faith," by Lee Stroebel?
I looked at this book sometime ago, and recall that Lee addressed some of these same issues, and shared some interesting insights.
Of course, they're his insights, and opinions, not gospel. Other Christians may not fully agree.
Gear, are you a scientist?
What is your field of specialty, and what has drawn you to such a strong interest in the Christian faith?
Just curious, if it's ok to ask.
Grace,
You could say I'm a scientist of sorts, although my only complete formal education is a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. In the meantime, I'm a professional surveyor, licensed in North Carolina and Michigan.
Once upon a time, I was a Physics major at Michigan State University, but ran out of money before I finished, and ended up in the Army for ten years.
I've always been interested in the way things work, and how we can KNOW anything. And after studying physics, chemistry, mathematics, engineering, evolution, biology, geology, geodesy, computer programming, a couple semesters of Russian language, etc. etc., * I've spent seven full years in college) it occured to me (no great leap) that all the sciences are related and dependent on each other to an extent that the religious mythologies can never approach.
As I said before, I attended church through my early 20's, went through confirmation, served as an altar boy, etc... But I never found the religious explanations coherent.
Marcus will berate me for "not understanding", because he thinks I'm one-dimensional.
Why do I come in here and debate these things?
Because I encounter many Christian bloggers who indulge themselves in sophistry and fallacious arguments, deny the facts of the reality we all inhabit without providing logical arguments that support their claims, and generally fall back upon arguments of the forms I listed above. There are a few Christian bloggers (Eric, for one) who at least is pursuing a PhD in philosophy, although he's described himself as a Catholic. I think he's conflicted, a little.
But the original reason I started blogging was because I'm writing a book, and the "great debate" is necessary background material for some plot elements (it's going to be a novel, not a scholarly work) and character development.
So I figured I'd better educate myself more thoroughly about the "other side" of the debate. So far, nothing I've seen or read has changed my mind; on the contrary, I'm even more convinced I have it right in light of some intense discussions I've had lately.
No offense Marcus, but your arguments don't move me toward belief.
I can also whip up some awesome oil paintings, play the trumpet and the bass guitar, and am a compulsory reader, toythe extent that I have to read the cereal boxes in the morning, even though I've been reading them since I was a kid.
@GearHedEd
No offense taken. No one becomes a Christian because they lost an argument with another human being. I'm praying that you have the argument with God Himself and you find Him. That is more important.
I'm all ears but he doesn't talk to me. And I believe that he doesn't talk because he's not really there.
Grace said:
It's not my view that people reason their way to Hell, or that everyone apart from conscious faith is heading to Hell.
I actually think that everyone who seeks truth will eventually come to God in Christ, either in this life, or the next.
Grace,
You have chosen to disbelieve one of the foundational tenets of the Christian faith, that of heavenly reward for the faithful and eternal damnation for those who can't bring themselves to believe. Your understanding of Christianity is the product of a more enlightened humanity, one that finds the idea of eternal damnation in hell to be morally suspect and unpalatable. Nevertheless, it is a doctrine that has dominated and consumed the lives of the majority of Christians for centuries. And now you say they needn't have bothered. There was no actual need for the burnings at the stake, or the rack, or the thumbscrews, or the Iron Maiden, or any of the myriad instruments of torture devised to terrorize and keep believers in line. Heck, we're all going to the same place eventually, no need to get all medieval about it. Again, we are faced with the undeniable fact of the enormous waste human lives over a vast period of time.
You offer no defense for your beliefs other than your gut feelings and personal experience, the very same justifications members of other faiths use. You appear to believe that they will eventually find their way into the Christian heaven, if not in this life, then perhaps in the next.
You've read Schweitzer's article, but you have refused to come to grips with any of the arguments it contains. This site is called Debunking Christianity. That means you will find posts here which attempt to debunk Christian doctrine and others which attempt to defend it. Where is your defense, other than your emotions and personal experience (both of which can be matched by the fervid adherents of non-Christian religions the world over)? Can you begin to understand why I might seem a bit testy at this stage, when your responses to my posts inevitably sidestep all of the points raised in them?
