|
Post by Chris on Jan 27, 2013 18:31:30 GMT -5
Mike,
Greetings! My brother's wife, Missie asked me to post some of my thoughts on your website regarding the fall of man, sin, judgment, eternal d**nation, and who's to blame. For some context and background, I was a believer until around 2005, and from January of 2000 until around August of 2002, I went head-long into deep biblical study. I was studying the Bible in ancient Greek, ancient Hebrew (none of which I remember now), and being mentored by clergymen of several denominations. I was fascinated with end time prophecy, the Godhead (monotheism versus trinitarianism)... I studied some of Luther and Calvin... it's largely lost on me now, but that's my background. I am happier as an atheistic-agnostic (6 on the Dawkins' scale) than I ever was as a believer, appreciate life more than ever, and find myself more gracious than I ever managed to be as a Christian, BUT... None of this is meant as a preemptive jab or any kind of nastiness. I just wanted to provide you some insight into who I am and my background.
Regarding the fall of man and original sin... These are some of the things I've written, and I would appreciate your feedback.
"The notion that we are conceived in 'sin' is particularly atrocious to me for a number of reasons. First, if we agree, for the sake of argument that God is the creator of all things, then He created the devil, and is ultimately responsible for the fall of man that condemned every human being born after Adam and Eve to a sentence of eternal torture and d**nation before they ever even draw their first breath. This was, of course necessary to necessitate a Messiah, and thus corroborates my claim that God is ultimately responsible for the fall of man He condemns us for, and is utterly reprehensible. Are your children responsible for your misdeeds? Should they be punished for your crimes after you pay the price for your crime? Should the entire branch of your own posterity be forced to pay for your crime? Of course not. Forcing that on society is so morally reprehensible as to not be considered by civilized people, or even people we would consider less than civilized. So it should be hard for anyone to recognize the sovereign authority and 'justice' of a being that wants to torture you for eternity because some dude ate an apple after a talking snake tricked his wife into eating it."
"When I have made this point before, people typically fire back about free will, which as I recall, there is no mention of God-granted free will to humanity. It must be implied through interpretation. There are, however many references to the elect being called before the foundation of the world, or some other phrase similar to that, indicating predestination AND God's omniscience. There is also no mention in the Bible of the free will of angels, yet Lucifer chose to sin and become the devil, which an omniscient God would unquestionably know he would do before Lucifer did it. Following the omniiscient frame, and the idea of an ultimate plan by God (the fall of man, the law, the Messiah, the final judgment etc), you see that His plan could not be complete without the fall, and as the creator of all things and an all-knowing being, does He not bear ultimate responsibility for our condemnation? He created us with a weakness to fleshly desire (when we hunger, we eat, when we're thirsty, we drink, when we're tired, we rest, when we're horny, we... well...), and a weakness for temptation, and then sets Adam and Eve in a garden and tells them they can eat anything in it EXCEPT this one sweet looking fruit. Then He allows the devil (or may have even sent him) to come to Eve, naive as a child and whom He had not warned of the tempter, to go tempt the weak and unwarned Eve to eat the delicious fruit... and she does... but it's her fault of course. And then she didn't die as God promised, and so Adam ate as well. I'm sorry... this is conjecture, yes... but given the parameters of the writings and using some deductive reasoning, it's a stable argument, in I disagreeessment to wonder how and why we excuse our eternal condemnation at the hands of the person who is ultimately responsible for it."
"I am not privy to the groups of Christians you know or are friends with, but most of the biblical scholars I have spoken with and studied under referenced 'original sin' and the fall of man by Adam and Eve as the source for the need for redemption. Most every Christian I know says that we are born into sin, and thereby convicted of it even as newborn infants, which at least hints that our guilt of sin stems still from the fall of man. Of course there are allowances given for the age of knowledge etc, but geenrally speaking, the idea is that we are born in sin and require salvation from the original sin, plus all we have committed before salvation... and require continual forgiveness for sins we commit after salvation. If we are inclined to sin, where did that inclination come from? We are made by God in God's image, if I understand Judeo-Christian theology correctly. If there is an inherent flaw in a product, we blame the manufacturer, but in this case, the products are not only blamed for the nature with which they are created, but for behaving in a manner consistent with that nature. Moreover, sin would not exist without God, as He determines what is and isn't sin. We can't help but sin because we were designed (by Him) to incline ourselves toward it... but w're d**ned for it...? If we let our child hunger and then put a plate of food in front of him, but told him not to eat it, would our punishing the child be just? In a sense, the same question applies, in my opinion, to this justification for sin and eternal d**nation. But again, this is conjecture and deductive reasoning on my part. And ultimately it is quite frustrating for me when others refuse to acknowledge my points and the scriptural basis for them, and simply dismiss me as a heretic, someone who hasn't 'really' studied or whatever because I *gasp* dare disagree with them and question their God."
Again, I'm posting this by request of my friends who vouched for what a great guy you are, and I trust their judgment of character. They said you would have excellent commentary on these thoughts of mine, and so I look forward to reading them, if you're inclined to respond.
