Daylight Atheism > The Bible Is Not a Book of Love

Next: Announcing the Humanist Symposium >

The Bible Is Not a Book of Love

I have been thinking lately about the Christian symbol of the crucifix. It is almost always seen in settings that attempt to create a mood of peace, calm and serenity: on the walls of churches, in the patients' rooms in Catholic-run hospitals, in funeral parlors and cemeteries, to name a few.

The ubiquity and familiarity of this icon, I think, often blinds people to what a brutal thing it is. What the cross merely suggests, the crucifix makes explicit. Look at one, or imagine it, and see clearly what it represents: a living man writhing in agony, nailed to beams of rough wood by sharp iron spikes pounded through his hands and feet, left to hang and die a slow and painful death from blood loss, suffocation, and exposure. Crucifixion was intended to be the most agonizing and horrible manner of death imaginable, to serve as a frightening warning to those who would rebel against its inventors. And yet we commemorate this emblem of torture and gory death, with depictions of it in every church, and consider it a source of solace to the suffering and the bereaved. More so, we are told that this horrific act is the linchpin of God's plan for human salvation, as if supreme love and forgiveness had no choice but to work through a vehicle of almost unimaginable brutality.

This strange intermingling of loving words and peaceful wishes with imagery of horrendous violence is not confined to funerals and other services where the crucifix figures prominently. On the contrary, it is a pervasive theme in religion in general, and Judeo-Christian religion specifically. In "A Book of Blood", I wrote that because most believers have never read the Bible in its entirety, they are unaware that the familiar passages of love and peace which are so often quoted are not representative of the whole book. On the contrary, these verses are merely islands in a sea of bloodshed, cruelty and hatred in the name of God.

Consider one of the most famous excerpts from the Bible, the 23rd Psalm.

The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

The gentle and peaceful pastoral imagery of this verse has given comfort to millions of mourners throughout the history of Judaism and Christianity, and there is indeed much beauty in these simple words. But now see some of the other words which the Psalmist spoke and which are recorded in the same book:

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

—Psalms 2:8-9

Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.

—Psalms 50:22

Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth... let them be as cut in pieces. As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.... The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

—Psalms 58:6-10

(Note: Is this a wish that the psalmist's enemies had been miscarried?)

He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.

—Psalms 110:6

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

—Psalms 137:8-9

These wishes of hate and violence - smashing the heathens with an iron rod, tearing and cutting them into pieces, breaking their teeth in their mouths, crushing their children against stones, filling the world with their dead bodies, while all the while the righteous celebrate and rejoice over the bloodshed - are a world away from the peaceful images of the 23rd Psalm. Yet the two are found together in the same book, and according to some theists, are the product of the same writer.

Another frequently quoted passage can be found in 1 Corinthians 13 (RSV translation):

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.
If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.
...Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.... faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

Again, these are beautiful and moving words. But now consider another passage attributed to the same writer from the same book:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

—1 Corinthians 14:34-35

These ugly words of prejudice, so sharply at odds with the above advice on love, have been used to justify two thousand years of systematic oppression and mistreatment of women in the Christian tradition. Even today, women are barred from roles of leadership and authority in many of the world's major Christian denominations because of this passage.

Other epistles attributed to Paul of Tarsus contain verses possibly even more vicious and hateful. Consider this passage from the second epistle to the Thessalonians, in which he expresses the bloodcurdling wish that all non-Christians be consigned to an eternity of torment in hellfire:

And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.

—2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

And then there is this passage in which Paul instructs slaves to obey their owners. Advice such as this was used by generations of preachers to defend one of humanity's most evil inventions ever by claiming that it was a just and proper institution ordained by God.

Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

—Ephesians 6:5

The popular impression that the Bible is a good and moral book is is a highly misleading one, produced by selectively emphasizing the few uplifting parts and neglecting or glossing over the more numerous horrifying ones. A more balanced and accurate view, however, would see the Bible for what it is: an anachronistic holdover, a relic of a far more superstitious and savage time that has survived until today. Though it contains the seeds of some good moral ideas, they are thoroughly mixed in with violent and abhorrent ones, and it has taken centuries of moral progress to sift the good ideas from the bad.

I do not mean to suggest that ordinary lay believers are to blame for creating this misleading impression. After all, most of them have never even read the Bible. If there is anyone who bears responsibility, it is the clergy and the theologians who are aware of the Bible's ugly side and try to downplay or excuse it. But in any case, believers everywhere should be informed exactly what it is that they are believing in. We atheists should make it clear that, contrary to popular belief, the Bible is not a book of love.

98 Comments

Is the bible meant to scare us into believing it?

Comment by: Tina | April 8, 2007, 10:25 am

Yes, absolutely. That is the entire purpose of the doctrine of Hell - a baseless scare tactic intended to terrify people into obedience.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | April 8, 2007, 10:46 am

The peaceful and comforting passages in the bible are rendered absurd, ironic horrors in light of the context of the teachings of the bible. I cannot lie down by still waters because a totalitarian, murderous all-powerful tyrant tells me to.

Comment by: Hellbound Alleee | April 8, 2007, 12:35 pm

I think they should use Buddy Christ instead. Far nicer.

Comment by: Loki | April 8, 2007, 12:44 pm

I have seen the assertion that ordinary lay believers rarely read the bible made in many places. Are there empirical studies that prove this?

Comment by: jim coufal | April 8, 2007, 1:29 pm

Ebonmuse: Thank you for this great collection of Bible excerpts that illustrate your conclusion: Cherry-picking does enable many people to be Believers. Without that technique of cherry-picking, how could anyone convert anyone else? The idea of kind and gentle Jesus is the image that many Christians cling to. But, then again, without the threats and violence in those other passages, maybe the "good" parts wouldn't convince anyone enough. After all, many of the "good" parts only restate the "golden rule," a maxim that long predated the Bible. Maybe it's the good-cop, bad-cop combo that make the sale.

You've also touched on the role of non-sequiturs among those who Believe. That Jesus somehow had to die on the cross in order to save humanity is Exhibit A. How else could an omnipotent God have saved humanity? Let's see . . . how about waving his Almighty Hand and uttering something like this: "I forgive all of you, even you little babies that would have gone to hell."

Saving us THAT way would have been a good way to undo that other non-sequitur: that we were all in need of forgiveness for what Adam and Eve did.

But there's another good reason for the kill-your-only-begotton-son version of forgiveness. If God had simply waved his hand and forgiven us, He would have deprived us of a gristly holiday season (don't forget that Good Friday is a prerequisite for all of that Easter gentleness). To come full circle, it's that underlying terror, I believe, that keeps that flock flock-flocking along.

Comment by: Erich Vieth | April 8, 2007, 4:24 pm

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

For some reason, it only now strikes me to wonder which law is here referred to. IIRC, elsewhere in the epistles, it is said that "the strength of sin is the law". Indeed, a couple of Christians of my acquaintance subscribe to the belief that specific proscriptions such as those present in great number in Leviticus are superceded by the much simpler and more general moral ideals of Jesus (love thy neighbour, etc.).

On another note, regarding the crucifixion of Jesus and the attending suffering:

I recently came across a nicely screwed up little piece of theology. It took the form of a hymn sung at Easter night vigils. The relevant part was, translating and quoting from memory: "Truly Adam's sin was necessary. O glorious transgression, that required so great a redeemer". IOW, the Fall was planned from the beginning, and the subsequent thousands of years of painful childbirth, struggle to survive, and the other curses visited upon mankind for the sins of two people (curses which are still in effect, even after this so-called "great redemption") were not just side-effects of free will, but preconditions necessary for God's great plan to unfold. One wonders what the purpose of this plan is. The wording in the hymn suggests to this atheist that it's really mainly a bit of vanity on God's part.

Comment by: konrad_arflane | April 8, 2007, 4:59 pm

I just found your blog today and read this post. I've often said that Yahweh is quite the war god and calling him the god of love is tantamount to the doublespeak employed in 1984. I'm glad to have stumbled upon your blog today and found similar sentiments expressed. How anyone could base their religion off of a human sacrifice and call it love is just beyond me.

Comment by: OMGF | April 8, 2007, 6:15 pm

I have seen the assertion that ordinary lay believers rarely read the bible made in many places. Are there empirical studies that prove this?

Yes. See my post from last March, "A Mile Wide and an Inch Deep".

Comment by: Ebonmuse | April 8, 2007, 8:10 pm

Also, a note on OMGF's comments: there are literally hundreds of places in the Bible where God is identified as the "God of hosts". In modern parlance, "hosts" means "armies". "War god" is indeed a very apt description of Yahweh.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | April 8, 2007, 9:08 pm

God is a terrorist! The Bible uses repeated images of scences of people burning in hell and being tortured for all eternity. This is clearly a terror tactic to scare people into obedience. Loving God is like being in an abusive relationship which is backed up by an impled threat of you being severely hurt or tortured if you don't love him. If I have this all wrong and God does exist, he is not worthy of our worship. I have no fear of him. I want to look him in the eye and hold him responsible for all of the harm he has done to his children.

Comment by: Javaman | April 9, 2007, 9:38 am

I don't know of any studies that show that Christians rarely know their bible, but in my experience it's very true. We even saw on the Colbert Show that nitwit congressman who wants the 10 Commandments in every building couldn't even remember what they were.

It's typical of the usual salad-bar Christian.

Comment by: andrea | April 9, 2007, 10:15 am

Definitely most Christians haven't read their bibles all the way through. Go to any church and they will be advertising for Read the Bible in a Year programs to encourage the already devout churchgoers to actually read the bloody thing. I wonder why they bother. They already have them hooked, so isn't that enough?

