ex-liberal – I too believe God has not abandoned the Jews; I just believe a people will be brought to their knees where they will feel compelled to pray for forgiveness and salvation. I do not believe the Jews are an exception; they are just hell-bent on their traditions.
Did God force the Jews to call for Jesus to be crucified? No, the evil was in them. The Jews called for the slaughter of Jesus, and no sin was in him.
Jesus came to save the sinner.
I hope my points are a little clearer now. I certainly do not believe Jesus will abandon the world of sinners.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
teddy –
“Why the hell is teaching morality and personal responsibility not up their with reading,writing and math in our schools?” by teddy
If believe you would need a consensus on the matter of what morality and personal responsibility entails first.
I appreciate your comments, teddy.
You ask, “Why the hell is teaching morality and personal responsibility not up their with reading, writing and math in our schools?”
Well, teddy, that’s really the parents’ job (a job too many have abdicated), but the schools try—and are an abject failure: morality and responsibility cannot be taught on a foundation of relativism and equality (socialism), which is the creed of the “progressives”, who have taken over nearly every institution in this country. Having those people teach morality is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house: carnage! I know: I’ve been IN the system and seen the abysmal failure of instilling accountability and responsibility in the children the schools have to deal with, too many of whom come from the same kind of “at sea” families, which do not teach their children manners or respect. The family and school “boats” are leaking badly, but too many families, and certainly the school system, don’t do what needs to be done. Instead of rebuilding the boats to make them seaworthy, using the tried and true blueprints of our Judeo-Christian belief system, they try to bail the boats with thimbles, all the while saying, “What a good job we’re doing!” It can’t and doesn’t work.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, it is the ABSENCE of a respect for Christianity and Judeo-Christian values, which presuppose order—there IS a right and wrong— justice, hierarchy, and respect that, IMO, is responsible for so much of the ethical breakdown we see just about everywhere in our society. Yes, with Christianity, there is a certain degree of hypocrisy. (“Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” Francois de La Rochefoucauld) I’d rather see that, however, than a shrug and, “It’s OK to do what I feel like doing—with no shame—because what I want is what I want and I’m entitled to have what I want”: that’s the new morality. And I don’t see a sea change here any time soon.
You say, “Surely their are some basics we could ALL agree on, no matter our backgrounds.” One would think so. But the Charter has “entitled and empowered” everyone to have their own version of “the good”. It’s now like the Tower of Babel. We all speak our own language and are supposed to. Hypocrisy again—getting rid of the old teachings does not get rid of hypocrisy! Although the new dispensation SAYS that all of us and our beliefs are equal, that’s not true. Notice that those being hauled before the Human Rights (sic) Commissions are generally believing Christians, whose beliefs are much more benign than those of other religious groups which get a free pass.
As I’ve pointed out, when Christianity is flushed out, the baby goes with the bathwater too. We should be very careful what we wish for—and think very carefully about what’s worth standing up for. (It would be nice if the Christopher Hitchens of the world had the sense to understand this.)
Joanne, you quoted Matthew 5:17-18
“Think not that I come to destroy the law…but to fulfill”
This verse proves my point that the law is over.
Jesus fulfilled the law Himself by leading a sinless life and then dying in our place – the just consequence for sin. If Jesus fulfilled the law, there is no more law to condemn those who believe on Jesus.
Paul did not contradict the Corinthians’ entirely when they said “All things are lawful”. He corrected them by saying “all things are not helpful” (1 Cor. 6:12). Don’t get me wrong, sin is still bad.
Jesus did not die just to save us from rituals and annoying ceremonially rules, he took the teeth out of the law entirely. The rituals were there to remind people of their sin. When Jesus came, we saw the very image of God and they were no longer neccessary.
In Matthew 5-6, Jesus articulates a law far more severe than the Mosaic one – and impossible to keep. He did this to prove to those pompous individuals who thought they were clean by keeping some 613 ordinances, that the law was something much deeper than that.
His sacrifice became the only solution.