Very Respectfully,
Chris
|
|
|
Post by Mike Miller on Jan 29, 2013 8:51:19 GMT -5
Hey, Chris. Thanks so much for posting. Since yours is pretty long, it will require a lengthy response. My schedule is jammed right now, so it will take me a couple of days to get to it. Just wanted you to know I wasn't avoiding you.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisDiamond on Jan 30, 2013 16:19:01 GMT -5
Thank you, Mike.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Miller on Jan 31, 2013 16:48:11 GMT -5
Chris, I'd now like to respond to your comments. First, however, I need to say a couple of things. You indicated that you have not been happy with the responses you have gotten from Christians. I don't really know the full context of those responses, but I find that many times, people simply do not want to be challenged. They do not want anyone telling them they might be wrong. If this is the case with you, then none of my response is going to matter. If, however, you are willing to consider what I say, I'm glad to have dialogue. I'm just not accustomed to atheists who really want to hear the other side. My experience has been with people who have their minds made up and simply want to argue.
Now, having said all that, I will interact with your comments below. But I must tell you at the outset that even though you have done a lot of homework, you don't have a very solid grasp on what Christians actually believe. I'm glad you admit that you are resorting to conjecture, for you do not describe our beliefs accurately. One thing I stress when I teach apologetics is that we need to be able to articulate the beliefs of others just as they themselves would, or else we are not actually challenging what anyone else believes. Simply put, while some of what you dislike about what we believe is represented fairly, some of it is not. In other words, at times, you criticize beliefs that I would criticize as well. [Your comments in italics; mine in blue.]
For some context and background, I was a believer until around 2005, and from January of 2000 until around August of 2002, I went head-long into deep biblical study. I was studying the Bible in ancient Greek, ancient Hebrew (none of which I remember now), and being mentored by clergymen of several denominations. I was fascinated with end time prophecy, the Godhead (monotheism versus trinitarianism)... I studied some of Luther and Calvin... it's largely lost on me now, but that's my background. I'm just curious as to why you want to engage beliefs that you admit are lost on you now. I am happier as an atheistic-agnostic (6 on the Dawkins' scale) than I ever was as a believer, appreciate life more than ever, and find myself more gracious than I ever managed to be as a Christian, BUT... None of this is meant as a preemptive jab or any kind of nastiness. I just wanted to provide you some insight into who I am and my background. If that is true then why are you being so critical of what you perceive to be our beliefs? I've often wondered why atheists expend so much energy trying to convince people they are wrong to believe in something that doesn't exist.
"The notion that we are conceived in 'sin' is particularly atrocious to me for a number of reasons. First, if we agree, for the sake of argument that God is the creator of all things, then He created the devil, and is ultimately responsible for the fall of man that condemned every human being born after Adam and Eve to a sentence of eternal torture and d**nation before they ever even draw their first breath. I don't know any Christian who believes this. The Bible never teaches that the fall has condemned every person to d**nation. Therefore, if you have read someone who has stated this, I'm with you in taking issue with that position. If you can, please cite some sources who believe this. This was, of course necessary to necessitate a Messiah, I'm sorry, but this statement does not make sense to me. I've never heard, nor can I fathom, a leap to the conclusion that anything was "necessary to necessitate a Messiah." and thus corroborates my claim that God is ultimately responsible for the fall of man He condemns us for, and is utterly reprehensible. Are your children responsible for your misdeeds? Should they be punished for your crimes after you pay the price for your crime? Should the entire branch of your own posterity be forced to pay for your crime? Of course not. Forcing that on society is so morally reprehensible as to not be considered by civilized people, or even people we would consider less than civilized. So it should be hard for anyone to recognize the sovereign authority and 'justice' of a being that wants to torture you for eternity because some dude ate an apple after a talking snake tricked his wife into eating it." Again, I'm not sure whom you are reading? Was it a Roman Catholic? It must have been, because no Protestant doctrine I'm familiar with is even close to holding any position like this. I'll address this more in your later comments, but let me say emphatically that we do not believe that anyone goes to hell for Adam's sin. If you think we do, then you have grossly misunderstood our doctrine (again, more later).
