I disagree totally. It is the standards (technology) that has changed - NOT human decency. Just because my son texts me instead of voice calling me, doesn’t mean he cares less about me. We are living more in a virtual world now and will continue to live more virtually than ever. But we have to treat each other the same virtually as when in person. Brad does this well. I probably will never have the opportunity to shake his hand physically but the human-to-human communications/relationship is there virtually. So yes, I am very optimistic for the future because millennials adopt faster to the technology than my generation did even though it was my generation that created today’s technology.
1 Like
Exactly where did I say Xianity creates evil?
My critique is of your god.
It is a curious thing, but atheists (and others of similar persuasions) fail to understand that the Christian faith considers all people as decent and capable of choosing good and rejecting evil (in fact God causes all things to occur on all, whatever their choices). Thus decency and acting in good faith can, and is, displayed by any human who chooses this. The difference that atheists sometimes cannot understand is that God may choose to reveal Himself to various human beings - this is an act of grace, and not some sort of underhanded scheme invented by Christians.
On the ‘rants’ by atheists - I am impressed by the intensity shown by these people when they discuss this god they seem to hate so much!
You can’t hate something that you think doesn’t exist. That would be madness.
1 Like
And yet we have an almost endless vitriol about evil things this god has somehow got people to do - or am I seeing a parallel universe when I encounter remarks that talk of genocide etc,?
I never said God was responsible for evil, I said that he was not responsible for anything.
1 Like
I feel I should give up by now, but just for the heck of it, just what is it that gets you so worked up regarding a god that does not exist and is not responsible for anything. If I keep to a sane version in some of the remarks I read, I have to conclude that if it is not this non-existent god that has some of you so excited, it must be some people (Xains) are responsible for all of you complaints? Are your comments non-hateful of such? But then they believe in God … and of we go again!!!
Me thinks there is something odd in your remarks, even if others like Dawkins etc inspire such nonsense. Now cylons get into the act?
That is actually a good question. I lived most of my life believing that one’s beliefs were both private and harmless. For example, you seem like a good guy, and I would be civil to you if we ever meet. Your beliefs would really never enter any interactions we could possible have be it - business, personal, neighbors, country club members, whatever. Your beliefs were harmless to me.
But then I realized that a person’s beliefs can be harmful to themselves and others and especially to others who don’t share those same beliefs. I talked about 911, my brother, and childhood indoctrination. But it is much more than that. Watching Christians behave regarding same sex marriage vividly shows on how un-Christian like Christians can behave. Then you have the hypocrisy of Josh Duggar, the far Christian right members of Congress. Even vaccine deniers and climate change deniers. There is always a “we know best” attitude because we are the ones who know the mind of God based on our interpretation of the Bible. The truth is that they don’t know and I don’t know. Let’s all admit that and move on to work on the real problems in the world. Starting with our own thoughts and actions.
The reason why I responded so sarcastically was because of your audacious claim that “All gods are manifestations of the human mind. Simple as that.”… do you speak for the entirety of the world, here? Where’s your proof? Or are you paradoxically putting yourself in the place of God, when you make this statement?
I’ve discoursed with other atheists on this site, and though I disagree with them, they have been respectful and open to the differences in our worldviews. When I read this post, all I see is one big huge rant — as if you’re trying to get your anger out or something? I don’t feel the desire to call atheists devil-worshipers, but you feel the need to call “Christians” “Xians”…?
I’ve read the reason why you do this, and I have a hard time believing you’re just doing it for kicks.
I wrote about martyrdom in early Christianity and then you bring up Old Testament war texts… These are not the same topics, and doesn’t nullify my original point. Your claim is that “ALL gods are human manifestations.” What human manifestations would cause simple people living in Judea to risk their lives spreading news about things that they completely made up? What manifestations would cause Paul, who was killing Christians by the dozens, to radically, out of nowhere go 180? Do you know that the majority of NT Scholars (the secular ones… you’re not required to be a Christian to have an interest in studying the Bible) used to hold the view that the NT writers were just making stuff up? Now the majority consensus is that the NT writers had hallucinations brought upon by their depression of having lost their leader.
Going from “out-right lying” to “having hallucinations” is a very big change.