The law is over for Christians, we do not realize it though because we are saved by hope and not a full reality in the present (Romans 8:23-25). The law is still tutoring us to a certain degree (Gal. 3:24) because we still have a sin nature.
If Jesus fulfilled the law, there is no more law to condemn those who believe on Jesus.
Without repentance the Law still applies.
Even with repentance, the Law still applies to criminal homocide;
1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
“SDC
So you think that the contemporary Jews who wrote the story didn’t know about that contemporary traditon and all its strictures? I think that the inclusion of the story lends credence to the story not de-legitimizes it. Had it not happened it would not have been invented because of the very tradition you quote.”
This is an interesting attempt to square this particular circle, Joe, because it assumes that the observant Jews who believed that their “prophet” was dead KNEW that said “prophet” would turn out to be resurrected when they went 3 days later to do something that is prohibited by their law (something that was their law THEN, and remains their law TODAY). This is an awfully “convenient” story, of the sort that EVERY religion has, and I can’t help but wonder why people don’t take an objective look at their own religion in the same way they look at others’; if another religion has holes in it the same way that Christianity does, the instant Christian reaction is “See? It doesn’t make sense because of the inconsistencies in the story, so it CAN’T be true.”, yet they are perfectly willing to gloss over the exact same sort of inconsistencies in their own religion. (Eg. the story of Joseph Smith being “given a new book of the Bible engraved on golden plates by an angel”, but those plates being taken back by that “angel” when people wanted to see them; everyone who is NOT a Mormon can instantly recognize this for a first-class con job, but Mormons believe it JUST as strongly as YOU believe the stories that YOUR religion is founded on. The same can be said for every OTHER religion as well.)
“Different apostles stating the version of the same events differently is absolutely and utterly normal and expected.”
The problem, Joanne, is that these stories are presented as “proof” of some sort of “miraculous event”, when (as presented), they wouldn’t normally be considered as “proof” of a NON-miraculous event. The whos, whats, wheres, whens, and hows related in each of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John not only do NOT agree on many of these things, in many instances they tell contradictory stories. If you were investigating a crime, and four different supposed “eye-witnesses” to that crime gave you four stories that differed from one another as much as THESE four do, you’d KNOW that someone was lying to you.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Why do I always have to come in at the tail-end of a thread?
I listened to the whole debate. And although both men were good representatives for their positions, the argument might as well be out of the 19th century.
Atheism vs. Christianity, as if these divisions still existed as they did in the time of the Scopes monkey trial.
Here are a few quick caveats.
1. I’ve said from time to time that Paul Tillich is on of my favorite theologians. Although theology has moved on, his imprint has been indelible. He is reknowned as one of the most important theologians of the 20th century.
He and others were very influenced by one teacher who suggested that in the modern world people have trouble relating to the imagery and period that the Bible is usually cast in.
So Tillich and others worked throughout their lives to recast the message of the Bible into ideas that could be studied in universities. So now there is Christianism as competitive, metaphysical, and epistemological positions that can be studied as philosophy. Tillich addressed the question, yes, but what does Christianism mean?
So Biblical, mythic imagery can be translated into ideas. And ideas can be translated into imagery.
If atheists feel they are bemused at Biblical imagery, then they need to be examining the rich and sophisticated world of Christianism as profound ideas about the nature of divinity and the nature of man and the nature of reality.
2. Today a large segment of theology completely understands that the Bible contains facts, contains legend, and even possibly some myth. Theology is not at all uncomfortable with this view. You understand that legend always contains elements of fact. Billy the Kid has had a lot of legends grown up around him, but the fact is that there really was a Billy the Kid, and he really did perform a lot of the things attributed to him. Today theology understands contemporary science and does not at all reject it.
In some departments of theology the direction taken by sub-atomic particles is being examined from the point of view of the direction being precluded by some divine hand.
3. We now have the dimension of transpersonal psychology. And as a consequence, we have some understanding that parts of a human being are not physical are are unconscious to the ordinary, waking psychology of a person. Carl Jung has even suggested that consciousness is not an epiphenomemon of matter. In other words, matter and earthly life did not create consciousness. Consciousness existed before the individual came to be born.