"When I have made this point before, people typically fire back about free will, which as I recall, there is no mention of God-granted free will to humanity. It must be implied through interpretation. There are, however many references to the elect being called before the foundation of the world, or some other phrase similar to that, indicating predestination AND God's omniscience. There is also no mention in the Bible of the free will of angels, yet Lucifer chose to sin and become the devil, which an omniscient God would unquestionably know he would do before Lucifer did it. You are correct in that the Bible never mentions free will. In fact, the Bible mitigates against completely free will. However, that does not mean that we do not have wills of our own. We make willful decisions all the time, but those decisions can never thwart the will of God. In other words, God allows us the freedom to make decisions as long as those decisions accomplish his ultimate purposes. Following the omniiscient frame, and the idea of an ultimate plan by God (the fall of man, the law, the Messiah, the final judgment etc), you see that His plan could not be complete without the fall, and as the creator of all things and an all-knowing being, does He not bear ultimate responsibility for our condemnation? No, He does not bear that responsibility. For God to allow for any kind of freedom at all--for Him to create us as moral creatures--He must allow us choices. Were Adam and Eve not exposed to an alternate opportunity, then the choice to obey God was really no choice at all. He did not create robots, but moral creatures. This was an act of His grace. He gave humans the ability to make choices, then lavished His grace on us. Then He said, "Do not do this one thing." Why did He do that? Why did He create us to begin with? I have no idea. I am not God, so I cannot know His mind, and He has not decided to tell us. He created us with a weakness to fleshly desire (when we hunger, we eat, when we're thirsty, we drink, when we're tired, we rest, when we're horny, we... well...), and a weakness for temptation, and then sets Adam and Eve in a garden and tells them they can eat anything in it EXCEPT this one sweet looking fruit. False. He did not create us with a "weakness" to desires. He created us with desires. Those are not unholy. It is not bad to be hungry or thirsty or sexually aroused. Those are not weaknesses. They are simply part of the human condition that cause us to long for something even greater--that something is God. In fact, all those things are morally neutral. It is what we do with them that determines their moral goodness or lack thereof. Really, it's all a matter of the heart. Then He allows the devil (or may have even sent him) to come to Eve, naive as a child and whom He had not warned of the tempter, to go tempt the weak and unwarned Eve to eat the delicious fruit... and she does... but it's her fault of course. Yes. If I tell my child not to do something, and he does it, it is his fault. Not mine. I do not (indeed, I cannot) warn my child of every single eventuality. And then when my child says, "But you didn't tell me," I don't fall for it. And then she didn't die as God promised, Yes, she did. She died spiritually. Read Ephesians 2:1-10. and so Adam ate as well. I'm sorry... this is conjecture, yes Yes. ... but given the parameters of the writings and using some deductive reasoning, it's a stable argument, in I disagreeessment to wonder how and why we excuse our eternal condemnation at the hands of the person who is ultimately responsible for it." I disagree, and you haven't shown how this is a "stable argument." Simply saying it is does not make it so. The reason it is not what I would call a solid logical argument is that its basic premises are faulty, and then you make tremendous leaps to arrive at your conclusions. I would say that it is an emotional argument. Blame usually is.
"I am not privy to the groups of Christians you know or are friends with, but most of the biblical scholars I have spoken with and studied under referenced 'original sin' and the fall of man by Adam and Eve as the source for the need for redemption. Most every Christian I know says that we are born into sin, and thereby convicted of it even as newborn infants, which at least hints that our guilt of sin stems still from the fall of man. I'd really like to know what Christians have told you this. Outside of Roman Catholicism, I don't know of anyone (certainly no orthodox Christian) who believes that we are condemned from birth. In fact, we don't use the term "original sin," but we speak of our inherited sin nature. In other words, we aren't born guilty, but we are born with a nature that will sin. However, we do not incur guilt for sin until we actually sin. No one will stand before God and hear God say, "Because of what Adam and Eve did, I'm sending you to hell." No. Instead, they will suffer for their own sins. This is explicitly spelled out in Ezekiel 18. The son does not incur the guilt of the father. Of course there are allowances given for the age of knowledge etc, but geenrally speaking, the idea is that we are born in sin and require salvation from the original sin, plus all we have committed before salvation Nope. We don't believe that. ... and require continual forgiveness for sins we commit after salvation. We don't believe that, either. We believe that Jesus endured all the wrath of God on our behalf. In Him, we are declared righteous. We are forgiven. Period. God judges us based on Jesus' perfect righteousness. That is the good news. If we are inclined to sin, where did that inclination come from? We are made by God in God's image, if I understand Judeo-Christian theology correctly. If there is an inherent flaw in a product, we blame the manufacturer, but in this case, the products are not only blamed for the nature with which they are created, but for behaving in a manner consistent with that nature. We are not blamed for that nature. We are blamed for sinning against God. Romans 1 teaches that we have no excuse, however, because God has revealed Himself, and we have chosen (by our own will) to reject Him. Moreover, sin would not exist without God, as He determines what is and isn't sin. Yes, as God, He has the right and authority to determine right and wrong. But that is not arbitrary. It comes from His perfect nature. We can't help but sin because we were designed (by Him) to incline ourselves toward it... but w're d**ned for it...? If we let our child hunger and then put a plate of food in front of him, but told him not to eat it, would our punishing the child be just? This is a bad analogy, because it compares sin to doing what is necessary to survive. God has never forbidden us to eat to sustain ourselves. In fact, just the opposite. God has given us the earth to enjoy. And then He has given Himself as the highest good, but we in our own will have rejected Him. In a sense, the same question applies, in my opinion, to this justification for sin and eternal d**nation. But again, this is conjecture and deductive reasoning on my part. Yes. Conjecture and reasoning based on faulty understandings of the most basic premises. And ultimately it is quite frustrating for me when others refuse to acknowledge my points and the scriptural basis for them, and simply dismiss me as a heretic, someone who hasn't 'really' studied or whatever because I *gasp* dare disagree with them and question their God." Then you will probably be frustrated with me, because even though you use some tangential biblical justification for your beliefs, you misunderstand and/or mischaracterize what the Bible actually teaches. You are arguing against beliefs we do not hold. Therefore, you are not disagreeing with me. I surely invite you to do so. Instead, you are disagreeing--perhaps with some Roman Catholics on some of your points--but mostly with a straw man.