In regards to the horribleness of crucifixion, it's pretty bad, especially with the Mel Gibsonesque beatings thrown in beforehand, but it pales in comparison to the tortures developed in the middle ages by Christians. For instance, the breaking wheel or the Judas Cradle.

Comment by: King Aardvark | April 9, 2007, 10:33 am

Whoops, real link to the breaking wheel.

Comment by: King Aardvark | April 9, 2007, 10:41 am

Xian iconography in Byzantium does NOT show Jesus upon a cross before 692 CE. In 726 CE, however mobs of iconoclasts destroyed crucifixes but allowed the use of the empty cross to continue. The earliest symbol of Christ is a lamb.

In Italy, the earliest crucifixes show "Jesus alive . . . with head erect and eyes open." This is the "triumphal Christ." Jesus in agony appears only in the middle 1200's. See "The iconography of Italian art, 1100-1500" in History of Italian Art vol2. Polity Press. 1994.

Lack of historical perspective vitiates your viewpoint entirely as far as early Xianity is concerned. A good look at the history of iconoclasm and the derivation of the word 'iconoclasm' would do you a world of good.

Comment by: eye of horus | April 9, 2007, 12:06 pm

"eye of horus", I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | April 9, 2007, 5:55 pm

"eye of horus", I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Isn't it obvious? You failed to explicitly mention an obscure and peripherally relevant fact about Christian iconography, therefore your entire premise is invalid.

Sheesh. Do we have to spell everything out for you?

Comment by: Shishberg | April 9, 2007, 6:42 pm

"eye of horus", I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

-Ebonmuse

It sounds like you've found some common ground already.

Comment by: Alex Weaver | April 9, 2007, 6:45 pm

Ebonmuse,
I'll have to remember the "god of hosts" thing. I had always simply based it off of god's bloodlust, like when he orders the genocide of entire peoples (men, women, children, and livestock) or when the only way man can be "saved" is through the ritualistic and cruel sacrifice of a perfect (virginal?) human being (Jebus).

Comment by: OMGF | April 9, 2007, 7:20 pm

EOH: Lack of historical perspective vitiates your viewpoint entirely as far as early Xianity is concerned.

Wonderful point. The Christianity and contemporary Christian symbolism employed by, say, the Southern Baptist Convention, would be not be instantly recognizable by any of the believers who worshipped at Corinth or Ephesus or Galatia... or formed part of any of the hundreds of Gnostic communities in the late first and early second centuries of the common era.

For that matter, any of the Italians, circa 1200 CE would find post-Vatican II Catholicism completely baffling although its iconography probably hasn't changed.

Unfortunately, Ebon's strange fixation on the Christianism with which he actually interacts vitiates your attempt at rebuttal entirely.

Comment by: schemanista | April 9, 2007, 8:41 pm

There is a church that has a sign in front of it reading: Nails didn't hold Jesus to the cross. Love did.

I am always amazed that people believe an omnipotent being would choose crucifixion as a demonstration of love.

Rather than focusing on the beauty around us, christians focus upon a man struggling and dying upon a cross.

Christians would have us believe that he did this because of the ultimate sin---the sin of being born a human.

Christians would have us believe that after creating a universe which is vast and complex beyond our wildest imaginations, the best 'plan' for salvation that this omnipotent being could come up with was a Roman death rite. I can't accept this.

Comment by: Jeff T. | April 10, 2007, 12:52 am

well...you might as well say all you want about the cross,you can twist the meaning as much as you want...but it is the cross the end of my separation from God, because of the cross i was set free and i am secured in God's hand...it seems unreasonable to you,God did not intended for us to understand why He did such a thing...just believe in it. If it wasnt for the cross i'd be walking in the valley of death just as much you will if you do not believe in the cross after we die. the god you are talking about is not the ONLY ONE TRUE God i believe in, if you do not believe in the bible...let me ask you this, at your job...do you have rules? If someone does something wrong...what happens? do they get a reward?..or when you violate the laws of transit...do you get a reward?? you get paid because you were running more than 100 miles/hr in a school area...i know your answer will be no, so why do you believe in the laws of MEN and not the laws of God??? because it is TOO hard for you to give up your miserable life you are living?

You guys amaze me!

Comment by: believer | April 11, 2007, 6:56 pm

God did not intended for us to understand why He did such a thing…just believe in it.

I do think "believer"'s comment above is the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "La la la, I can't hear you!"

Comment by: Ebonmuse | April 11, 2007, 7:25 pm

@believer:

because it is TOO hard for you to give up your miserable life you are living?

What amazes me is your presumption that everyone here has a miserable life. If your life was miserable, then I'm sorry and I'm glad things seem to be going better for you. But, why project your experience onto others?

In answer to your question: Yes, I try to obey the laws of man and my conscience. But, I don't think the laws of god are anything but laws of simple, and often barbaric, men purporting to speak for a god that doesn't really exist.

Let me ask you a few questions:

If I jaywalk, do I get a LIFE sentence in a maximum security prison?
That's what your bible-god does to even the smallest of sins + torture.
Would you commit murder if your bible-god told you to? Precedent tells us that this is a common thing for him to demand of his followers.
Examples: Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Saul, and there are many more instances where he condoned and displayed pleasure over the deaths of thousands.
How do you know there's a Hell or a Heaven? Have you ever seen evidence of either one?
Have you, personally, ever seen Jesus or anyone risen from the dead?
If Christianity is superior to Judaism because of progressive revelation, then why are you not afraid to burn in Hell for rejecting Allah? Why are Muhammad's claims to have received a revelation from the angel Gabriel less convincing than the Gospel writers'?
Shouldn't we believe the more recent revelation of the Koran or even the Book of Mormon?

Comment by: Polly | April 11, 2007, 7:37 pm

well…you might as well say all you want about the cross,you can twist the meaning as much as you want…

Explain, please, how we are "twisting the meaning." Are you contending that crucifixion was not a form of death by torture? Are you contending that torture is something that should be celebrated, not mourned in the past and vigorously opposed in the present? Are you contending that murder, genocide, and the like are not evil, at least in the context of the Bible (and how on earth would you justify that exception?) Inquiring minds want to know.

but it is the cross the end of my separation from God, because of the cross i was set free and i am secured in God's hand…

And you know this how? Provide some evidence, plsthx.

it seems unreasonable to you,God did not intended for us to understand why He did such a thing…

Then it should come as no surprise to you or your alleged god that...

just believe in it.

...I can't.

If it wasnt for the cross i'd be walking in the valley of death just as much you will if you do not believe in the cross after we die.

That's a relief then. I'm pretty convinced that crosses exist, so even in the infinitesimally probable event that you're right, I'm covered. ^.^

the god you are talking about is not the ONLY ONE TRUE God i believe in, if you do not believe in the bible…

This passage makes no sense. "If you don't believe in what I believe in, then you aren't disbelieving what I believe in?"

let me ask you this, at your job…do you have rules? If someone does something wrong…what happens? do they get a reward?..or when you violate the laws of transit…do you get a reward?? you get paid because you were running more than 100 miles/hr in a school area…

Am I to understand that you only refrain from these things because there are laws against them? If so, stay the hell away from me. And my daughter. Psycho.

i know your answer will be no, so why do you believe in the laws of MEN and not the laws of God??? because it is TOO hard for you to give up your miserable life you are living?

For the same reason I don't take marching orders from my dog (though that might actually be an improvement; "Happy shall he be, that taketh and throweth the little rubber ball across the yard").

You guys amaze me!

Not so much as your ability to talk out of your rear despite it being plugged with your neck amazes me. James Hetfield was right; "Arrogance and ignorance go hand in hand."

Comment by: Alex Weaver | April 11, 2007, 8:18 pm

so why do you believe in the laws of MEN and not the laws of God???

So much "teh stoopid", so little time.

because it is TOO hard for you to give up your miserable life you are living?

Is it ever incumbent upon you that your logical assertions should be based on, er, logic? That is, shouldn't you attempt to ascertain whether or not our lives are miserable before you urge us to abandon them?

You guys amaze me!

You seem like the kind of person who would have to stop pissing to watch a fly crawl in front of your urinal.

Comment by: schemanista | April 12, 2007, 12:03 pm

let me ask you this, at your job…do you have rules?

Yeah, actually we do, and those rules have rational reasons associated with their implementation. "Because I said so" is not a good reason, even when it comes from god.

Comment by: OMGF | April 12, 2007, 4:35 pm

here people are really proud to belong to the only christian nation in asia, the philippines, but Poll ASIA recent survey around asia says our nation is the #1 in graft and corruption, #2 in poor national security, its sad but true. i only ask, god where are you?

Comment by: glenn mission | May 2, 2007, 8:28 pm

Dear glenn
Did you ever think that perhaps there is no god?
Do you think there is a link between christianity and corruption?

Comment by: Harvard | May 3, 2007, 11:25 pm

I think that with the Bible, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | May 5, 2007, 11:47 pm

glenn? any response?
***
Matt -- Interesting statement: "...with the bible, beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Please tell more about this idea.

Comment by: Harvard | May 6, 2007, 11:10 pm

Harvard,

There are many people who read the Bible, some find it to be wonderful, others find it offensive. Certainly there are those who also are largely unaffected by it. I think that the stronger reactions are, in part, due to what a person brings with them when they come to the Bible. I personally have a very positive frame of reference when I come to the Bible, and I see good things.