4. We now have a hundred years of psychical research like the ongoing programs in the psychology department at the University of Arizona. We have thirty or forty years of research into the near-death and ‘out-of-body’ experiences. Much of this research has passed through the levels of critical certainty, such as the work of Dr. Kenneth Ring and others. We now have a large number of accounts that suggest non-temporal realities and the survival of the personality after bodily death.
So people standing on a stage discussing atheiem and religion as if they are offering the final word on this matter simply sound like a discussion that should have taken place a hundred years ago.
SDC
Your logic is so twisted I won’t even try to reply. Let me finish off this thread by stating that my faith is not based on the Biblical accounts. It is based on personal experience. I entered my adulthood as an avowed atheist (actually more of a believer in scientism). It was only after He led me to belief in Him by introducing Himself to me that even began to study the Bible or theology. My faith is based on a real encounter with the Living God. I know you don’t want to believe that and that is your perogative. However I can say as a former atheist you don’t know what your missing. The empty philosophy of causeless causality is a game played by fools and the hopelessly conceited.
An old joke goes something like this: A scientist thought he had proved life evolved by creating life in the petrie dish and boasted in his heart “see God I can make life from these common elements.” Then that still small voice replied, “Now make your own elements out of nothing”.
Being human we love to stand on our own little pile of dung and think that we know it all. What we don’t know is that we are not on top of the dung we are underneath it and opening our mouths only makes us more full of it.
As I said earlier in this thread we will never learn anything if we think we know it all.
Stephen – St. Matthew 5: 18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Has heaven and earth passed? No.
I know many people exist Stephen who believe as you do. They usually believe that once they have given their life to Christ, they are saved for all eternity, no matter what sins they commit after that point. I do not know if you feel this same way too, but the Bible refutes this belief over and over.
When I get a chance, I’ll give you some Bible passages.
Joe – very funny analogy. I believe that a smart man knows enough to know he knows very little, and a stupid man doesn’t.
Joanne,
With regards to, “I do not know if you feel this way too”. I have struggled with the whole “once saved, always saved” question seeing some verses that seem to teach it and some that do not. I think that the challenge here might be that God, in His completeness, resides outside of time and has a more advanced concept of “sequence of events” than us. Please don’t put me in the camp with those that might think they can do anything now that they are saved. However, I do believe that God, in his merciful grace, does have a very long leash.
When Jesus says that “one jot or one tittle shall no wise pass from the law” I believe He was acknowledging that the law still has a place while the earth is still shrouded in sin – it points people to a saviour.
Also, many of the Old Testament prophecies, as yet, are still unfulfilled. Israel is being regathered, as prophesied, but they still have not converted en-masse to Jesus (Ezekiel 36-37). I believe this will occur after the anit-Christ.
The law, with its allusions to Christ is still pointing them to Jesus.
ol hoss, you quoted: “no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him” – 1 john 3:15
Jesus said whoever hates their brother without a cause has already murdered him (Matt. 5). So if a believer is annoyed at someone and losses their temper, does that mean that if they died that second they would go to hell? We are all way to sinful to be able to repent from all our individual sins as and after they happen. We are not even aware of all our sins. Grace has to step in at some point. You might agree with me here.
What I believe 1 John 3:15 is talking about might be a person who continually has muderous/hateful thoughts but does not recognize them as being wrong. – If someone does not recognize sin as wrong, I might question whether they were saved in the first place because then they would not need Jesus to save them.
“If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.” Romans 7:16,17
The only real un-reedemed sin occurs when we refuse to bring a sacrifice, and in the context of the OT law, that is “willfull” sin. Jesus is our sacrifice, there is no other that can save since the blood of bulls and goats could never cover all sins for people.
“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth there remains no more sacrifice for sin” – Hebrews 10:26
Joanne, Stephen et al. Your struggling with sin & sin nature is a very good thing and the once saved always saved debate is one that I have been involved with once in a while.