Ultimately, Chris, I find you quite interesting. Usually when I talk to atheists, they have issues with God on scientific grounds. In other words, they do not believe God exists because they have failed to see the preponderance of evidence that He does. Some have problems on moral grounds (the nature and existence of evil), but they are not typically atheists (again, this is only in my experience). You, however, seem not to deny that God exists, but you seem to reject Him because you don't like Him. You find Him to be unjust and immoral, so you have walked away from Him, and I guess you are hoping others will do the same. This is unfortunate for two reasons. First, your rejection of Him is based on misunderstanding Him (based on a misunderstanding of the Bible and orthodox theology). Second, if God really does exist, then He, as God, is not open to the charge of injustice. By very definition, God is holy and just and perfect in every way. He is also gracious and loving and just. I am praying that you will not dismiss what I've said. And if you would like to continue the dialogue, I am happy to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 31, 2013 20:44:05 GMT -5
Mike,
Thank you for a very thorough and well-articulated response. I will try to respond to your statements and responses as well. I appreciate you noting that I admit what I don't know, or that some of the things I said were admitted conjecture. You're right that I don't outright deny that God exists. If you're familiar with the Dawkins' scale, I identify as a '6'. Loosely, this means that I know I cannot prove that God does not exist, so to claim it as some kind of fact without such proof would be dishonest and inherently fallacious. I do believe, however that the likelihood of Jehovah existing is so slim a possibility as to not really be a possibility. I suppose the proper 'term' for someone like me is a (very) strong agnostic.
"I'm just curious as to why you want to engage beliefs that you admit are lost on you now." --Existential questions are fascinating, are they not? Moreover, some 3 billion or more people on this planet are Christians, of one sect or another. As a matter of prudence, I think it wise to try and learn/know something about what they believe and why. These topics and questions are important because, as you're aware, the evangelical right, and even the left now are powerful entities in this country, and they exert political power that affect the laws of this country that affect me. I likewise engage the socialist, liberal, progressive and communist in debate and discussion, even though I vehemently disagree with most all of their positions... because I live in the same towns and communities with these people, and their beliefs have an impact on my life. Is that a fair enough answer? It is honest, at least. The only reason I ended up on your board at all was the encouragement of my friends who said awesome things about you (and I would like to say that I, likewise regard you as very intelligent and engaging); one in a post-grad program in university for theology or divinity (not sure, so I'll include both) to post here and pose the questions.
"I don't know any Christian who believes this. The Bible never teaches that the fall has condemned every person to d**nation. Therefore, if you have read someone who has stated this, I'm with you in taking issue with that position. If you can, please cite some sources who believe this." -- I am no theologian or biblical scholar... but these things stand out:
Psalms 51:5 says "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." This at least implies that as his conception was entirely in sin, does it not?
Romans 5:12 says, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" -- Death, as you admitted was the punishment for Eve's sin, and then Adam's sin, and that punishment passed on to all of us. Is that not a condemnation? Who has escaped it? Enoch?
Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." -- ALL is pretty inclusive. If you're talking about all of humanity, you're talking about newborns, infants, toddlers... and the wages of sin is death, as we saw with the punishment of Adam and Eve. But how does a newborn sin? How does a toddler do something so reprehensible as to merit being killed by God's anger in the deluge, or to deserve war being made on him by Saul or David through God's command? The only attempt at justification of this I've ever heard is that it's God's right to do whatever He wants and that's just the way it is. I believe you will do better. Because if this is the holiness that people are supposed to model and aspire to, I hope to never meet anyone like that.
Romans 5:19 says, "For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." -- Paul seems to agree with me here.
Ezekiel 18:20 supports your thesis, only... words are one thing, and actions are another. I mean, none of us got to have a shot in the Garden of Eden. We were cursed to eat by the sweat of our brow, right? Women were cursed to travail in great pain in child birth, and to be submissive to men, right? Moreover, God contradicted Himself with this one.
Exodus 34:6-7 says, "The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and egracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”
Deuteronomy 5:9-10 says, "You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments."
Perhaps I didn't word it correctly or clearly enough in my original post, and I agree with you that it seems God would punish people for the sins they commit as individuals... BUT... I'm saying the Bible does support the notion that we're born sinful without ever even having made a choice, and "by one man did sin enter the world..."
Now typically at this point, I'm told that "I don't understand," or that I just want to be hard-headed about it. Nope. I just read, and it seems pretty apparent that the Bible is, at least in part, disagreeing with you.
"I'm sorry, but this statement does not make sense to me. I've never heard, nor can I fathom, a leap to the conclusion that anything was "necessary to necessitate a Messiah." -- Let me try again: Does God have a grand plan? Did He have it before the foundation of the world? What do Christians get from the blood or sacrifice of Jesus? If sin had not entered into the world, there would have been no need of a Messiah, or the brutal torture and murder of a human being for our collective salvation. If God knows all, and knew all before he ever created the world, then He knew that Adam and Eve would fail, that sin would enter the world, that He would get so upset with people's sinful nature that He would kill them with a flood, that His chosen people would disobey Him, and that they would reject, torture and murder His son. Sin is what necessitated a Messiah, or a mens of reconciliation to God, right? Without sin, why would we have needed the 10 Commandments, or the Messiah, or the New Covenant? Sin's entrance into the world had to have been foreknown, otherwise there is no reason or requirement for the Messiah we all have to believe in for salvation.