I don't believe this makes you a bad person. Actually, I believe you to be a very warmhearted person, who has brought herself to believe a watered down version of a monstrous fairy tale, because she finds the original, unexpurgated version unpalatable. But you have yet to offer a reasoned defense of your beliefs. Providing an opportunity for you to do so is, after all, the reason for the existence of Debunking Christianity.
Thanks, Gear.
That helps me understand you a bit better. What do you feel might help you move toward God, if He's real?
Bronx, it's true, I'm not much of a debater. I mean I love to share, and dialogue with people, and try to understand where they're coming from.
But, I have to agree with Marcus, no one was every argued into the kingdom of God.
Maybe I do need to think deeply about my purpose, and time for being here. Really, do I have something to share that folks have not heard before?
Bronx, I actually have a graduate degree in theology, and have studied religion, and philosophy with both believing Christians, and scholars who were far removed from the faith of the church.
The truth is that not all Christian believers have come to an agreement concerning many of these issues, and this has been true through the centuries.
But, what I'm sharing here is very much in the mainstream thinking of the church. It is not particularly liberal, or "out there."
The foundational tenet of the Christian church is that "Jesus Christ is Lord."
It is one thing to affirm that all "salvation" is in, and through God's work in Christ...It's another to purport that every single person apart from conscious faith is heading for Hell
Even the Roman Catholic church teaches something called, "the baptism of desire."
I base my opinion that I've shared with you in the teaching of Jesus Christ recorded in the gospel, "Whoever seeks the truth will find it."
Someone who suppose they can use burning, and various torture devices to keep people in line is not about the gospel of Jesus Christ, or anything remotely resembling the grace of God. They are about "power over," and control.
This is so self-evident to me as a Christian believer. But, how can I make it clear to someone who doesn't discern the gospel, and is unable to separate it all out?
My challenge, and my grief, Bronx.
I'll be going away for a few days, and so will give you the last word in all this.
Grace said,
"Thanks, Gear.
That helps me understand you a bit better. What do you feel might help you move toward God, if He's real?"
I don't see any possibility of "moving toward" something that I truly feel (believe, know, whatever word fits here) does not in fact exist. Sorry.
I'm in line with Bronxboy's argument here. The Episcopalians want to present a lighter, watered-down version of medieval Catholicism, and that's not the story that's in the Bible. There's too much official dissembling, cherry-picking and apologetics for me to seriously consider it to be more than a complex fairy tale.
Grace said,
"...I base my opinion that I've shared with you in the teaching of Jesus Christ recorded in the gospel, "Whoever seeks the truth will find it.""
Well, I'm seeking "truth", too. Just not finding much of it in the Bible.
Gear,
How are you able to know and feel so very strongly that there is no God?
Also, do you think it possible that because of past personal experience, or even because of the atrocities that have been perpetuated by some in the institutional church, that this has created a strong cognitive bias against the possibility of God?
Grace,
You claim to have graduate degrees and yet you remain incapable of debating and defending your beliefs in print. Were all your exams entirely oral?
You come to this site armed with curiosity, opinions, and an overly solicitous attitude towards people like Gandolf and Gearhead (which is really getting old quick, by the way) that makes them out to be recalcitrant children with a grudge, but you refuse to offer any defense for your unorthodox, non-traditional interpretation of Christian scripture. Can we ever expect a reasoned defense of your ideas? Or is the best we can look forward to just more tea and sympathy?
Grace,
Btw, what kind of twisted Catholic sophistry is needed to come up with the notion of the Baptism Of Desire in the face of the following papal pronouncements?
# There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
# “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
# “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their alms-givings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his alms-giving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
Grace asks,
"Gear,
How are you able to know and feel so very strongly that there is no God?
Also, do you think it possible that because of past personal experience, or even because of the atrocities that have been perpetuated by some in the institutional church, that this has created a strong cognitive bias against the possibility of God?"