In regards to your Old Testament war texts, I would like to recommend a great book called Did God Really Command Genocide? by Paul Copan & Matthew Flannagan … it deals with all these issues in great detail. Theologically, philosophically, morally, legally etc
One of the major issues that people have is that they take things out of context. Most people assume that God commanded Israelites to go against the Canaanites for absolutely no reason. And that is simply not true. To explain in great detail would take awhile, so instead I’ll write down this one section, that I think sums up things quite nicely, on page 134-135, called Resorting to False Analogies:
"Perhaps we can bring some of the loose strands together at this point by noting Wes Morriston’s criticism of the view that Scripture is truthful in what it (actually!) affirms. Let’s examine an analogy suggested by Morriston that would, he thinks, undermine confidence in biblical authority, using the charge that God commanded genocide.
—If the President of the United States were to announce that God had told him to use the vast military power at his disposal to obliterate, say, the nation of Iran, “saving alive nothing that breathes,” people would assume that he was mad and he would speedily be dismissed from office. No one — well, almost no one — would take seriously the idea that God had instructed him to do this terrible things.—
The discussion of what we have written thus far reveals significant dis-analogies between the biblical narrative and Morriston’s example. Let’s review some of them.
First, Morriston’s example involves the United States; the biblical text refers to Israel. While both are nations, the similarities end there. Nationalistic fervor aside, the United State’s is not God’s chosen people; they are not in a special covenant with God to be a light to the nations and the channel through which all nations will be blessed and restored.
Second, while the United States is the most powerful economic and military nation in the world today, the ancient Israelites were refugees fleeing oppression in Egypt. The citizens of the United States are not landless refugees needing a place to live.
Third, Iran is not part of the United States. By invading Iran, the United States would be invading a foreign country. By contrast, Canaan was land that belonged to Israel. Indeed, this was the land of Israel’s roots beginning with Abraham, when God had covenanted to give him this land. Abraham and the other patriarchs had title to land within Canaan (not to mention that, as noted in the last chapter, the Canaanites were culturally and ethnically indistinguishable from the Israelites) By contrast, Iran is not and never has been land to which the United States has legitimate title.
Fourth, whatever one thinks of the regime in Iran, the Iranian population has not been busy engaging in practices such as incest, adultery, bestiality, ritualized sex, and human sacrifice as part of the normal religious repertoire of their culture. Such practices are not entrenched in Iranian culture, and even if they were, Iran has not been engaging in these practices for four hundred years on US soil without repentance.
Fifth, it is not the case that the population of the United States risks being assimilated into Iranian culture such that, if they co-existed, Americans would be drawn into all these practices.
And finally, in Morriston’s example, the president is divinely ordered to use the “vast military at his disposal to obliterate … the nation of Iran.” The vast military power of the United States involves nuclear weapons, a massive air force, navy, and military. In this context the command is clearly literal. In the Bible, however, the reference to annihilation is hyperbolic. The United States is not trying to drive the population out, killing only those who refuse to leave. Nor is the attack happening after a significant number of people, warned about an impending attack, have fled. Nor is it referring to “disabling raids” described in maximal hyperbolic terms.
What would we have to do to adjust Morriston’s portrayal to make it a more accurate analogy? Imagine Iran has assumed possession of land that belongs to the United States. They occupy this land and refuse to leave. They are heavily armed, and a certain number will resist eviction with force. Imagine Iran is not comprised of Shi’ite Muslims but rather of members of a religious sect whose rituals involve criminal activities such as incest, bestiality, and burning children alive as sacrifices. For centuries, they have been squatters on US territory, engaging in these activities without repentance and having a pernicious influence on those around them.
Suppose further that all the citizens of the United States have lost their land and are refugees fleeing persecution and in need of land. The number of remaining Americans is so small that if they co-exist in the land with the Iranians, the Americans will be assimilated. America’s identity, ideals, and ethos will disappear, and the entire US citizenry will become part of the criminal cult.