However as I have matured in my faith I came to realize that in these discussions I always made God too small. I always thought of God as reactive and not redemptive. I thought that if I committed sin, a big thumb would come out of the sky and squish me like a bug.
Since then I have grown up a bit. God does not treat us according to our actions but rather God treats us according to His plan. When I was most lost in sin God granted me more Grace. As Jesus said, “I didn’t come to condemn the world, I came to save it.” Looking back I can say that the times of my greatest suffering were when I was most sincerely trying to follow God’s leading. It almost seemed that I wasn’t being punished for my bad intents but for my good intents.
A few years ago my son’s were sharing a laugh with me saying that I had encouraged them to take a hard course in life so that they might be wealthier. As they struggled they would think to themselves, “Does Dad hate me this much”? Of course now they look back and can affirm that indeed I did love them and the hard course I laid out for them was more than worth it.
Looking back I too can say the course laid out for me by my Heavenly Father was indeed worth following.
Joe, your quote: “It almost seemed that I wasn’t being punished for my bad intents but for my good intents” brings to mind Psalm 34:19:
“Many are the afflictions of the righteous”
(actually I had to look it up)
It blows the “health and wealth gospel” heresy right out of the water (along with a whole lot of other verses).
Someone who is offended at the concept of suffering being redemptive should ask themselves, how do people learn empathy for each other? Is it not by walking in their shoes for a time? Even non-christians would have to admit this.
Because we humans have trouble exercising compassion and understanding without tasting a bit of suffering ourselves, it proves that suffering is indeed redemptive to a certain degree.
I appreciate the contribution of Christianity in the development of some of the better aspects of western civilization. I also appreciate the contribution of western civilization in the development of some of the better aspects of Christianity. I think it was and is a two way street. Seeds need fertile soil in which to grow and produce more seeds. I think that Greg from Dallas is talking about some of this ongoing dialog.
I was raised as a Christian but currently think of myself as positively agnostic even though that sounds dumb. I have rejected Christian theology but retained some of the philosophy if that makes more sense. I was given a new testament many years ago with the words of Jesus high-lited in yellow. I still read it and contemplate or even meditate on some of the tougher nuts. My favorite testament is Matthew.
My basic reason for rejecting Christian bible based theology is that it just seems way to complicated and more mythological and allegorical than factual.
When I contemplate questions affecting my life that are not in the empirical domain such as “is there life after death” I don’t need a complex theology to support my decision to believe the affirmative. To me it just makes for a better life to assume that their is some form of continuation after my demise, even though there is no apparent reason, that I can comprehend, for why this continuation might be so.
My moral values are surely derived from my western/Christian upbringing but they are basically condensed down to the golden rule.
There is a part of me that sees myself seeing myself or is in some way an observer of my life. I try to respect and acknowledge that particular aspect of the human condition in others.
Doug it is good to hear your honesty. Your present position could be what Jesus Himself spoke of, and when the mustard seed had grown, it became such a big plant that even the birds of the air took shelter in its branches.
However I think you got a bit sidetracked in trying to understand the Bible so you can understand God. Turn it around. Forget about trying to understand the Bible and all the vagaries of men’s understanding. Get to know God.
Experience Him in you every day and you will realize many of the theologies are little but men’s groping for what they do not know.
Lest anyone think I’m speaking heresy remember what Jesus said, “Seek the Kingdom first and all these other things will be added to you”.
Doug Newton,
“My basic reason for rejecting Christianity is that it just seems way to complicated…”
It is the complicated nature of the Bible that makes it so fascinating. 40 authors weaving together a common message over hundreds of years, explaining things that even they do not understand at the moment but that is revealed over time.
I personally believe that many “contradictions” in the Bible are nuances into deeper meanings. When the “contradictions” are solved, the supernatural nature of the bible is given further validation. Someone could just not make all this stuff up.
Consider even the golden rule:
Galatians 5:14 says that “all the law is fulfilled in one word. even in this: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ “.