I also find that for the bible to make sense, I have to be asking the right questions. For example, if I ask questions regarding the scientific origin of mankind and such, the Bible will be very frustrating for me to read. When I come with questions like, how do I stop doing these things I hate do to, then I find the Bible very helpful.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | May 8, 2007, 11:21 am

Thank you Matt

I did not grow up with the bible, but I know many of the stories, as probably most people in the western world do. From what I've heard, these stories are a compilation of writings by many people over hundreds of years. The stories seem child-like, seem like they were written by and for simple, uneducated, naive people of their era. For example, Adam & Eve and the talking snake, the ark with all the animals and insects, burning bushes, angels, magic tricks, and dead people coming alive again. I wonder what these things are you hate to do that can be answered in a book written in ancient times. Maybe a modern psychology book, or self-help book, or a serious conversation with someone knowledgeable or a professional would be better help.
I hate myself, too, for some things I do. Mostly, it's losing my cool and getting angry, hurting the people I love. I believe the stresses of this wild world contribute to the problem. I've been reading a book by a psychologist concwerning how to handle stress, and I've found it helpful.
Thank you, Matt, for being so kind to answer my question.

Comment by: Harvard | May 9, 2007, 1:27 am

Harvard,

The book does not answer the question. The One who the book leads us to does. The Bible did not solve my problems, God solved my problems.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | May 9, 2007, 8:11 pm

How did the bible lead you to a god?

Comment by: Harvard | May 10, 2007, 12:38 am

Harvard,

The Bible records the life of Jesus whom I worship as God.

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | May 11, 2007, 12:52 pm

@ebonmuse:
I've been visiting on and off for awhile and, must say, this is a great blog. Quality writing combined with a thorough knowledge of the subject matter and the experience to have heard or seen every lame apologetic canard. Keep up the good work!

At any rate, on the matter of the Crucifix as a symbol of hope, joy, and love (?) I can only quote the late, great Lenny Bruce:

"If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses."

I'd like to think that if I said this to some of the faithful that the idea would have some impact but just got done reading your "Advice to a Christian" post and have come to my senses again.

Comment by: Pi Guy | May 11, 2007, 3:11 pm

@Matt:

The Bible purports to record many things. How is it that you know that you've been led to god by its words and not, say, Satan? I mean, the Bible is the only book that records his words and deeds as well.

Comment by: Pi Guy | May 11, 2007, 3:29 pm

Hi Pi, (sorry, couldn't resist!)

Knowledge is a slippery thing, especially when dealing with spiritual matters. Of course I do not exhaustively know, but I am comfortable that the experiences that I have had and the ideas which I have thought are reliable enough to justify continuing to live my life in the way I have up to this point. Following Jesus has worked out quite well for me so far, so I am going to keep doing it.

If I am wrong and it turns out that I have been deceived by a supremely evil being then I will just have to suck it up when the time comes because I am doing my best with the tools I have to discern what the truth is.

Similarly, if there is no God at all, the I will suck that up too and take what comes next the same way I have been doing my whole life. If what comes next is nothing, then that should be easy! :)

I think that faith in God is rational and has a good foundation in reality, however I personally do not see it as a certainty. Like everyone else, I am trying to makes sense of reality as best I can.

Hope that helps,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | May 12, 2007, 12:46 pm

Hi, Matt.

"Similarly, if there is no God at all, the I will suck that up too and take what comes next the same way I have been doing my whole life."

And that is the conviction that (I sustpect) most atheists hold as well. The difference is that, given the the vast number of gods from which to choose there is no rational means by which to choose so I choose none.

"I think that faith in God is rational and has a good foundation in reality, however I personally do not see it as a certainty."

Again, speaking only for myself, that statement is precisely why I don't believe in god. If it's rational and has a good foundation in reality then there's no need for faith.

Comment by: Pi Guy | May 12, 2007, 4:39 pm

Pi,

Again, speaking only for myself, that statement is precisely why I don't believe in god. If it's rational and has a good foundation in reality then there's no need for faith.

You make an interesting point and I think it reveals your attitude toward the word "faith".

I have a different understanding of the word. Let me try to explain:

I am convinced that God is there and that Jesus is him, however I do not have absolute "seeing is believing" proof which I can bring to your house and show to you. Therefore I typically use words such as "believe" and "faith". For me, the word "faith" is essentially believing in something. It could be applied to anything. I think that faith can be irrational or rationally placed in things. It would be irrational for me to have faith that you will come to my house and give me a candy bar full of golden peanuts. It is not irrational for me to have faith that my wife will come home from work tomorrow.

Maybe this will make it more applicable to you:

Do you have "faith" that there is no God? What word would you use? In the same way that I cannot prove God, you also cannot disprove God. I imagine that you are quite convinced that God is not there as I am that God is there. There is an inherent level of uncertainty in the matter. I think that neither of us are willing to say that we *know* there is no God. So words such as "believe" and "faith" are warranted. I also think that such words are effectively used to describe situations in which there is conviction but no certainty. Again this conviction can be well-founded or ill-founded.

It seems to me that what you were conveying in your statement was your belief that you have found no facts which suggest the existence of God to you. Is this correct?

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | May 12, 2007, 6:56 pm

Pi,

Regarding religious diversity:

The difference is that, given the the vast number of gods from which to choose there is no rational means by which to choose so I choose none.

I think that the rational approach, if one were interested, would be to start examining the major religions and see what you think about them.

Here are some irrational approaches just for fun.

You could let the phone book fall open and call the first number you see and then ask them who God is.

You could send $19.95 to you local televangelist and ask him what God wants you to do. (Although I think we both already know what he would tell you.

...and finally

You could go to Burger King and get a kids meal that comes with a Sponge-Bob Squarepants novelty magic fortune teller (these are lots of fun!) and ask it where to find God.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | May 12, 2007, 7:04 pm

Matt,

First of all and most importantly, thank you for conducting this exchange in a civil manner. That's supposed to be one of this country's greatest virtues: that we're permitted - no, encouraged - to openly discuss our different opinoins. That said, it is apparently difficult to have this argument and have both sides keep it courteous.

It seems to me that what you were conveying in your statement was your belief that you have found no facts which suggest the existence of God to you. Is this correct?

Not quite. To be clear, I am absolutely certain that I have found no such supporting facts as opposed to believing that I've found none. Likewise, I have no evidence suggesting that Zeus, Ba'al, Odin, Ra, Amon, Vishnu, the tooth Fairy nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster(FSM) exist so I don't believe in their existence. You don't either, I am certain, for much the same reason, I suspect. I simply go one god further.

I think that the rational approach, if one were interested, would be to start examining the major religions and see what you think about them.

That would be rational indeed. It just so happens that I have done that to the best of my ability. On my bookshelf downstairs - you can borrow any of them when you bring me that golden peanut bar! :) - you'll see that, in addition to the KJV of the Bible, there are also copies of the Tao Te Ching, the I Ching, the Analects of Confucius (Confucionsim is not actually a religion, I found out), the Bagavad Gita, the Koran (for Dummies), the Upanishads (various translations - all hard), and the Way of the Sufi. I may have missed something but I don't feel like going downstairs to check. To that list I add that I've also made the effort to examine non-religous philosphies such as Buddism, Objectivism (a decidely man-centered way of thinking), and the Perrenial Philosophy (by Aldous Huxley of Brave New World fame). This has taken significant effort over the course of 20+ years. On balance, I'd say that I've arrived at my conclusions - namely that every society had created their own set of gods to help explain the unknown, reassure the fearful, and ultimately control the people with those fears - rather rationally.

Now, I put it to you: have you been as rational in your approach prior to concluding that Jesus is the divine son of god? While there's no way I can be sure, I doubt it. If you had, you'd have many more doubts than you have now, I'll wager.

Do you have "faith" that there is no God?

You're correct that we may be at cross-purposes using the word "faith". I looked the word up (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=faith) and you'll note, if you look, that there are some meanings for that word that are inconsistent, almost contradicory. However, to be clear, if I were to say that I have "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow, I'm using Def #1: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. People of every and no faith also "believe" that this event will occur but that confidence is based upon repeated, successful sunrises. It doesn't require "faith" in the way that I believe that you use the word (Def 2: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.), More to the point, I suspect that in your own mind, you're really using Def #4: often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. At the very least, judging from what you've written, I am more confident that the sun will rise than you are that god exists.

"In the same way that I cannot prove God, you also cannot disprove God."

That is absoltely true. However, "proof" is for mathematicians and alcohol and I have no desire to prove to you that god doesn't exist. If anything, it seems as though you're still seeking evidence to convince yourself ("inherent level of uncertainty") as, you note, you're not certian for yourself. How do you expect to convince me. As they say in legal circles, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Neither you nor I can disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists (http://www.venganza.org/ ; you should check this site out). If you posit that there is a god and wish to convince others of it, you must produce evidence that is compelling and acceptable to the unconvinced. As far as I know, proof of that nature has never been produced. Ever. That's what I mean when I say I have "faith" in something.

Sorry so long but you threw a lot out there.
Pi

Comment by: Pi Guy | May 13, 2007, 6:48 am

Pi,

I thank you as well for a pleasant exchange, it reflects well on your character.

Please allow me to explain myself in the passages you responded to.

I think that the rational approach, if one were interested, would be to start examining the major religions and see what you think about them.

I wrote this because you seemed to present yourself as a person who did not know of a rational way to discern which religion was a true route to God. I inferred this from your statement:

The difference is that, given the the vast number of gods from which to choose there is no rational means by which to choose so I choose none.

Based on your reply, I see that you have approached the matter in a way which seems rational. From this, I infer that you were communicating the fact that you have found no reason to accept as true any of the religious systems you have investigated.