"You are correct in that the Bible never mentions free will. In fact, the Bible mitigates against completely free will. However, that does not mean that we do not have wills of our own. We make willful decisions all the time, but those decisions can never thwart the will of God. In other words, God allows us the freedom to make decisions as long as those decisions accomplish his ultimate purposes." -- Our free will and willful choices cannot thwart the will of God, and so one could argue then that sin was (and is) the will of God. Indeed, you cement the notion with your assertion that we're only able to make decisions that are in line with the will of God... so murder and genocide is all the will of God, as is mass starvation, disease, child abuse etc etc... and that is kind of the crux of my position: as the all-powerful who, as you state, prevents our actions if they are not in alignment with his will and ultimate purpose, HE is the root of all these things. Adam could not have sinned if it were not the will of God. And it isn't limited to man... How could Lucifer have sinned if it was not God's will that He did? And the only point I ever hear in arguments can be boiled down to this: He's God, so He can do what He wants. Fine, but why in the world would you feel compelled to worship an entity who is bent on punishing you for eternity for sin when HE is ultimately responsible for it?
"We are not blamed for that nature. We are blamed for sinning against God. Romans 1 teaches that we have no excuse, however, because God has revealed Himself, and we have chosen (by our own will) to reject Him." -- But didn't you just say we couldn't do things that aren't in line with His will? If that's true, then it is His will that we reject Him, or at least some of us reject Him. It's His will that I am a strong agnostic, but I will be punished for His will, if Christianity is correct. It is His will. In fact, a person earnestly seeking God could come up short because God feels like hardening his heart. Isn't that correct?
Exodus 4:21 says, "And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go." -- which at least makes it plausible that Pharaoh might have relented in the face of the wonders Moses did, but God wouldn't let him. How many lives might have been saved? And for what? Glory? What worth could the glory of man hold for an all-powerful, all-knowing entity?
"This is a bad analogy, because it compares sin to doing what is necessary to survive. God has never forbidden us to eat to sustain ourselves. In fact, just the opposite. God has given us the earth to enjoy. And then He has given Himself as the highest good, but we in our own will have rejected Him." -- Do you fast? I used to. I was encouraged to, as were all our church members. The pastor (and several of them I knew as friends and ministers) preached that this was an excellent exercise to bring the flesh under subjection. I'm not saying that God condemns us for eating. And I didn't say the little boy in my analogy was starving, I said he was hungry... there is a subtle difference there. I was simply talking about desires of the flesh as potentially sinful. Hunger can turn to gluttony. Sexual desire can lead one into lasciviousness, adultery and fornication. These desires are in our design. They are a part of our humanity as we are. Did God create us? These are basic natural drives that can become sinful, are they not? When my iPod messes up from a design flaw, I don't blame the iPod. I blame Apple. In every other aspect of our lives, you would do the same thing, but if we're flawed from the get-go (as the Bible does in some places argue), then why shouldn't we hold the manufacturer responsible? If we are a perfect creation of God, then how was it even possible for us to sin? Sin is not commensurate with perfection, and if we were imperfectly designed, then how can God claim to be perfect?
If everything God does is perfect, moral and just, then why did He lament creating us? It's astounding to ponder how a perfect being could mess up His creation so bad as to cause Him to wish He'd never created it, and to want to destroy it in it's entirety. A friend of mine noted the whole potter and the clay analogy, and went on to say that the potter can destroy the pot if he chooses. I agreed, but added that it would seem ridiculous for a potter to make pots of clay He knew would be bad only to destroy them and wish He had never made them... and then keep making them. What would an onlooker say?
"Hey buddy... why are you destroying your pots?" "Because they suck." "If they suck, why do you keep making them?" "Because I am God and I want to." "Well why keep making something you already know is going to suck, get all upset and then destroy it?" "Because I want to." "Allllrighty then."
If we are capable of seeing this as illogical, then why couldn't our all-powerful creator?
I do think God is immoral. This is, of course, anathema to every person I know who claims to be a Christian, and their disagreement and bias typically prevents them from viewing the reasons with any objectivity. But where we would almost all universally agree, Christian and atheist alike, that slavery is wrong, God condoned it for the Jews. (Leviticus 25:44). We could of course argue that God allowed it and simply worked within that evil system created by man, but we have to go back to not being able to do something that isn't in line with God's will...
"Thou shalt not kill." - We don't need to get into the Hebrew etymology, but I think we would agree that murder is the premeditated taking of life for personal gain or pleasure. Outside of justifying anything God does because, well... well, because He's God, we should wonder why it was ok for God to command Saul to go kill every man, woman and child in villages, even every beast that pissed on the wall. Was that defensive, or in the aim of conquest for the Jews? Were it defensive, I wouldn't have a moral issue with it, but it was an attack. He commanded the Israelites to do the same types of things on their way to the Promised Land. Justifying it under, "His ways are not our ways," or using "His supreme morality beyond human understanding" argument doesn't work here. If it was perfect to tell us not to kill (murder), then He creates a moral paradox between His commandment of us, and His actions, or His commanding others to kill. Are moral paradoxes consistent with moral perfection?