However, when Jesus sums up a description of the law in Mark 12:29-31, He puts loving others behind the “first” commandment (however similar): “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all you strength.”
To the casual skeptic, this might seem like another Bible contradiction proving it is all false. However, I believe one must consider the time the statements took place. Before Jesus died, people had to be very concerned about trying their utmost to love God by obeying all sorts of rules. Jesus, before his death, had not yet torn down the enmity between people and God. (Eph. 2:15-16). After Jesus death, the purpose of the law changed somewhat (at least from a human perspective). This is all just a theory though, I may be wrong.
Thanks for your kind advice Joe.
Stephen
I expect ultimate reality to appear paradoxical from our limited perspective so I accept that there will be contradictions between Christians and between faiths.
When I acknowledge and respect in others that internal observer or witness that I mentioned, then I could say that I was acknowledging and respecting an aspect of the divine or infinite that I share with them, since this witness is the only part of me that I expect to survive, in some fashion, the death of the body and ego that is doug newton.
Stephen – Revelation 21:1 “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.”
This is all after the first resurrection and the 1000 years later when the Book Of Life is opened and the dead are judged.
Doug,
I agree with your first statement regarding people seeing different aspects of truth.
However, I do not believe that Chritians and Muslims, for example, basically follow the same “God” though (I don’t know if you believe this or not). There are some very stark contradictions that cannot be reconciled and I don’t believe we would be intellectually honest to try to do so.
I respect people’s “internal witness” to a degree.
I have heard plenty of stories of miracles from Christians which do help bolster my faith.
I do not automatically follow people’s feelings and “supernatural” inclinations though as being legitimate since we all (definitely including myself) are very capable of deceiving ourselves in a whole host of areas. I believe there is also a devil who performs miracles and who is more than willing to participate in our deceptions.
For me, the reason I believe in God as described in the Bible is very much based on empirical evidence – without which I think I would have rejected God long ago based on perceived injustices in the world. Sure, I cannot see life after death but faith has to come in somewhere.
The fact that there are millions or billions of followers of Islam proves there are a pretty large group of “witnesses” testifying to a certain idea. What I find compelling about Christianity is that Jesus proves Himself by those who do not confess to follow Him. The Bible is basically a passed-on history of Israel -a whole nation of witnesses. If we can find references to Jesus Christ in writings of Judaism (Old Testament evidence which I believe is substantial) we help prove that there was not a biased agenda to promote Jesus – this is just one more piece of empirical evidence as I see it. I believe Satan helps motivate anti-semitism to try and destroy God’s witness. Fulfilled Bible prophecy of a re-established Jewish state is just another piece of evidence. Israel is the evidence that keeps on giving. I believe Satan helps fuel anti-semitism because He wants to destroy God’s witness.
When you describe, “an aspect of the divine or infinite that I share”, I think of how God made every person in His “image” (Gen. 1:27). I don’t believe that each person makes up a little portion of God, but I believe God is a “person” who experiences emotions just like us (anger, sadness etc…). Maybe us being made in God’s image is why we believe there is life after death – we will inhabit eternity, like God.
Let me know if I am way off topic from what you were trying to discuss.
Doug – “My basic reason for rejecting Christian bible based theology is that it just seems way to complicated and more mythological and allegorical than factual.” by Doug
I find is amazing how I can have read a passage in the Bible numerous times and have no understanding, and then read it later and understand it fully. I have to wonder how I could not have understood it the first time when it seems so obvious now. Any lay person cannot read the Bible and make perfect sense from it. The Bible is a great book of mystery – its treasures stored up and its understanding reserved for those worthy.
..or perhaps I should have said “reserved for those unworthy”.
Joanne,
so if I understand you correctly, you believe there will be no more law only on the new earth (or way in the future)? I think I can agree with you somewhat. We can get a glimpse at Christ’s complete redemption now though.
In one of my early posts I said “No more law.” as a complete sentence. It helped trigger our mini-debate. I acknowledge it is wrong as a statement when standing on it’s own.