To answer your question about whether I have approached God in a similar manner, my answer is no. I was raised in a Christian household and what I heard in Christianity was and continues to be very satisfying to me. I have investigated other ways of thinking, but probably not in the depth that an unsatisfied person would.

If you had, you'd have many more doubts than you have now, I'll wager.

Well, I think that my investigation into other ways of thinking has led me to change many of my assumptions and ways of thinking. Whether it has raised doubts is hard to address. I think a better way of stating it is to say that now I realize that things are not as simple as I thought they were before. Maybe this will make my way of thinking clear:

I know that reality is a certain way and nothing I do can change that (except of course, that part of reality which I can alter and I think that the existence of God is outside that part.) Therefore I think my beliefs should be descriptive and not prescriptive. The word "doubt" in religious terms tends to carry with it the connotation of being afraid of being wrong, in my experience. I do not struggle with that very much because I have come to grips with the fact that God's existence or non-existence will not be altered by my beliefs, so I am free to follow that which seems most reasonable to me.

At the very least, judging from what you've written, I am more confident that the sun will rise than you are that god exists.

It would be hard to quantify such a subjective thing, that is, is one person more certain of something than another. I will say that you should not mistake my humility in admitting that I do not know everything for a paucity of certainty regarding God's existence. It is more accurate to say that there are certain concrete properties of God and aspects of existence which are usually correlated with the supernatural that I am uncertain of.

That is absoltely true. However, "proof" is for mathematicians and alcohol and I have no desire to prove to you that god doesn't exist. If anything, it seems as though you're still seeking evidence to convince yourself ("inherent level of uncertainty") as, you note, you're not certian for yourself. How do you expect to convince me. As they say in legal circles, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Neither you nor I can disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists (http://www.venganza.org/ ; you should check this site out). If you posit that there is a god and wish to convince others of it, you must produce evidence that is compelling and acceptable to the unconvinced. As far as I know, proof of that nature has never been produced. Ever. That's what I mean when I say I have "faith" in something.

First off, let me tell you that I knew the infamous FSM would rear his marinara-saturated head in this discussion. I was as certain of it as I was of the sun rising tomorrow! :)

Please understand that my comment regarding one's inability to disprove/prove God's existence was not an attempt to convince you of anything. It was support for my argument regarding the appropriate use of the word "faith". I would not be so silly to use such poor reasoning if I were attempting to prove something to you.

Furthermore, you have quite mistaken my purpose if you think that I am trying to prove to you that God exists. Indeed, I have declared it impossible. My point in posting here is to provide my insight into questions or assertions that are raised here. I know that most Christians try to convince people of things, however I prefer to tell people my understanding of what Christianity is, what the Bible says, and what I have experienced and then let them hash it out for themselves. It is your life and I fully intend to let you live it. If God has seen fit to let you make up your mind for yourself, then I certainly will not interfere.

I now will take a moment to apologize for my gargantuan post.

Have a nice day,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | May 13, 2007, 11:41 am

Hello Matt
I went away for awhile.

You said : "The Bible did not solve my problems, God solved my problems."

What were these problems? Did a god tell you the solution to the problem? How did this problem solving happen?
.

Comment by: Harvard | May 16, 2007, 12:16 am

Harvard,

God helps me love other people, appreciate life, live with an attitude of contentment and peace, and it appears as though God was the illusive, intangible thing which I had been longing for for many years. When I follow God, I feel fulfilled and at peace. God has also helped me overcome specific obstacles to good living which I prefer to remain vague about at this time.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | May 16, 2007, 2:11 pm

@Matt:

"I know that most Christians try to convince people of things....It is your life and I fully intend to let you live it."

Thank you. While no one speaks for all non-believers, I think that I can safely say that, if it weren't for the fact that so many Christians are trying to convert us or condemn us, or weren't urging the government to enact discriminating laws, or force science teachers to lecture on matters that are decidedly un-scientific, or assert that the President of the US must be a believer, then this forum would not likely exist. The "Atheist Backlash" (can't remember where I read that but it was addressing the preponderence of anti-theist books on the Best Seller List) is a reaction to this increase in (faux, in my opinion) religious fervor.

I am pleased to note that you don't seem to be among those who would wish to force that agenda on everyone else and, again, you have my respect. For the most part, I believe that atheists would be perfectly content with the world if all believers felt as you do.

Comment by: Pi Guy | May 16, 2007, 3:04 pm

Hello Matt

You said a god solved your problems.
How did this happen? Did you tell him or her your problem? Did he or she talk to you, give you advice?

Comment by: Harvard | May 17, 2007, 12:54 am

Indeed Matt, the question of hoe Gow helped you is a very valid one. Harvard is not interested on what problems you have, but exactly HOW did God helped you solve them.

I'm guessing that you fixed the problem on your own, but somehow using God to give you strengh, guide your actions, or something like that. Or maybe something happened that could have happened by others means (winning a lottery) and you are attributing that to God.

In other words: You helped yourself, or something that could be explained by something other than God helped you? Or God really did, literally, somehow, help you?

Comment by: Petrucio | May 21, 2007, 11:22 pm

Harvard and Petrucio,

I now realize that I did not adequately answer your question, Harvard. I was not intentionally dodging it because I think it is a very valid question. I also think that often, the things I attribute to God are indistinguishable from things I am able to do myself to others, and sometimes even to myself.

To answer harvard's question, God changed the way I felt about something, and that is the simplest way I can put it. I prayed about my problem and over the next few days, I realized it was gone. It just left. There was no light, no angels, no tingly warm feeling or anything. No one did anything special to me in Church. I just prayed and it was gone. I have had many "smaller" experiences like this, but this one was the most dramatic and amazing. I really do not see how I can chalk it up to my own ability alone. Of course I *wanted* to change, but I was unable up until that time.

To be completely honest with you, I would probably be agnostic or atheist if it were not for this experience. I find the Bible to be very difficult to understand and agree in places. I probably agree with you guys on more things than I agree with my fellow Christians on. Despite this, I cannot explain the things which have happened to me adequately without some sort of exterior involvement. It defies my logic but there it is.

Also, I do not base my entire lifestyle off of one experience. I have had many, I simply use the one in question (ironically one that I am not comfortable giving details on) as the most outstanding example.

Petrucio, you are correct in saying that many things which I and others attribute to God may very well be our own doing. I know that there are many things in my life which I certainly seem to have solved all by myself, however I have had many things which really seem to be the work of an external force working in me and with me.

I hope this is lucid, I wrote it quickly over lunch.

Have a nice day,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | May 22, 2007, 11:30 am

Hello Matt

Let's consider your quotation:

----"God changed the way I felt about something ... I prayed about my problem and ... It just left. ... I just prayed and it was gone."-----
.

First, it is difficult to understand your experience without the specific facts.
What was the problem? Statements without details are empty (Please, no offense).
Second, you speak of a god. What evidence do you have that he or she or it has heard your prayer? Did this being talk to you? How did it communicate to you that it heard your prayer and solved your problem?
.

Comment by: Harvard | May 23, 2007, 11:28 pm

Matt? Hello?
Any details or evidence?

Comment by: Harvard | May 25, 2007, 12:24 am

Hi Harvard,

School has been busy, thus the delayed replies. Sometimes I only post in one place due to my busy schedule.

Here are the details of my problem:
Like most adolescent boys I liked to look at porn. As I grew older I decided that that was not a good thing for me to get involved with and I wanted to stop but I could not. After I got married, I quit for a little while, but then fell back into it. At that point I asked God to help me with it. After a few days, I realized that the desire was gone.

I heard no voices, no flashes of light, just a dramatic change in the way I was. It is an inference that I attribute this to God.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | May 25, 2007, 11:59 am

Not surprising to me, since I always figured that was it, but I can't believe you said it. You're a courageous guy in my mind because you admitted something that I would never have admitted as a Xian. (Hope your wife doesn't read this blog :))
I didn't think you owed anyone an explanation. But, I hope you're better off for having made the "confession" - being good for the soul and all. If there were/is a god, I think he'd be happy with you...or maybe he likes to eat humans with crackers. Who knows???

You seem closer to fundie than liberal in your morals, but closer to moderate in your biblical exegesis of Hell and view of inerrancy (open to doubt?).
Why do I feel the need to label everyone?

Comment by: Polly | May 25, 2007, 6:05 pm

Hey Polly,

You seem closer to fundie than liberal in your morals, but closer to moderate in your biblical exegesis of Hell and view of inerrancy (open to doubt?).

Regarding inerrancy, it seems that there are too many exegetical backflips one must do to maintain the strictest form of inerrancy. I have serious questions about a lot of the historical books of the Old Testament. Nevertheless, when I read the Bible, I find something, and it is good. It is hard for me to explain.

I have intellectual problems with many traditional christian doctrines. They just do not make sense to me in any way. Despite this, I have found something special in following Jesus, again, hard to nail down what it is. The popular view of hell really bothers me and I hope that it does not turn out to be accurate, but maybe it is unavoidable, even for God.

Basically, I am comfortable with unanswered questions about God and Jesus because I feel that I have found enough answers to satisfy me. I compare it to my views on evolution.

To be quite frank with you, the concept of evolution is very counter-intuitive to me. I feel it most strongly when I study the mechanics of the human body. I am in physical therapy school and the precision and adaptability of the mechanisms of our body boggle my mind and defy evolution, to me. However, I also understand the strong genetic evidence which points strongly toward evolution. It points so strongly that I am comfortable accepting something which on the surface seems very counter-intuitive.