We condemn genocide (which has happened by man's hand, and could only happen, according to you by God's will), but bow in humility at the genocide God committed against an untold host of people, including women and children because He was upset at them for their sin.
What would you think of a person who allowed someone to be tortured, stripped of all their worldly possessions and have their family killed because of a bet? The restoration of Job and blessings afterward are irrelevant. He allowed this man to suffer horribly because of a bet. I don't understand how someone could not view that with contempt.
Yea, Jehovah is immoral. Him saying He is the very embodiment of perfect morality in His book does nothing to substantiate any disagreement with that.
And if I'm wrong, and I stand before God on the day of judgment, I just hope He will allow me to ask Him some questions:
"Look, before I burn forever in eternal torture and misery and darkness, gnashing my teeth and weeping (which, oddly enough, I don't wish this on people who hate me, disagree with me, or wish I would die), I wondered if I could ask a few things:
1.) Why did you put our bodily playground right next to a dumpyard?
2.) So men get crazy horny in our teens and into our early 30s, but women wait until their early to mid 30s...? C'Mon dude!
3.) Why was my windpipe and my esophagus so very close together? Seems like maybe you were playing a game with yourself on that one.
4.) Ok, ok... enough silliness... Look, if this was so important to and the only truth regarding the eternal salvation of humanity, then why did you plant it in the middle of a largely illiterate and obstinate people, and why did the story of your son seem to mimic so many other stories of what turned out to be false Gods that came before him?"
ALL THIS BEING SAID... I want to sincerely thank you for the time you put forth in responding to me, for your kindness, and for fair treatment. I hope that you likewise feel I treated you the same way. I wish you the very best, and if you'd like to continue the dialogue, I will anxiously await your next response.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Miller on Feb 2, 2013 22:54:52 GMT -5
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Chris. I think instead of going thought-by-thought now, I'll sort of lump things together for my responses. I think it will be easier that way, especially for those following along.
First, you are still misunderstanding the concept of the sin nature. You don't think you are, but you keep describing it in ways we don't. I always encourage my apologetics students at the seminary and in church to strive to describe and define others' beliefs exactly the way they would themselves. Otherwise, we are arguing against beliefs they do not hold. People frequently do this with Muslims. For example, I've heard Muslims described as people who worship Muhammad. That is false and offensive to Muslims. Or they even quote from the Koran to prove that Muslims are commanded to kill infidels. That is in the Koran, but it was for a specific occasion. While certain Muslims do want to to kill non-Muslims, the overwhelming majority do not. Non-Muslims also like to define Jihad the way most Muslims do not. The point I'm making is to question is whether we will let people define their own beliefs or if we will insist on defining them for them. You're trying to say that you're only reading the Bible, but obviously you are interpreting it differently than Christians do. Will you allow us to define our beliefs, or will you insist on doing that for us, thereby criticizing beliefs we don't actually hold? I'll address that in a moment.
Second, you think God is unjust because He does things you don't like--things you see as immoral--even things that seem to go against His stated will. Let me respond with an illustration. I think we would all agree that it would be wrong to stab children with sharp instruments. But as a father, I have taken my children to harsh and scary places, held them down, and allowed strangers to stab them, inflicting pain on them, all the while my children have cried and begged me to make them stop. What kind of father am I? I am one who loves my children and tries to do what is best for them. Therefore, I have had them immunized against all manner of deadly diseases. Now, at the time, my children thought I was being cruel & unloving even though I tried to explain. "Trust me," I said. "I love you," I said. They just didn't understand. They were unable to. They did not have the knowledge or the maturity that I did. Well, if God does in fact exist, then surely you would agree that He would understand things we don't. As a finite human being, I can sit in judgment over God, condemning Him for acts I deem to be unjust, while He says, "Trust me. I love you, and I know what I'm doing." The difference in knowledge between my children and me isn't even close to the difference between me and God.
Third, you think we are created broken. Again, the analogy of an electronic device is a bad one. Did Steve Jobs say he was making something in his own image? No. And God did not make an electronic gadget. He made incredibly complex living beings. In fact, people are more complex than all other biological systems because we are more than mere biology. We are moral creatures. He gave us the ability to think, to reason, and to make reasoned decisions. The only way we can be truly moral is to be able to be bad as well as good.
You quote lots of Bible verses. But you do so out of context. That mainly seems to be done to politicians and the Bible, and always by people with an agenda. I could probably be around you for a while and cobble together a number of sentences to make it seem you believe all manner of things. Context is crucial, and so is looking at the full body of teaching on a matter. An example of this is the children incurring wrath for the sins of their fathers (I showed you what Scripture says about that in Ezekiel). A handful of disconnected verses won't tell the whole story. Simply, children are not punished for the sins of their fathers, but they do suffer the consequences. Our church participates in a ministry called Angel Tree. We provide Christmas gifts for children with a parent in prison. Those kids are suffering for the sins of their fathers (or mothers). Now, many of those children will carry on that culture because they don't know anything else. They will also wind up in prison. But they go to prison, not for crimes of fathers, but for their own crimes. This ultimately happens, however, as a result of the crimes of the fathers. The world is broken, and we all sin. But we are not condemned for the sins of Adam or for the sins of our fathers. We are condemned when we freely choose to sin on our own. This is why Scripture repeatedly tells the people of God to train their children in godliness.