Imagine further that in such a setting, the president announces his believe that it is God’s will for him to forcible drive Iran from their land. A generation ago, an ultimatum had been given to the Iranians that if any of those remained behind, they would be killed. Large numbers leave, but other refuse to heed the warning. The president regretfully announces that as a last resort, Americans must go in and kill those who do not heed the warning and flee. The president stresses that these are highly unusual circumstances and certainly not the norm. He tells his people that he would not such actions under normal conditions. But he believes that for this specific situation, on the basis of God’s assurance, that greater evils will be averted by this course of action than by any alternative strategy. So in this specific case the normal rules are overridden. "
Why does the author suggest that phrases like “leave nothing alive that breathes” “leave nothing standing” etc. are hyperbolic? Two main reasons:
-
In these passages that refer to “destroying totally” you find other passages that say, right after the event, “and they failed to drive them out” or “and they drove them out”. The phrase “driving out” appears much more frequently than that the destroy verses. In other cases you see that the nations that Israel “totally destroyed” are still living in later chapters. You cannot “totally destroy” a nation, while still having them living afterwards. “Driving out” and “totally destroying” are not the same thing. If I said to you that a burglar was in my house and I drove him out, you would not assume that I destroyed him. Nor would you think, that if I said “I destroyed him”, would you assume that I drove him out. The emphasis in the biblical test is “driving out” the people that are living your land. Exodus 23:27-30 says this, “I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee. And I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite, and the Hittite, from before thee. I will not drive them out from before thee in one year; lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land.” <<< in the same exact passage that say “I will destroy all the people” it says “I will send hornets before thee, which shall drive them out from before thee.” and “By little and little I will drive them out from before thee.”… you simply cannot “destroy all people” while simultaneously “drive them out” “little by little”. These are hyperbolic expressions.
-
These same hyperbolic expressions are found in other war texts, of the same time period: Egyptian, Akkadian, etc.
Interpreting the Old Testament, which was written by some 40 different authors, over a time period of thousands of years, in a multitude of historical contexts, takes a lot of effort and leg-work. Some passages are very difficult to understand (this is to be expected… we are anywhere from 3,500 to 2,000 years removed from the original audience and the original historical context.)
In your response to Relates, you quote Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” <<< you have a misunderstanding of the word “evil” and the fact that it’s used in a multitude of different ways. When people of ancient culture got a disease, they could say they got “an evil disease”. Not being intended to mean “an immoral disease” or “I got this disease from a demon”… but rather a calamitous or unfortunate disease. The word that is translated “evil” is from a Hebrew word that means “calamity, affliction, adversity, distress, misery,” The context of Isaiah 45:7 is saying that God rewards Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience (remember this is ancient historical context… interestingly this view is challenged in Job). In other translations it says “I bring prosperity, and create disaster” “I send good times, and I send bad times” “I make well-being and create calamity” <<< this is more in line with the original meaning… giving life and taking it away; growing crops, and causing hurricanes… it’s simply saying God is in control of it all. Not that he creates “moral evil”.
I find your comparison of Christianity to the Taliban very misleading — Jesus says to further the Kingdom of God, by teaching all nations about the Gospel. Jesus never says to use violent force to do this, nor to kill those that don’t accept. The Taliban does not do this. Yes, both groups are attempting to spread their teachings… the difference is one is peaceful and the other is not.
You site things like the Crusades, burning-at-the-stakes, and oddly Hitler’s regime? Do you really believe that because some people have mishandled certain ideas that those ideas are now corrupt? Do we throw away guns because of a horrible shooting? Do we throw away evolutionary theory because have used them for justification of eugenics, and abortion? Do we throw away atheism because some people, who are atheists, have gone on murder-sprees? This is not good logic.
You talk about the speed of light, distant galaxies, and dinosaurs that lived long ago — you do realize that the majority of people on this site are not in hot dispute on the age of the earth, correct?
-Tim
2 Likes
That is your interpretation based on your upbringing, your cultural norm in your time. But time changes cultural norms rapidly. I still open a door for a female. Sexist or old fashion? I still say “Good morning , Father” when I see a priest half my age at a restaurant. Social convention “in my day” But it isn’t my day any more. I adapt to the times as best I could but I don’t criticize or judge somebody for sending me a birthday text instead of a birthday card.
Is the Curse handed down in Genesis 3 just? Is it just to all the innocent life forms not involved in The Fall event? Could you exact that curse? Could Satan exact that curse?
Sorry to join this conversation so late; I have been absent from Biologos for a long time, and am just now returning. I see some folks who might remember me, but also some new people here. The latter might be interested in my own history in light of the comments about people taking on the religions of their parents and cultures. My own family were militant atheists (and communists). I became a Christian pretty late in life (in my 50s). I am also a scientist, and I began to see the truth of Christ and the existence of God as being totally compatible with my scientific world view (which might surprise Ninksink and Patrick).