That is how it is with my religion. I have found enough good answers so that I feel comfortable trusting in some unanswered questions and counter-intuitive situations.

I also am very comfortable with a fluid concept of the divine. I feel like there is a tendency to define God with very concrete labels and ideas; to draw boundaries and make categories and say "this is God" or "God is here". When I was younger, I think that was good for me, but the more of life I see, the more fluid my concept of God becomes. It is a very liberating experience.

So... I guess if you always have to label everyone, I always have to pontificate to everyone... :)

Have a great weekend!

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | May 25, 2007, 8:49 pm

hello. I actually was just surfing the net because a best friend of mine suddenly announced to me her disgust in the Bible and God, and this made me feel the need to find out why. I have been reasearching for hours, and this conversation between Matt and everyone is so intriguing. I am looking for advice and opinions, if Matt or anyone would like to talk please email me at joy2zworld@hotmail.com. Thank you so much!

Comment by: Joy | June 10, 2007, 11:22 pm

I came across this site in efforts to read and gain a variety of perspectives. My best friend recently told me she is disguted with God and the Bible and I am looking for opinions and reasons pointing towards why.

The dialogue between Matt and everyone is very intriguing- I am so impressed by the maturity and humility everyone has...

I am searching for her sake, but also mine.

Comment by: sierra | June 10, 2007, 11:44 pm

What are everyone's views on homosexuality, for example? Does is seem that the Bible condemns this act too harshly? This is one subject of which I have many questions.

Comment by: sierra | June 10, 2007, 11:46 pm

I think the consensus here is for the most part that condemning the act AT ALL is wrong.

Comment by: Alex Weaver | June 11, 2007, 3:43 pm

Welcome, Sierra! If you hold a view of morality which focuses on preventing suffering and increasing happiness then there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality. So we shouldn't condemn it at all. You need a big reason to justify depriving one tenth of the human race of their sexuality.

Comment by: Lynet | June 11, 2007, 3:44 pm

This just reafirms my convictions and reasons for being a Atheist ever since I quit believing in fairy-tales.I am now 70 years old and my non-belief has grown stronger and stronger over the ensuing years. Thank you for your site.

Comment by: Ex Patriot | July 29, 2007, 2:11 am

Hey everybody! As an atheist, I'm glad to have found this site.
I really did enjoy the conversations between Matt and the others. It is the same relationship I had with my boss, except we were more mean(in a totally friendship way)about our discussions, but the same idea. One argument that I did not see mentioned yet was whether the judeo-xian god could exist based on his characteristics. I will post a link to the original argument I read, but due to time I'm going to try and give it myself.
Matt: would you agree that for your deity to be who he is that he has to be omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent? That he must have all three characteristics to be that deity? For the majority of xians that is the case, from my experience growing up in Alabama(the bible belt). The argument is derived from the concepts of suffering and free will.

Why should there be suffering? Some say that you can't have happiness without suffering to compare it to. Suffering is not the opposite of happiness, just the absence of it. Just like cold is not the opposite of heat, just the absence of it. Compare happiness to heat. You have varying degrees of heat: freezing, chilly, neutral feeling, warm, hot, burning, nuclear :-) So saying we can't have happiness without suffering to compare it to doesn't hold. Did god not know how to create the universe without suffering? If so, the he is not omniscient. Did he know how but not have the power? Then he is not omnipotent. Did he have the power and knowledge but not the will to? Then he is not benevolent. That shows in three different ways that for the universe to be the way it is, your deity has to give up one or all of those characteristics. Therefore, the god believed in by most xians can not possibly exist. QED. (sorry, I'm a mathematician...)
I am quite interested in your thoughts on that argument. My old boss couldn't provide an explanation on that. I hope I caused no offense. I am great with numbers, but horrible with speech ;-)

Comment by: Timmy | September 5, 2007, 12:43 pm

I think the big reason Christianity never appealed to me is that the main message was totally negative-

"Worship jesus, or burn in Hell. Period."

Jesus does come accross as a peacfull fellow, but those preeaching his name threaten people with eternal damnation if they don't worship Jesus as a god.

There's no love there....
It's like a guy putting a gun to his wife's head and saying 'love me, or I'll shoot you'.
Is love created out of fear really love?

Comment by: Sick of Religious Nuts | October 18, 2007, 11:43 am

When I think about the savage men who conjured up the OT god I think about the animal kingdom with it's alpha males who rule over the weaker animals. The strongest and most cunning among them becomes the alpha due to brute force, thus controling the others through fear. Sound familiar? Somewhere way back in the beginning that alpha trait woke up in man and those alphas used brute force to control the others. Soon brute force gave way to thought. It was much easier to invent an invisible deity who only speaks through the alphas to keep the masses under control..The alphas wanted food so they told the others god needed to be honored with a feast. The alphas wanted a better place to sleep so they told the others god needed a house to be worshipped in. Soon the alphas saw land belonging to another tribe and they wanted it so they told the others these people were evil and god had commanded them to kill them and take the land for god! The alphas saw treasures and women belonging to others and they lusted for those things. They told the others the men were evil and to destroy them and keep the bounty and women that appealed to them. That is a rough idea I had of how things may have gotten started. I saw a clip of alphas in the gorila kingdom and that fat alpha looked and sounded like John Hagee!

People started out ignorant and very superstitious. They were easy to fool by those who had the alpha ability. The alphas rarely work, they are catered to by the simple ones. To anger the alphas is to anger the god. People still look to the human alphas to lead them. The alphas still look to the deceived to house, feed and heap honor on them. They have the best of everything and it is paid for by the faithful and sadly still deceived minions. The government taxes us to death and the church takes it's cut from us too while they remain tax exempt. If people haven't awakened by now, I don't see much hope of it ever happening.

Comment by: Becky | November 2, 2007, 8:45 pm

Matt, your post really confused me. The bible says if you are born again you cannot sin because you have been made a new creature in Christ. It also says that it is impossible to sin if you are saved. Of course Paul came along with a new doctrine of Grace where you can sin all you want to and the Grace will abound even more. Go figure.

Christians divorce at the same rate as non-christians and do the same 'sinful' things. I think the difference is non-believers don't blame what they do on an imaginary devil. If I do wrong, it was all my fault and no evil deity talked me into it.

As for answered prayer, my thoughts go like this. If you knew it was wrong all along, why did you wait so long to pray about it if you believed god would help you? It just seems to me when you finally got to the point of seeing for yourself what you were doing was not right for you and you grew tired of it, you at that time had the will to stop. You would have conquered your problem whether you prayed or not.

Comment by: Becky | November 3, 2007, 5:02 pm

There is still no proof that the biblical Jesus ever existed!

Not one atom of evidence!

There is more evidence of Bigfoot and Nessie than there is of Jesus!
LOL

To me, this is a very important point.

Comment by: JayTan | November 25, 2007, 10:40 pm

JayTan,

The testimony of the Gospels, early church fathers and Josephus, a first century Jewish historian, count for significantly more than unconfirmed sightings and fake photographs. You can doubt their motives all you want, but that's more than an "atom" of evidence.

seth

Comment by: Seth P. | December 8, 2007, 2:11 pm

Seth,
The gospels are not eye-witness or first hand accounts, early church fathers never wrote about Jesus during his lifetime nor did Josephus, and Josephus's writings are rather arcane and could have been about anyone really - they sound like hearsay to boot. If you accept that evidence, then I suppose that you find the evidence for Zeus to be pretty good as well? There are, after all, many accounts of the deeds of Zeus.

Comment by: OMGF | December 9, 2007, 8:15 am

Jay Tan:

There is still no proof that the biblical Jesus ever existed!

Not one atom of evidence!

I can agree with the first assertion, but the second seems a little overstated. It was interesting to read in The God Delusion about the "cargo cults" which (in at least one case) claim eye-witness accounts of a person who lived only a few short decades ago, yet of whom nobody can find any outside evidence. Dawkins didn't spell it out, but it casts a good amount of doubt on Seth's evidence two posts above (as clarified by OMGF.)

Of course, given the implications of beliving in Jesus vs, say, believing in Abraham
Lincoln, I hope Seth can agree that more than a few "atoms" of evidence are required, and that the standard of proof is higher for the Resurection than for the Gettysburg Address.

Comment by: Tomas S | December 9, 2007, 9:07 am

Before everything: I am Catholic, and so my posts will be based on Catholic doctrine. Do not ask me to defend religious fundamentalism, especially Christian fundamentalism, because I do not believe it to be correct; I consider it harmful, as almost everyone on this site seems to do, and I will argue against it wherever possible.

Tacitus chronicles the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth (although admittedly not by that name) This constitutes at least an "atom" of evidence, I think. It depends on how you define "evidence."

"The bible says if you are born again you cannot sin because you have been made a new creature in Christ. It also says that it is impossible to sin if you are saved."

Where does it say that?

In response to Becky: you need to desire a change in order for change to happen. Many things I would consider morally corrupt - adultery, being angry, stealing - are enjoyable or produce enjoyable results. If you are praying for help, you have to want to be helped, and often whatever sin you are praying for help with may be too attractive to want to let go.

"Consider this passage from the second epistle to the Thessalonians, in which he expresses the bloodcurdling wish that all non-Christians be consigned to an eternity of torment in hellfire:"

The passage in question doesn't say "non-Christians." It says "those who do not know God" and "those who do not obey the Gospel." In my eyes and that of my religion, this does not mean "non-Christians" - it means people who do evil and who are unrepentant. In other words, it means those people whom justice would need to punish anyway. I don't know many people who would claim that Christians have a monopoly on morality, which is to say, a monopoly on "knowing God."