You also fail to read the true meaning of the Bible. For example, you don't see that Adam & Eve died when they sinned. They died spiritually. You don't seem to want to acknowledge spiritual death (because you don't believe it?). This is similar to what happened in John 6 when Jesus said He is the bread of life and that people must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Some thought he was talking about cannibalism (In fact, the early church was frequently accused of cannibalism because of the Lord's Supper). Many people even stopped following Jesus because of this "hard saying." But Jesus was not advocating cannibalism, as any fair reading of His words reveals. I'm afraid you're not reading the Bible as it is intended, but rather looking to find fault. This is causing you to use illegitimate interpretive methods, which of course paints a false picture of what we believe.
If I may, allow me to suggest a better approach for fair and honest dialogue. Instead of telling us what we believe, and then criticizing those beliefs that we don't hold, why don't you begin with asking questions? Why don't you ask if we can explain things? We're usually happy to do so. Also, when you tell us that you've read and talked to theologians, cite them so we can respond accordingly. It might be that you misunderstood the theologian, or it might be that the theologian is unbiblical.
Thanks again for this discussion. I hope I've helped to shed some light on what we Christians actually believe. I'm always open to being challenged and to having friendly disagreement. I just want to make sure that I'm being challenged on my beliefs and not on what some straw man believes.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 3, 2013 1:20:23 GMT -5
Mike,
I hope you have enjoyed a lovely weekend thus far, and want to thank you for taking some of that precious time to respond to me.
I have to start from the end here in this response.
When you say that the theologian in question may have been unbiblical, we have to agree that the assessment would largely be an opinion as opposed to one based on empiricism. You and I may agree that prosperity preachers and that ilk are heretics, distorting the gospel, but I'm sure that they could use scripture to substantiate their claims and justify their ministry. They do it all the time. You and I may say that they're not taking these particular scriptures they use to justify their ministry in context with the entire Bible, but that would be our opinion. That's the really neat, and for someone like me, convenient aspect of scripture. I mean, out of the some 1,700 branches of Christianity within Christendom, that debate over who is right and who is wrong is still not determined, and likely never will be. I don't think it's a stretch to say we won't solve that debate to any degree in our discourse. Thus, the Biblical-ness or unbiblical-ness of a theologian I mention is ultimately determined on whether or not you agree with their premise, which is subjective.
It is possible that I am taking the Bible or the scriptures I listed out of context... but when a God tells me he is a jealous God and visits the sins of the fathers down through the 3rd and 4th generation, I think that's a pretty declarative statement. That He said something else elsewhere, and that something else aligns with what you want to believe about God gives 'your' context no more gravity or importance than me seeing him tell me in several verses that He's jealous, and then remind me of it again when He warns that He'll visit the sins of fathers down through the 3rd and 4th generation. The fact that an apparent contradiction exists at all points to several possibilities: the writer misunderstood, and therefore the book (and consequently all books) cannot be taken as the true, inspired word of God, God changes how He feels about certain things based on who He is talking to or the situation at present, or the book is simply man-made and certain books included in the canon were not more closely scrutinized for contradictions before being lumped together. I'm probably leaving one or two more possibilities out, but...
"Second, you think God is unjust because He does things you don't like--" -- Oh, I'm not the only one who doesn't like it... Slavery, murder, aggression, genocide, infanticide, allowing people to egregiously suffer when you have the power to stop it... If I asked, I would bet 98% of proclaimed Christians would say they didn't like any of those things either. And I would bet that you also don't like slavery, murder, infanticide, genocide, or torture. I'm willing to look at who's ultimately responsible and declare that it's wrong, whether He's God or not. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo Galilei
"As a finite human being, I can sit in judgment over God, condemning Him for acts I deem to be unjust, while He says, "Trust me. I love you, and I know what I'm doing." -- But God doesn't tell you, "Trust me, I love you and know what I'm doing." He says, "Obey, accept my son, get baptized, repent of your evil (which He created, fostered and put in your nature, but you still don't understand as a finite human being) or I will burn you in hell for an eternity of torture and misery you cannot possibly fathom." Is there an alternative for eternity outside of Heaven or hell? If not, then what i am saying is correct, no matter the context you try and apply to it to fit your view. And from the standpoint I'm in, using the tools that He created me with, according to Judeo-Christian theology, a spade is a spade. Immorality is immorality. Commanding Saul to kill the Amalekites, and utterly destroy them (man, woman, child and beast) for example... if another group of people did something like that today, they would be condemned almost universally, even if they pled that God Almighty told them to do it. Christians would get pretty upset about some group claiming their God told them to do something so horrible, whatever the reason, but if you just read the story of Saul, you will find a precedent.