I think there might be some misunderstanding here about the meaning of free will and omnicience. God is not a really really smart and powerful guy, who happens to know everything. At least I dont think so. Nobody knows much about God. What we do know about God, is that He came to Earth in the form of a man, and spoke to us.
So what did God talk about, while he was amongst us? He didnt explain how He created the world, He didnt enlighten us about quantum mechanics or the mechanisms of gene regulation. What Christ told us was that human beings, ALL human beings are special and worthy of love. That forgiveness of sin can be universal.
I have read here about the injustice of the curse on mankind because of Adam and Eve’s sin of disobedience. That is an allegory. We are all sinners, not because of Adam’s act, but because we are human. We cannot avoid sin. But we can repent, we can try hard to sin less. And the message of Christ is that by sinning we do not lose the love of God. He is a forgiving and loving God. I think that is the message to keep in mind, not the allegorical and ancient writings meant for a very different culture at a different time.
2 Likes
Thank you so much for sharing this biographical information. In my experience, from those I know, it seems that people who come from a fundamentalist background and then lose faith are the most vehement atheists. Although I used to lament being raised with a shallow concept of the divine, I am now thankful I am not shackled by a fundamentalist upbringing or environment that punished questioning.
It’s also useful to know you ‘found’ Dawkins et al just two months ago. You certainly speak with the fervent black / white, either / or mentality so beloved by both fundamentalist “Christians” and passionate atheists. As a younger woman I longed to join the ranks of the latter, but reading Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens et al just felt, well, vacuous. If this was indeed the truth - that there is no God, that I am not the product of a beloved creator but a lucky product of a blind process with no purpose or direction, that my every impulse, desire and emotion - including “love”, rendered relative by this truth, charity, benevolence, etc. - is motivated merely by my desire to reproduce and survive, and indeed even that pesky, recalcitrant yearning for the sacred is nothing but an illusion designed to solidify my identification with a tribe which will ensure greater chances of survival… well, why did it feel so empty and unfulfilling? Why did the inevitable outcome of such a truth seem to be nihilism and voidiness (I make up words as needed)? I just couldn’t get hip to secular humanism no matter how hard I tried.
And then I had an incredible, ecstatic experience of the presence of God. And no, it’s not my burden to prove to you the existence of the supernatural, because that is impossible. I know Dawkins and the like say that’s preposterous and if I can’t subject claims of faith to scientific rigors of evaluation then they are necessarily bogus. I disagree. But the thing is, I can’t prove it. I will never be able to prove it. God’s nature, which I believe is revealed most fully in the person of Jesus Christ (and after my psychedelic epiphany I went through many different New Age-y understandings of God before meeting Jesus) is generally not ostentatious. As Jesus says, the kingdom is most often hidden, but if you seek it you will find it, and I’ve found it unfathomably lush, verdant and unspeakably beautiful. Yes, I’ve read the entirety of the OT, and there is plenty I don’t understand. But I know that nothing I can say to you, no argument I can present, can make you believe, just as there was nothing within the realm of human reason - which, to be clear, though an important realm is not the only or even the greatest realm - that could have made me believe back then. It was only the vivid experience of the living God.
You say in your original post: “So what is the purpose of this crazy live, suffer, die test? To whom’s benefit? Are we are on a stage for the heavenly host’s sick twisted entertainment? Sure seems that way. (however evolution explains the purpose of living suffering and dying perfectly).” I believe the purpose is to seek God and to live in his abundant presence. If you’re never felt that presence, this will of course seem like utter nonsense to you. But I ask of your last sentence - that evolution explains everything perfectly - does it? Really? And do you feel completely fulfilled by that explanation? If so, why are you on this forum arguing? I think you are seeking God pretty passionately. Good luck to you, brother!
p.s. I recommend reading “Proper Confidence” by Lesslie Newbigin - it was very helpful for me in understanding the true meaning of the word “faith” and how it relates to empiricism.
3 Likes
Not a fact - a social convention. In fact eye-to-eye contact is considered adulterous between a Muslim women and a western man. I would be disrespectful on my part to look into her eyes or extend my hand for a handshake. Different cultures/beliefs
I don’t recommend this as shutting off cell phone disables GPS emergency services. Never know when you going to need help. Different times/ techology
Purely local social convention from a bygone era.
You could imagine I am doing all sorts of things between responses. None would be true and accurate.
I don’t think it is respectful of people’s dignity and integrity to say that all people of different cultures and beliefs are sinners because they are human. In fact, I find it offensive.