There's some blind assumptions in your questions Grace, and although I don't take any offense at that, I need to point it out.
Answer to first question:
This is complex, but the Readers Digest version is that I never got brainwashed in Sunday School as a little child, and my family didn't start going to church until I was almost 11 years old. By then I was already able to see that the world doesn't resemble what's written in the Bible (one of the complex issues; it's more than JUST "what it looks like"). I've been a voracious reader since I was a child, and I kept a dictionary handy in case I came across words I didn't understand. I was once upon a time able to recite all the prayers in the Morning Prayer and Holy Communion offices by rote, without ever thinking about the words in them. Then I decided to look up the words, and found out what I was really saying. Starting with the Nicene creed, and the nonsense that One God is really three. I still have the 1928 Book of Common Prayer my mother gave me on Easter, 1977.
In any case, the world as I see it treats us all the same, whether we wear our knees out on Sunday or not; outcomes are equal to the distributions generated by random chance (although it wasn't until years later that I studied mathematical statistics to see the basis for normal distributions). Prayer seems to have no effect, whether one is asking for favorable outcomes, or if one is giving thanks; no one seems to be listening.
So I read the bible, several times over. The only conclusions I could reach from the Old Testament were that man had been set up to fail and was then punished for it; that Yahweh plays favorites (Cain and Abel, Ishmael and Isaac, Joseph, Hebrews vs. Egyptians, etc.), that the humans He supposedly created offended Him so much that he destroyed the whole world except for Noah and his family and the animals when he could just as easily have started over from scratch (and we would have been unaware of this, so why does He expose His mistakes to us (see Genesis 6:6)?), and that the stories between Exodus and the arrival of King David are nothing short of a manifesto to conquer and seize Canaan from the rightful inhabitants. I see nothing Holy in there.
Answer to second question:
No.
There's a LOT more involved in my "answer to question two", but suffice it to say that I'm not 'angry with god for not getting me that shiny new bicycle for my birthday', nor do I think that atrocities by the church reflects on anything other than the nature of men to do shitty things to each other for personal and collective gain. So what if they used religion as a pretext? That doesn't say a thing about whether religion is true or false.
And the answer I gave to question one is still very incomplete, but y'all get the drift.
"Tea, and sympathy.." Bronx??
How about some warm scones with that, and a spot of homemade strawberry jam? :)
Bronx, I could certainly share Scripture with you to support more a leaning toward universal salvation, or at least the idea that people can be saved apart from conscious faith..But, here's the rub, you will surely also be able to share Scripture that seems to suggest the opposite, and then we will get into here what I like to call the "dueling of the Bible verses."
Partly, I think all of this hinges in how people interpret Scripture, and in what context they are presenting the arguments.
What I am trying to share here with everyone is that it is not necessary to take the view that all people apart from conscious faith are heading straight to Hell in order to be a Christian believer, and that the center of Christian faith is in the reality of the incarnation, "Jesus Christ as Lord," not in total agreement concerning tons of these other matters, such as a sure knowledge of who in the end will be saved, or lost.
"No other foundation can any man lay, other than Jesus Christ our Lord."
Gear, I had the same experience as a young person. My parents never really tried to indoctrinate me, and I always had tons of questions concerning the faith, the nature of our existence.
Definitely challenged my Sunday school teachers with questions about the nature of God as trinity, and plenty of other things as well.
But, it does seem that we've gone in very different directions. Eventually, for me, my questioning led to an awakening, and deepening of Christian faith.. and for you it brought you to atheism.
I suppose for me that one of the strongest witnesses toward theism was simply based in reflection, and observation of the natural world. It seemed to me that the complexity, and apparent fine tuning of the universe toward life is a signpost to God.
However, no argument either way can be fool proof, can it? And, we could all go back and forth about this for a very long time.