To keep it relatively short, in comparison to my prior posts' anyway, we should examine just a few more things: That you don't know any Christians who believe 'this' or 'that' that you've said I've misrepresented means little in the sea of some 1,700 sects of Christianity. Just because you don't believe things a certain way does not mean that no one else believes that way either. Moreover, you, or anyone else's beliefs are not really material to the primary questions I posed: is a moral paradox consistent with perfect morality? By the way, I think this is an excellent example of how I was, in fact asking what you believe instead of trying to tell you what you believe, but that seems to have been lost on you somehow. You also did not advance your assertion about God not allowing actions that aren't in accordance with His will. Ironically, you and I agree on that point, but I play that concept out in full, from the very beginning. Were it not God's will, sin could and would not have entered into the world through Adam. If not for His will, there would be no hell to fear. Were it not for His will, mass murderers wouldn't happen, and neither would genocide, infanticide, starvation, disease, plague, divorce, child abuse, rape, incest, abortion... Does our species choose to engage in these abhorrent grotesqueries? Of course. But, you said, "We make willful decisions all the time, but those decisions can never thwart the will of God. In other words, God allows us the freedom to make decisions as long as those decisions accomplish his ultimate purposes." I'll forgive a misstatement. I make them myself from time to time (not on purpose, but it happens), but I won't presume this is a misstatement on your part. And if it isn't, then I stand by the convictions I originally posted, whether or not I have misunderstood what you or anyone else believes.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Miller on Feb 3, 2013 7:01:27 GMT -5
As for your very last statement, Chris, then you are indeed having issue with what I believe, because I did not misspeak. That is all I ask--that you interact with our actual positions. However, I want to address one new thing you brought up. Then I will stop beating a dead horse, since I feel like I have answered your objections already, even though you keep restating them (such as with God doing things that are wrong--I really think my analogy of parents immunizing their children answered that). Of course, I could play these out further, but I don't think it would satisfy a mind already made up.
You bring up a common course of discussion, mentioning the various interpretations by numerous sects and denominations. That argument seems valid on the surface. You state that my opinion on what is sound biblical theology is purely subjective. It is not. While some tangential doctrines are debated, there exists a body of core foundational doctrines that have been accepted for centuries. The early church fathers articulated these doctrines, and they have become the objective standard of biblical orthodoxy that have stood the test of time. While I will disagree with other Christians about modes of baptism, for example (sprinkling vs. dunking), neither of us would accuse the other of being unbiblical or heretical. However, when someone comes along and denies the virgin birth, for example, this doctrine has been settled for two thousand years because Scripture is so clear. Therefore, if you are getting your information from some theologian like Bart Ehrman or John Dominic Crossan, the Bible-believing Christian world is unanimous in considering men like these to be unbiblical. Why? They deny our fundamental doctrines. Their positions are not even considered Christian. So, while certainly some less clear matters of Scripture are open to interpretation, the test of orthodoxy is not.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Feb 3, 2013 19:42:49 GMT -5
Well, in that case, I will simply thank you for your time, for your responses and for engaging in the dialogue. I disagree with your assessment, am somewhat perplexed by a rather casual dismissal (as I only restated questions or points because I believed they were left unanswered, and then rather plainly demonstrated how they were left unanswered. The metaphor of forcing your children to get vaccinated doesn't sufficiently explain the morality of, or excuse the horrors of infanticide, genocide, famine, disease, child abuse, rape etc, which I asserted and you validated only happen by the will of God.
You could argue that my 1st post was presumptive about the tenets or beliefs of Christianity, but indeed the 2nd post, as I pointed out asked you questions, like you asked me to: is a moral paradox consistent with perfect morality? That remains unanswered, and I'm quite confident that you see how I, and people like me would see that lack of response as dismissive, or convenient. My mind's made up after all, right? And if you have the pearls, I guess that makes me...
But I digress.
I have no right or claim to your time or energy, so I will part with simple thanks for that which you already shared with me.
My very best wishes to you and yours.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Miller on Feb 3, 2013 21:45:00 GMT -5
Well, I'm not sure how you could possibly say that you are being casually dismissed with the very lengthy responses I gave you. Each of your objections has been responded to, but you do not like my answers. I'm not sure what else I can say. You admit that your position is based on conjecture, and you have a very limited knowledge of the belief system you are criticizing (quoting verses out of context does not demonstrate depth of knowledge of the Bible or its interpretation). I can appreciate that you disagree with me, but I don't see the value in beating a dead horse.
Moreover, you (a non-Christian) want to define our beliefs. I (a theologically educated Christian in agreement with 2,000 years of theological thinking) explain what we really believe--what the Bible really teaches. And you seem to think that your understanding of Christianity is superior. You will not allow us to speak for ourselves. Some of your objections are with what we believe; many of them are not. I've tried to explain, but you don't like my explanations. Again, that's fine, but unless you are willing either to move in another direction or to accept a Christian's definitions of what what we believe, then further discussions along this line will be unproductive.
I'm sorry if you think I'm dismissing you. That is certainly not my intention. I have tried to respond thoughtfully, but you have not been satisfied. I wish you the best, and I pray that God will enlighten your heart to His goodness and grace.
|
|