Related to the above post, I'd like to say something about Hell. God does not condemn people to hell. This is impossible. Hell is a state of complete and utter separation from God; it can only be attained by an informed and unrepentant rejection of God and a decision to remain in a state of immorality. No one can go to Hell who does not choose it by their actions and their refusal to repent. Even if you do not believe that God is loving, self-consistency would prevent Him from willingly separating people from Himself. Jesus' death on the Cross existed for precisely the opposite purpose - to allow people to reach a union with God that would otherwise be impossible. The popular belief of a God who damns people for their sins is not consistent with Christian doctrine; this could only occur if those people did not want forgiveness. In that case, God would have to force people to be forgiven, and this is something He cannot, or will not, do.

Thanks for bearing with me through this long post!

Comment by: Randall | January 1, 2008, 4:47 pm

Randall,
At what time did Tacitus do this, and what parts are you referring to? This is especially important if he was talking about someone else.

Related to the above post, I'd like to say something about Hell. God does not condemn people to hell. This is impossible. Hell is a state of complete and utter separation from God; it can only be attained by an informed and unrepentant rejection of God and a decision to remain in a state of immorality.

god is the one who ultimately must separate herself from us, so it is god's actions that send us to hell. Further, it is god who has set up the rules for what one must do/believe/etc. in order to not be consigned to hell. Third, your own doctrine teaches that we are born with original sin, meaning that we will go to hell without god stepping in and giving us his grace. Why would god set up a system like that if he did not desire anyone to go to hell?

Comment by: OMGF | January 1, 2008, 5:34 pm

Randall is correct about the Tacitus reference, though I don't find it especially compelling evidence myself. I wouldn't say that there's not a single atom of evidence for the historical Jesus, though I certainly find the case doubtable.

It says "those who do not know God" and "those who do not obey the Gospel." In my eyes and that of my religion, this does not mean "non-Christians" - it means people who do evil and who are unrepentant.

The only problem with this, Randall, is that the Bible and Christian doctrine have always identified improper belief as itself an act of evil deserving death. The Old Testament orders the immediate execution of anyone who believes in other gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-10). Even Jesus says that those who don't wish to follow him should be put to death (Luke 19:27), and the epistles likewise anathematize non-Christians (1 Corinthians 16:22).

Comment by: Ebonmuse | January 1, 2008, 6:24 pm

Ebon,

Randall is correct about the Tacitus reference, though I don't find it especially compelling evidence myself. I wouldn't say that there's not a single atom of evidence for the historical Jesus, though I certainly find the case doubtable.

That's a good summation.

IIRC, though, I've had theists bring up another passage that they claim also talks of Jesus, and I wondered if Randall might be referring to that. Neither one presents anything compelling, as you note.

Comment by: OMGF | January 1, 2008, 7:07 pm

OMGF, let me go through your points one at a time. I will use the masculine prefix from custom; I am not attributing any specific gender to God, although Jesus is naturally male.

"God is the one who ultimately must separate herself from us, so it is god's actions that send us to hell."

How is this so? God is always there, unchanging. Our actions would determine how in tune we are with God; what could God do to separate himself from us?

Further, it is god who has set up the rules for what one must do/believe/etc. in order to not be consigned to hell."

Debatable, at best. God cannot deny his own nature; he cannot make good evil, or evil good. If Hell is a state of being separate from God, as I claim, then God cannot say "I decide to be this; this is what you need to do." He can only say "This is what I am." You cannot get to Heaven by following a set of rules; why should you enter Hell simply by breaking them? Both Heaven and Hell are states of a relationship with God; Heaven is the complete consummation of that relationship, and Hell is its complete absence.

"Third, your own doctrine teaches that we are born with original sin, meaning that we will go to hell without god stepping in and giving us his grace. Why would god set up a system like that if he did not desire anyone to go to hell?"

Because he wanted to give us free will. Only with free will can we fulfill our purpose, which is to love and be loved. The presence of free will means that we are free to separate ourselves from him. The natural result of this separation is Hell. The only way that God could have prevented us from sinning would be to remove our free will entirely, in which case we would be automatons; and a world of machines is hardly worth creating. Quite simply, there is nothing God could have done to prevent our sin, without violating his own nature. As already stated, this is impossible.

"The only problem with this, Randall, is that the Bible and Christian doctrine have always identified improper belief as itself an act of evil deserving death. The Old Testament orders the immediate execution of anyone who believes in other gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-10). Even Jesus says that those who don't wish to follow him should be put to death (Luke 19:27), and the epistles likewise anathematize non-Christians (1 Corinthians 16:22)."

Doctrinally, this is incorrect. When I get a Catechism of the Catholic Church handy, I will quote from that to you. For now, I will focus on the Bible. One note: I do not intend to take the Bible, and particularly the Old Testament, literally; that is a hallmark of fundamentalism. With that said:

The passage from Deuteronomy references "serving other gods" and "those who do evil." "Serving other gods" in the time in which Deuteronomy was written, would have meant performing acts of evil. The passage is calling for the execution of criminals.
The passage you quote from Luke is part of a parable. It is not Jesus' direct word - although even if it were, it may not be too far off base, as seen below. The passage from Corinthians could be interpreted several ways; my Bible has it as "let those who do not follow the Lord Jesus Christ be accursed." That's saying, since those who don't follow Jesus are evil people, "a curse on evil people" or more specifically, "a curse on evil." Christian doctrine certainly condemns evil actions; but those are not necessarily dependent on religion, though they were considered to be so at the time.

What we are talking about is social justice, not religious teaching. At the time the Bible was written, death was the punishment for many crimes, crimes which were thought to proceed from a lack of belief in God. "Execution" as referenced in the Bible is designed as punishment for crimes, punishment which was considered just at the time. It is not and has never been (in Catholic doctrine, and as far as I know in the Bible) a teaching that the mere lack of faith in God requires execution; what would require execution would be the commission of crimes that was believed, at the time, to proceed from a lack of faith.

Does this make sense?

Comment by: Randall | January 1, 2008, 11:48 pm

"Serving other gods" in the time in which Deuteronomy was written, would have meant performing acts of evil.

Randall, you're going through these contorted rationalizations to explain away what is obviously the clear meaning of the verse. This verse simply says to kill anyone who worships any god other than Yahweh. It doesn't get any clearer than that. How can you possibly mistake the meaning of something as plainly worded as this?

If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him; but you shall kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

This verse has nothing to do with "performing acts of evil", except insofar as the Bible considers the worship of any other god to be an evil act deserving of immediate execution. You can see for yourself that this is what it says. This is a cruel and savage creed, and it doesn't deserve to have you defending it.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | January 2, 2008, 12:06 am

And this claim that God is completely static is contrary to the Bible. Genesis 6:6 tells us that God had come to regret creating humanity, and in Genesis 8:21-22 and 9:8-17, God tells us that he will never again send a big flood.

One might be able to interpret one's way out of the most straightforward meanings of those parts of the Bible, but that would require a lot of imagination.

Comment by: lpetrich | January 2, 2008, 2:11 am

"This verse has nothing to do with "performing acts of evil", except insofar as the Bible considers the worship of any other god to be an evil act deserving of immediate execution."

The verse says "serve other gods," not "worship other gods." Serving gods is done by committing acts of evil; those who commit acts of evil deserve to be executed, not based on their worship, but based on their deeds.

"This is a cruel and savage creed, and it doesn't deserve to have you defending it."

It certainly is. But it is drawn from the Mosaic Law; it is the legal system, more or less, of the Israelites. Not Christian teaching, and not meant to be taken as such.

Comment by: Randall | January 2, 2008, 12:55 pm

I believe that many tend to cherry pick the "trivial" verses that are in the Bible and choose to overlook the main ideas, thus not getting the gist of verses that are substantial.
I am a Christian and yes I've had the same questions that many of you have bombarded the other Christians in this forum. The way i take it is that God has given me happiness that has kept me breathing and that has relapsed the many questions that have been raised.
God Bless,
Ben

Comment by: Ben | January 9, 2008, 5:11 pm

Randall,

The verse says "serve other gods," not "worship other gods." Serving gods is done by committing acts of evil; those who commit acts of evil deserve to be executed, not based on their worship, but based on their deeds.

That's quite a stretch. If another god told us to be kind to each other, then this would also fall under the banner of committing an act of evil, would it not? I disagree with you anyway. Yahweh is very specific about what he wants, and what he wants is obedience and worship. What is the first commandment? How many commandments deal with giving worship to god?

But it is drawn from the Mosaic Law; it is the legal system, more or less, of the Israelites. Not Christian teaching, and not meant to be taken as such.

It certainly demonstrates the morality of your god. If you claim that god has changed his mind about what is moral and what isn't, then you've destroyed quite a bit of the Xian doctrine, like god being infallible, immutable, perfect, omni-benevolent, etc. You are also making an appeal to relativism. Finally, Jesus preached that one should strictly adhere to the laws of the OT.

Ben,

I believe that many tend to cherry pick the "trivial" verses that are in the Bible and choose to overlook the main ideas, thus not getting the gist of verses that are substantial.

I'm sorry that you find your god calling on his people to commit murder/genocide to be "trivial." Besides, what are the main ideas, and how did you come to those without doing some cherry picking of your own?

The way i take it is that God has given me happiness that has kept me breathing and that has relapsed the many questions that have been raised.

No offense, but this seems rather self-centered in that you seem to be saying that you don't care what your god does or what his morals are so long as he keeps you happy. I may be reading into this, so I'd appreciate some clarification if that is the case.