I do believe, however, that the purpose of the law in justifying people is over. We do not gain righteousness by keeping any laws or by any good deeds because Jesus did it all in our place.
When Romans 10:4 says, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (NKJV), I believe it shows an end to the law but only in the sense that it does not serve to justify people. Doing good deeds and keeping laws (of any type) will not get people into heaven.
Let me know if this changes the aspect of our debate any.
I do believe, however, that the purpose of the law in justifying people is over.
Actually it never began. The purpose of the Law always was to show us how far we had fallen not how to attain righteousness.
Jesus’ righteousness came from who He was (is) not what He did. Who He was (is) dictated what He did.
We on the other hand born with the nature of Adam act according to what we are and no amount of Law will change that.
Fortunately we, in Christ, receive a new nature at the time of our new birth.
“Your logic is so twisted I won’t even try to reply.”
Joe, THIS, coming from someone who’s prior argument was essentially “Yes, I know it doesn’t make sense, but that’s what makes it make sense”? It personally doesn’t matter to me exactly what you believe in (be it your chosen religion, ghosts in the attic, fortune-telling, the Loch Ness monster, little greeen men, or anything else that there is no verifiable evidence of), but it truly astounds me how so many people are willing to turn off their internal “fact-checker” (their sense of scepticism or “yeah, I’ve heard that one before”) when it comes to one thing and one thing only; their religion. I evaluate arguments on their own merits and evidence, and while keeping in mind the motivations of those who are presenting those arguments. That means that although I am a Conservative at heart, I don’t blindly accept what a Conservative politician tells me, any more than I blindly reject what a Liberal (ptooie) politician tells me. I evaluate their arguments based on those arguments and on the evidence in favour of or against those arguments, while keeping in mind the motivation of those people presenting those arguments.
SDC you are becoming a bit unhinged. I never said I blindly accepted anything. Religious, political, scientific, academic or pop culture just to hame a few. If you knew me the way my friends know me you would be calling me the biggest skeptic around.
What I will tell you again is that my belief is based on my experience and when I read the Bible I see my experience reflected in the experiences of the people in the Bible. I and literally Billions of other people have encountered the Risen Christ and your going to tell me that because you don’t think Mary tried to annoint a dead body those billions of people have not had a valid expience? Now I do feel sorry for you.
Your whole argument biols down to Law and Tradition says it can’t happen therefore it didn’t happen. My argument is people don’t always follow Law and Tradition. Look at the person in the story. She was a prostitute. Was she obeying law and tradition when she was peddling her wares? If she didn’t obey the laws and traditions when making her living what makes you think she is going to be too hung up on the law and tradition when it comes to death and burial rituals.
BTW the traditon you speak of was not as quite as inviolate as you would like to believe. People’s bodies were interred until the flesh rotted off the bone then the bones were disineterred and placed in boxes called osuaries.
Stephen – this is a very short read, but pretty much explains it as I also see it. You are not saved by your works, but are not saved without them.
“Besides, if we could be saved by works, then righteousness would have been based on the law and Christ would have not needed to die.” by the author on the link below. http://www.carm.org/questions/faith_works.htm
1 John 2:4 “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
There are statutes and judgments that do not come with retribution, but blessings and are solely for our well-being, such as the food laws. Deuteronomy states a way to live – what is wrong and isn’t wrong. There would be no way to know if some of these things were wrong unless it was stated to be so.
I always keep in mind that God loves us, so his laws, statutes, and judgments are for our well-being, health, and happiness, not for judgment or to take away our joy, but quite the opposite. When I read something I do not understand, I believe there is a reason for it that is for my own good….even if I do not understand it at the time.
Joe: “Actually it never began. the purpose of the law was always to show us how far we had fallen and not how to attain righteousness
I believe you are right. Israel got carried away with keeping laws because God made them conditional for an ordered life on this earth (ie. successfully inhabiting Israel)
God had to shift their perspective on the purpose of law with Jesus Christ. Keeping the law was never a means to salvation after death.