Grace,
In your defense of the idea of universal salvation, you brought up the the idea of the baptism of desire. This is something you claim the Catholic Church teaches. Let's examine your words, a batch at a time:
The truth is that not all Christian believers have come to an agreement concerning many of these issues, and this has been true through the centuries. (And your point is? I've already made note of the conveniently malleable nature of Christian theology)
But, what I'm sharing here is very much in the mainstream thinking of the church. It is not particularly liberal, or "out there." (What you are sharing here is the idea of universal salvation, which is decidedly not in the historical mainstream of Christian thought. If you have proof that it is, I would certainly love to see it.)
The foundational tenet of the Christian church is that "Jesus Christ is Lord." (This may be true, but you can't stop there. The lordship of Jesus Christ implies a host of additional theological implications, which you refuse to defend.)
It is one thing to affirm that all "salvation" is in, and through God's work in Christ...It's another to purport that every single person apart from conscious faith is heading for Hell. Even the Roman Catholic church teaches something called, "the baptism of desire." (But, Grace, hell as the final destination for all non-Christians (including fallen-away Christians) has been the official position of the Church for centuries. Fear of souls ending up in hell was used by the the solicitous Inquisitors of the middle ages to justify torturing people to abjure the devil and return to their faith. Many of them honestly believed torture was in the best spiritual interest of those being tortured. And it also appears you've "grabbed the wrong end of the stick as far as the Catholic Church's teachings on the "baptism of desire". It has nothing to do with universal salvation. That's simply more of your wishful thinking. Take a look:
Baptism of desire (Latin Baptismus Flaminis) is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church explaining that those who desire baptism, but are not baptized with water through the Christian ritual, because of death, nevertheless bring about the fruits of Baptism, if their grace of conversion included an internal act of perfect love and contrition which automatically cleanses the soul of all sin. Hence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church observes, "For CATECHUMENS (emphasis mine) who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament" (CCC 1259)
I won't bother to ask for a reasoned response to this post. You've finally convinced me such a response will never be forthcoming. It's been quite an experience chatting with you.
Yup.
Bronx.
I can sense your frustration.
It does seem that we are talking past each other.
Maybe it would be best to let this rest for awhile, and come back for discussion toward the weekend. I'm going to be helping out with vacation bible school this week, and will be getting back later in the evening.
I'll stop by if I can. This is an issue that is really so much on your heart.
You do understand that I'm not even a proponent of universal salvation, although I don't think that all non-believers are heading to Hell in a hand basket either.
When I was speaking of the mainstream of the church, I was thinking primarily of contemporary times. But, I do know there have been proponents of universal salvation through church history, including some of the church fathers.
Bronx, I suppose the crux of what I'm sharing is that I don't feel our opinion in this matter determines whether someone is a Christian believer or not, and that people of faith have held to a variety of positions, through the centuries.
I don't know that this so much points to the changeableness of Christian theology, as it does to our incomplete, and finite understanding. "For now we see through a glass darkly..Now we know in part.." Therefore, we don't all have a total agreement together.
Bronx, would you be able to agree that the Nicene Creed is an essential statement of Christian faith?
Bronx, point to just one important issue that you would like to discuss, one point. Maybe this will help clarify the discussion.
Thanks!
Grace,
Any further discussion between us would have to be predicated on a commitment to deal honestly and fairly with each other. I'm afraid you've been failing in this department from the start. You have sidestepped every important point I've raised.
Most recently, you've asserted that universal salvation is not a liberal interpretation of the bible, but is in fact a mainstream Christian belief held by many Church fathers. I responded by pointing out that this idea was immediately denounced as heretical right from the start, and I asked you to provided proof of your assertion of its "mainstream" history. What do I get in return? Crickets. You ignore my request for proof. You ignore the papal pronouncements I provided to prove that conscious desire (even if only at the moment of death) to be baptized according to Catholic rites and accepted into the bosom of Holy Mother Church is an absolute necessity for salvation. When I go out of my way to provide you with proof of my assertions, I don't expect to have that proof ignored. I keep chasing you down a series of dead ends only to find a blank wall and that you've disappeared. Yes, that is enormously frustrating.