Comment by: OMGF | January 9, 2008, 5:51 pm

The verse says 'serve other gods,' not 'worship other gods.' Serving gods is done by committing acts of evil; those who commit acts of evil deserve to be executed, not based on their worship, but based on their deeds." -- Randall

Your unspoken premise, Randall, is that all other gods are evil. Assuming their existence for the sake of this discussion, certainly some of the other gods were good and not evil, and thus serving them would not bring about the punishment cited. Furthermore, your own religion insists that good deeds are not enough to get into heaven. Yet you argue that evil deeds are enough to get you into hell.

My second objection is your reference to free will. Free will and an omnipotent god are obviously irreconciliable.

Furthermore, you seem to discount the fact that your god created sin, and that implicit in the concept of sin is the concept of judgement. God created hell, and Lucifer, according to your faith. Were it not for God, evil would not exist at all. Your contortions to exculpate your faith bely the reasonable tone of your writing, and reveal an agile mind bending in the wrong direction, in my eyes, and I agree with Ebon; the religion you defend is unworthy of your efforts.

"It is not and has never been (in Catholic doctrine, and as far as I know in the Bible) a teaching that the mere lack of faith in God requires execution; what would require execution would be the commission of crimes that was believed, at the time, to proceed from a lack of faith."

This is patently untrue. Does the name Giordano Bruno ring a bell? Do you think the Inquisition was only about murdering witches and heretics? Apostasy was certainly a capital offense in that age, and atheism the more so. Even hinting at atheism, in one's writings, or even with one's scientific discoveries, was mighty dangerous. Copernicus published on his deathbed out of fear of the Church.

Most religions perpetrate evil in the name of good. Sad to say but your faith is no different at all.

Comment by: Thumpalumpacus | January 9, 2008, 6:18 pm

Ben: I agree. If you are to judge anything, let it be on the basis of its fruits and of its message. You can find flaws in anything if you look long enough.

OMGF: I think that to respond to your posts adequately, I had better brush up on my Old Testament first. There are a couple of points I'd like to question, but it may take a while, as I am rather busy and the OT isn't the most breezy of readings.

Thumpalumpacus, since responding to your post doesn't require so much research : )

"Your unspoken premise, Randall, is that all other gods are evil. Assuming their existence for the sake of this discussion, certainly some of the other gods were good and not evil, and thus serving them would not bring about the punishment cited.

Not my premise; the belief of the Israelites, a warlike and theistic people, that all other religions were evil. It's no surprise that their laws would reflect this.

"Furthermore, your own religion insists that good deeds are not enough to get into heaven. Yet you argue that evil deeds are enough to get you into hell."

I think we need to be careful here to avoid falling into semantics, as so many before us have on the same topic. If good deeds do not get you into heaven because they lack faith - a positive commitment to God - then evil deeds cannot get you to hell, because they lack a positive rejection of God. Hell requires not only evil deeds, but a lack of repentance; my religion teaches that God forgives the repentant, no matter what the sin. But I don't understand how this is relevant?

"My second objection is your reference to free will. Free will and an omnipotent god are obviously irreconciliable."

Depends on your definition of "omnipotent." I don't see a problem; define omnipotence as "the capability to enact one's will" and say that God chose to limit himself by giving us free will. I don't think it's a stretch to say that God is bound by the law of internal consistency, or, more simply, that God cannot defy God.

"Furthermore, you seem to discount the fact that your god created sin, and that implicit in the concept of sin is the concept of judgement. God created hell, and Lucifer, according to your faith. Were it not for God, evil would not exist at all."

"Created" sin? How so? God certainly allowed sin to happen; it is a natural consequence of free will, as Hell is the natural consequence of pursuing that free will as far away from God as possible. Saying that evil would not exist because of God gives the impression that God is somehow responsible for evil, when evil can only be present where God is not. This is like saying that the day is responsible for the night; that it creates its own absence. I hope I'm making sense.

"Your contortions to exculpate your faith bely the reasonable tone of your writing, and reveal an agile mind bending in the wrong direction, in my eyes, and I agree with Ebon; the religion you defend is unworthy of your efforts."

And oddly enough, I am remarkably unflexible; I failed the flexibility component of my fitness test yesterday : ) Thank you for the compliments; permit me if I disagree cheerfully and wholeheartedly that my religion is most certainly worth defending. I admit, though, that I often question whether or not the efforts of both sides would not be better spent in eradicating our real enemies - poverty, disease, hatred - instead of engaging each other in debate and rhetoric that will lead, at best, to stalemate, and at worst to ill-will.

"This is patently untrue. Does the name Giordano Bruno ring a bell? Do you think the Inquisition was only about murdering witches and heretics? Apostasy was certainly a capital offense in that age, and atheism the more so. Even hinting at atheism, in one's writings, or even with one's scientific discoveries, was mighty dangerous. Copernicus published on his deathbed out of fear of the Church."

This is why I said "doctrine" and "the Bible." Otherwise you are correct. My Church has been responsible for persecutions, as have all powerful organizations throughout the ages. I won't deny that. I will certainly deny that these persecutions are consistent with the message that the Church exists to promote. A question: if one believes that witches are real, and really causing sickness and bad weather and curses, is it still a vice to kill them?

"Most religions perpetrate evil in the name of good. Sad to say but your faith is no different at all."

Religions, being immaterial constructs, can't perpetrate anything. People have done so throughout history. Whether or not this is a consequence of faith, or in direct opposition to it, is open for debate.

Comment by: Randall | January 17, 2008, 2:23 am

A question: if one believes that witches are real, and really causing sickness and bad weather and curses, is it still a vice to kill them?

I would say that the real sin of the witch hunters was the sloppy standards of evidence. Especially accepting the notion that a confession extracted under torture was evidence of anything.

Joe McCarthy's actions were called a 'witch hunt' because of somewhat lesser sloppiness in pursuit of Communists. (At least he wasn't torturing people.) He was accusing people of treason, which is a crime, but he was doing so on insufficient evidence.

BTW 'sloppy standards of evidence' is almost the definition of 'faith'.

Comment by: Jim Baerg | January 17, 2008, 10:39 am

Randall,

"Created" sin? How so?

If god somehow preexisted before everything and brought it all into being, that act of creation would involve creating sin. If God never created anything, it would just be god and there would be no sin.

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | January 17, 2008, 11:16 am

Randall,

I just kind of stumbled across this website and have only read a few of the posts. Pretty fascinating stuff. I am a Christian (although my personal beliefs border on universalism). Many theologians maintain the theory of "creatio ex nihilo"; which implies God did create everything from nothing... For me that means he created light and darkness; good and the capacity for evil. The Bible uses the word "sin" to mean "missing the mark" or "falling short" of the ideal. Seems to me that in order for us to have a choice, we would have to be able to choose "the good" or the "not so good".

Comment by: Frank Douglass | January 19, 2008, 11:09 am

Randall,

Not my premise; the belief of the Israelites, a warlike and theistic people, that all other religions were evil. It's no surprise that their laws would reflect this.

I would say it is highly surprising, since those laws supposedly came from god.

Depends on your definition of "omnipotent." I don't see a problem; define omnipotence as "the capability to enact one's will" and say that God chose to limit himself by giving us free will.

I would say that free will is mutually exclusive with omniscience, and especially if that omniscience is coupled with omnipotence. If god knows all, then he knew what I would do before he created the universe. This created a deterministic track that determined that I would do all the things I did when the universe was created. If this is not so, then god did not know what I would do, and therefore god is not omniscient. Or, put another way, if I have free will, then I have the ability to choose from A or B. God already knows that I will choose A, so I either don't have that choice, or I can actually choose B and god will be wrong.

Saying that evil would not exist because of God gives the impression that God is somehow responsible for evil, when evil can only be present where God is not.

So, god is not omnipresent? In fact, if your statement is true, then I would say that god is nowhere near our planet, since Xianity holds that all humans are sinful by nature. But, this is really just an exercise in passing the buck and a case of battered-wife syndrome. When something good happens, it's because of god. When something bad happens, it's all our fault. I'm so happy that god set up a system where we can internalize all of our failures and beat ourselves up over them while he gets to take credit for everything good. Of course, it helps if you only count the hits while ignoring the misses.

Thank you for the compliments; permit me if I disagree cheerfully and wholeheartedly that my religion is most certainly worth defending.

How is it worth defending? Why is it worth defending? Is it worth defending a god that treats humans that he supposedly loves like crap? Is it worth defending a system where hell exists? Is it worth defending a belief that teaches us all that we are inherently bad?

I will certainly deny that these persecutions are consistent with the message that the Church exists to promote.

And I would challenge you on that, especially since the message that the Church exists to promote is an ever evolving thing that changes with the evolution of human morality. During the crusades and the inquisition, it was not thought immoral to commit the atrocities exacted in the name of god. Only because humans have evolved better morals have we come to realize that these things are wrong. It isn't because of the Church being consistent, but because the Church membership has evolved just as has the rest of society (although the Church has often fought that evolution to better morality). This is not morality inspired by god, but a misapplication of our evolved morality back onto the writings of the Bible. We've left the Bible behind, yet theologians have continually tried to change the meaning of the text to fit what we understand today in order to keep their faith alive, and have even gone a step farther to dishonestly assert that those evolved morals came from the Bible, instead of happening independently.

Comment by: OMGF | January 19, 2008, 12:00 pm

For my part, there is nothing so pointless as a well-constructed argument from a theologian. Why expend such mountainous mental effort on unverifiable premises that are assumed to be true from the outset? Reading Randall's matter-of-fact theistic defense of free-will raises an all-important question in my mind, one that can be best set up by quoting him:

"How is this so? God is always there, unchanging. Our actions would determine how in tune we are with God; what could God do to separate himself from us?"