To back up your strange notions about universal salvation you casually mention something called the "baptism of desire", which you claim even the Catholic Church teaches. When I bring you proof that you've misunderstood this idea, that it has nothing to do with universal salvation, you ignore this as well and have the nerve to mention the church fathers again--again, without offering any proof that these ideas were considered anything other than heretical by church authorities.
Your brand of "mainstream" Christianity is based on a very casual approach to the bible, ignoring the bible's clear command not to lean on one's own understanding. In fact, the modern notion of "mainstream Christianity" is a misnomer if ever there was one. How can you call something mainstream when it has overflowed the banks of historical Christianity and spread out in every conceivable direction? In trying to cover every possible objection to what is found in the bible, you concentrate only on it pleasant aspects while completely ignoring or dismissing it far more horrific contents, effectively undermining its authority.
No, I don't believe there is any point in continuing our exchanges unless you commit to dealing with my posts honestly and forthrightly. Otherwise, I'm quite obviously wasting my time.
Bronx,
I think we probably are talking past each other. When I spoke of mainstream, I mean this in a contemporary sense. I wasn't thinking so much of RC church history in the middle ages.
Also, I agree with you that not a great number of the church fathers leaned toward universal salvation, but some did, Bronx.
I mentioned this doctrine of the baptism of desire, not so much to illustrate the concept of universal salvation, but simply to illustrate the notion that it was thought by some in the church possible for people to be saved apart from conscious faith in Jesus Christ.
Hey, I'm not trying to brush you off, Bronx. Sorry about the crickets, but I truly am super busy this week between working, and helping with VBS. If we're going to talk, I want to do the conversation justice.
Bronx, it's up to you. I'll talk, and listen for as long as it seems good to you. I'm not deliberately trying to be evasive, but sometimes I think I do miss the salient point that you're making, or we don't always understand each other fully. It's a challenge to communicate across these blogs, for me, it is anyway, Bronx.
And, our minds definitely don't think in the same wave length relating to the interpretation of the Scripture.
Let me know what you want to do, friend, and I'll be back to talk, if you want more toward the weekend. I'm ok either way.
Pax, Bronx.
Bronx,
Also, I wanted to share this link related to an article written in support of universal salvation to see what you think? of it's content.
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/Carlton_Pearson-Doctrine_of_Inclusion.html
As I've shared, my husband is a huge proponent of this opinion.
Grace,
Indulge me while I deconstruct one of your posts:
Many Christians are universalists.
Although, this is not my personal view.
I'd be interest to know what constitutes "many" in your opinion. Isn't it stretching the truth somewhat to characterize an insignificant minority as "many"? And why mention it at all? Did you think I was unaware of the existence of universalists? (As for your "personal view", we'll get to that in a moment.)
I mean, I think it is possible for people to willfully, and knowingly reject God, and deliberately choose evil. If someone wants nothing to do with God in this life, is their mind likely to change in the next??
Willfully, perhaps, but what do you mean by knowingly? Are you suggesting that its possible for a sane person who knows God to be exactly who he claims to be, who knows what God is capable of, who understands the nature and intent of God's love and God's wrath, that such a person would knowingly refuse what he knows to be in his own best interest. How could you define such a person as anything but hopelessly deranged? And if he is hopelessly deranged, how could he be held accountable for the decisions reached in such a deranged state?
If Hell is the absence of God, then it seems to me in some sense, it is actually an expression of His love, that people are not made mindless robots, and simply forced into the kingdom.
Forced to spend an eternity basking in the love of God. Oh, what a horrible fate!!! Do you actually hear what you're saying? And who decided Hell was merely the absence of God?
And now to your personal view:
It's my conviction, that everyone seeking truth and love, wanting God, will be brought to Christ, either in this life, or the next.
That would appear to be a somewhat watered down version of universalism (All who seek God, even non-Christians, will eventually find there way to the Christian heaven If that's the case, why not just go ahead and include those who are not seeking God (full strength universalism), since they are obviously deluded and in need of merciful release from their delusion?).
And what next life are you referring to??? Has mainstream Christianity become so heretical it now believes in reincarnation? Or have they now embraced their own version of limbo, a temporary halfway house for those who fail to make the first cut?
Are we more merciful, and loving than the Lord?
Your question is nonsensical. Obviously it's not possible to be more merciful than a being whose reality remains an unproven conjecture.
I would see it as wisdom to leave who will be "saved," or "lost," to the wisdom, and mercy of the Lord.
Why should anyone be lost to a loving, omnipotent God?
I have now asked you several pointed questions in this post. Will you favor me with a reasoned response to any one of them--or all of them if you like? If you can give a reasoned rebuttal to any of the points I've raised, and not merely answers out of a catechism (all of which amount to mere assertions of faith and nothing more), I'd be happy to continue exchanging post with you.
I believe you to be a very warmhearted person who has given her consent to some very confused ideas. I am not angry with you, but I have lost all patience with the irrational ideas you embrace.
Grace
The article to which you referred me, merely underscores the fact that the bible is open a multitude of conflicting interpretations. Saint Paul asks, if a bugle doesn't sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? Two thousand years of conflicting Christian doctrine do not constitute a clear call.
Grace said:
I mentioned this doctrine of the baptism of desire, not so much to illustrate the concept of universal salvation, but simply to illustrate the notion that it was thought by some in the church possible for people to be saved apart from conscious faith in Jesus Christ.
Grace, I don't mean to be acerbic, but once again I have to question your ability to comprehend what is on the page before you. If some in the church thought it possible for people to be saved apart from a conscious faith in Jesus Christ, they certainly didn't get that notion from the doctrine of the baptism of desire.
That doctrine only concerns catechumens (people being instructed in the doctrines of Holy Mother Church--who are obviously expressing a conscious desire for God, and who remain unbaptized at the hour of their death).
Hi, Bronx,
I'm back. It was a very busy week. My husband, and I taught a class of fifth, and sixth graders at his church for VBS, the Busy Bobcats. And, trust me, Bronx, they were very, very, busy. :) Fun, but challenging. I slept well every night, after class. LOL
We were able to raise significant money to provide well covers for people in West Africa. Clean water is a tremendous problem in the developing world, and a huge contributor to child mortality, Bronx.
Butt..to the subject at hand. I'm thinking that this doctrine of the baptism of desire does extend to more than catechumans.
Here's from the Cathechism of the Catholic Church...
1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."[62] Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.
I"m not RC, but this teaching does seem to fit in with my conviction that everyone who honestly seeks truth, and the will of God, if there is a God, will be brought to Christ, either in this life, or the next.
Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree about this, Bronx. We maybe interpreting this passage in differing ways.
Bronx,
I suppose the term "many," is relative to where we're at.
I can tell you that in my denomination, a great number of people are universalists, and I honestly have personally not met the person who firmly believes that every person a part from conscious faith is heading to Hell in a handbasket.
Not sayin they're not out there, but I don't know anyone.
My husband's church where I attend with him on Sun. evenings is more conservative, so there the statistics would be different, I'm sure.
By the next life, I was thinking of the time when God's kingdom will come in all it's fullness, at the time of the resurrection.."His kingdom will have no end.." as the Nicene Creed states.
As to whether some people are mentally deranged who willfully reject God's love in Christ, Bronx, I will be honest, and say I don't know. But, your post has certainly given me much food for thought, and I appreciate it.
I wonder, Bronx, if people are seeking truth, and have actually gotten to the point of seeing God's love, their own need, and the truth of the gospel, how likely they would be to reject such a gift. You are right.
Often, it does seem to me, though, that God's work in our lives is gradual, and progressive.
As we respond to the light, and truth given, more is given. And, it also seems, conversely, that a hardening of our hearts is also progressive, and unbelief grows the more over time, as well.
Post a Comment