How in the world can anyone on this planet speak so matter-of-factly about a being that for all pratical purposes is non-existent? Am I the one who's missing something here? Randall speaks as if there is some obvious standard that can be checked. I simply cannot understand the lengths some will go to defend an unverifiable set of propositions.

Even if Randall's argument is logically and rationally air-tight, without a verifiable premise, does it matter?

"God is always there, unchanging."

Randall, how do you know this?

With centuries worth of writing that assumes the existence of god is self-evident, it's no wonder that people forget the most important question of all.

*dismounts high horse*

Comment by: Jeremy | April 7, 2008, 2:30 pm

If god somehow preexisted before everything and brought it all into being, that act of creation would involve creating sin. If God never created anything, it would just be god and there would be no sin.

We are created with the capacity to love and to be loved, which is a greater good than being created to automatically act in a certain way. Freedom of the will allows love to be possible... and if love is possible, the opposite of love must also be posssible--this is called sin. So sin isn't something directly created by God but is something God allows the capacity for, because without the possibility of sin there could not be love.

How in the world can anyone on this planet speak so matter-of-factly about a being that for all pratical purposes is non-existent? Am I the one who's missing something here? Randall speaks as if there is some obvious standard that can be checked. I simply cannot understand the lengths some will go to defend an unverifiable set of propositions.

How is the statement, "God does not exist" verifiable?

Comment by: Arch | April 8, 2008, 9:27 am

How is the statement, "God does not exist" verifiable?

This statement must be repeated ad nauseum by apologists, and thus we have to repeat the response in the same manner:

One cannot prove a negative statement.

If you make a positive assertion, in this case, "God exists," you must have the evidence to back it up. Evidence can either support your positive statement or disprove it. If you don't provide convincing evidence, we're justified in dismissing your claim as nonsense.

I think you're assuming that belief in God is the default position; it's not. Atheism is. All babies are atheists until they "learn" about religion through their parents/guardians (Russell's Teapot, anyone?).

Since we're not making a positive assertion, we don't have to prove anything. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim, namely you. We can't "prove" that God doesn't exist any more than we can "prove" that leprechauns don't exist.

Comment by: Ingersoll's Revenge | April 8, 2008, 9:45 am

Although we can't prove that a god doesn't exist, there are disproofs of specific gods, mostly the Xian conceptions of god. There are certain attributes given to god that are logically impossible and these can be disproven. There will always be some god, however, that can be beyond disproof.

One of those logical disproofs involves free will (which can't exist with an omni-max god) and the "greater good" that Arch talks about. What is the "greater good" when most people will go to hell? Also, Arch, you're assuming that god had to create us. That's simply not the case. By creating us, he created sin, so there must be a greater good in order for there to be a good reason to create us and sin, right? But, as mentioned already, most go to hell. Where is the greater good in that? Plus, isn't god supposed to be the greatest good? So, how is it possible to become more good for a god that is supposed to be perfect and the greatest good?

And, yes, sin is created by god even by creating the possibility of it.

Comment by: OMGF | April 8, 2008, 9:51 am

If you make a positive assertion, in this case, "God exists," you must have the evidence to back it up. Evidence can either support your positive statement or disprove it. If you don't provide convincing evidence, we're justified in dismissing your claim as nonsense.

Both a positive or negative claim need support. If I say, "Sam is in the room", and you say, "Sam is not in the room", it would make sense that we both have a rationale for professing belief in that statement whether it be a positive or negative statement. You cannot dismiss the need for a negative statement to have sound reasons behind it. I find it completely unconvincing that all of creation, including human beings could just come to exist, mutating from energy and matter which somehow is eternal, even though it can't will its own existence and isn't a rationale being.

Comment by: Arch | April 8, 2008, 12:08 pm

Arch,
Your argument from incredulity is duly noted. It's still fallacious.

Also, your insistence that we prove a negative is simply wrong. I say that you should prove that invisible, pink unicorns don't exist. How about you prove that Allah doesn't exist, or Baal, or Zeus? Have fun with that.

Also, you are misrepresenting our side. We do not unequivocally say that god does not exist. We say that the theist side has not met its burden of proof and hence there is no need to accept their positive assertion. So, stop trying to shed your burden of proof and shirk your part of the deal. You wish to say that god exists? It is up to you to prove so, not up to us to prove that he doesn't.

(Of course, with the caveat that I already mentioned about how most ideas of the Xian god have been disproven as logically impossible.)

Comment by: OMGF | April 8, 2008, 2:42 pm

So sin isn't something directly created by God but is something God allows the capacity for, because without the possibility of sin there could not be love.

What? If you allow the capacity for something to occur, you are responsible for it occurring.
Do you not see the incredible lengths you are going to, to try to explain yourself?

Comment by: goyo | April 8, 2008, 4:54 pm

I am attempting to enter into a scholarly conversation, but I find it interesteing that I am frequently getting accused of having poor logic and dancing around issues... but then many refuse to answer my questions and dismiss them as irrelevant to the conversation or unnecessary to answer. So I will post these one more time:

-Why is it rational to believe that all of creation, including human beings, could just come to exist, mutating from energy and matter? How could energy or matter be eternal, considering that they cannot will their own existence and are not rational beings?

-How can one know truth if there is no author of life? Where does truth come from, and why does this source of truth have authority?

Peace.

Comment by: Arch | April 8, 2008, 5:12 pm

Arch,

If I say, "Sam is in the room", and you say, "Sam is not in the room", it would make sense that we both have a rationale for professing belief in that statement whether it be a positive or negative statement.

I'll humor you with a hypothetical.

My claim
"There is no god"

My evidence?
-I've never seen a shred of verifiable evidence that a god exists, much less the specific god you're mentioning.
-Since you are mentioning a specific christian god and not just some deistic original cause god, there are many things mentioned in the bible that are flat out wrong. The best evidence you have is no evidence, and many of your claims are diameterically opposed to moutain of geological, archeological, fossil, astronomical, medical, and scientific data that has been gathered over the centuries.
-Statistics of human nature fit into a predictable pattern which is far more consistent with evolutionary theory.
-Christianity, or any religion for that matter, have real bad track records of being right, so count that as reputation.
-The bible itself is not internally consistent (not that it being internally consistent would make it true, but that fact that it isn't doesn't help the case)
-Every other religion making the same claims as yours but the story being entirely different; you can't all be right, but can easily be all wrong.
-Evidence of how religions/cults grow. It's been observed, and they turn out to look a lot like the church.

Quick list.
As for your side, the best evidence I've seen is:

"There is a god"

Evidence:
-we can't explain all natural phenomena yet, so therefore an all powerful, intelligent, creative, moral, personal god who's son on earth was Jesus must exist and the church is infalliable when it says it is.
-the virgin mary appeared to me in a grilled cheese sanwhich

If you have any more evidence, I'd love to hear it.

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | April 8, 2008, 5:13 pm

How can one know truth if there is no author of life? Where does truth come from, and why does this source of truth have authority?

Here's the definition of truth: In accordance with fact or reality.
Now, how does that apply to the bible, which contains neither?

Comment by: goyo | April 8, 2008, 5:20 pm

Arch,

I am attempting to enter into a scholarly conversation, but I find it interesteing that I am frequently getting accused of having poor logic and dancing around issues...

If you wish to "enter into a scholarly conversation" then what you say will be scrutinized. If you argue using logical fallacy, it will be pointed out. When you use logical fallacies, it invalidates your arguments. There's no need for me to argue against an argument from incredulity when I can simply point out that it is fallacious. If you don't wish your arguments to be parsed and found wanting, then make better arguments. Additionally, if you don't understand, you can either keep complaining or you can ask why.

Why is it rational to believe that all of creation, including human beings, could just come to exist, mutating from energy and matter?

It is rational to accept that the best evidence we have points us to this tentative conclusion. If evidence were to appear that overturns this, then it will be rational to follow that evidence. We know that this can and has happened from evolution as well as astronomy, chemistry, etc. etc. etc.

How could energy or matter be eternal, considering that they cannot will their own existence and are not rational beings?

Why is being a rational being a pre-requisite for being eternal? If matter and energy simply exist, there is no need for god to have been there. Of course, adding the god layer simply pushes back the question one step without answering any questions, while simultaneously raising new questions. How can god have come into being? Etc.

How can one know truth if there is no author of life? Where does truth come from, and why does this source of truth have authority?

We can know what is true by studying the real world around us. Truth comes from our understanding of the real, physical laws of the universe. There need not be a god in order for 2 and 2 to make 4 or for gravity to work.

I don't understand why you insist that the world need a creator, that natural laws are incapable of forming the Earth, etc. Don't fall into the trap of the god of the gaps fallacy. It's true that we don't know what happened before the big bang, but that does not give you license to insert god. Our ignorance of certain things does not necessitate god.

Comment by: OMGF | April 8, 2008, 5:28 pm

Arch, this is the second warning I'm giving you: Preaching is not allowed on this site. This is the third thread you have disrupted by asking the same irrelevant, off-topic questions. I am not going to warn you again. Knock it off.

Comment by: Ebonmuse | April 8, 2008, 6:10 pm

If asking questions is going to be labeled as preaching and legitimate questions are going to be dismissed, then I doubt that you are interested in a true conversation.
If one is open to a respectful conversation, I am happy to engage in the dialogue.

Comment by: Arch | April 9, 2008, 1:35 pm