Joe: “Actually it never began. The purpose of the law was always to show us how far we had fallen and not how to attain righteousness”
I believe you are right. Israel got carried away with keeping laws because God made them conditional for an ordered life on this earth (ie. successfully inhabiting Israel)
God had to shift their perspective on the purpose of law with Jesus Christ. Keeping the law was never a means to salvation after death.
SDC forgive me if I am flogging a dead horse but your brand of atheism is not a very scientifically sound one. A scientist would look at the evidence from both sides and then devise an experiment to see which side is true. For instance I say that there are microbes living in water. You say since you can’t see them there are no microbes living in water. A dispassionate scientist would say lets build a microscope and find out which is true.
I say there is a God who loves you and wants to have a relationship with you. You say no such Being exists. My question is have you tried to find out or has your mind been made up from the beginning. I changed my mind based on my experience and I am certain that you too can share that experience. Until you try to gain that experience you are no more than a bag full of hot air spouting opinions about which you know nothing.
Your position reminds me of a little boy at Christmas time who gets a big box. He shakes it and it doesn’t rattle. He checks for heft and it feels like it is just a box with wrappin paper on it so he decides there is nothing in the box and he never opens it up. Had he opened the box he would have found an inheritance cheque from his Grandfather worth millions of dollars.
Until you make the effort don’t bother spewing.
Joanne,
I read the address you listed and I could not find anything to disagree with. I believe it was all an accurate evaluation of what the Bible says.
What I take issue with is Christians who might have a limited view of grace and say Jesus only ended the ceremonial part or the small details of the law. Who might say Christians are still incumbant to keep the rest of the law or else they are not really saved.
Galatians 5:18 says “if you are under the Spirit you are not under the law.” (NKJV). However, there is always a tendency for people to try and justify themselves with laws (ie. penance) because we are not always following the Spirit – I believe this is a misguided approach/solution.
It is only natural, that someone who is genuinely saved would produce some good works since by confession, they are agreeing with God that certain things are good or bad. They would not be honest with themselves if seeing Jesus changed nothing about them. Without any works, God will prove their whole conversion experience was false.
“BTW the traditon you speak of was not as quite as inviolate as you would like to believe. People’s bodies were interred until the flesh rotted off the bone then the bones were disineterred and placed in boxes called osuaries.”
You’re confusing two different traditions here, Joe, and I would hope that you’re not doing this deliberately. Unlike Judaism, the early forms of Christianity definitely have a tradition of keeping “relics”, among which are pieces of famous bodies or entire skeletons held in ossuaries.
My scepticism is based in personal experience, the same way your belief is. Since I see absolutely no evidence for the existence of any sort of “god”, I see no more reason to believe in a “god” than I do to believe in magical pink unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, fortune tellers, or any similar claimed phenomena. The reason “psychics” and similar con-artists have been so successful throughout history is that most people genuinely WANT to believe in these things, despite the evidence showing that they are fakes. Put into a religious context, this means that people who WANT to find a religious “explanation” for something (eg. “I prayed for wealth, and I won $40 in the lottery”) will FIND that “explanation”, all evidence to the contrary. Religion DOES provide a sort of mechanism that allows religious people to ease their minds, in that if they believe that some sort of omnipotent power is watchiong over them, they will allow themselves to be more at ease, because they believe that “god is in control”, but that has no relation at all to reality.
“A dispassionate scientist would say lets build a microscope and find out which is true.”
And since test after test conducted since the Middle Ages has not shown the existence of anything even RESEMBLING a “god” or supernatural powers, believing in such is akin to believing that the carton of milk in your refrigerator can answer your prayers. I’m open to looking at any sort of “evidence” you may have, but so far, any such “evidence” I’ve ever seen has come down to “You just have to believe”, which puts all religions at exactly the same place. If there IS a “god”, and if this “god” has the powers that you ascribe to him/her/it/them, then he/she/it/they are more than welcome to make their presence known to me at any time of their choosing, but I haven’t seen squat to that effect yet.
SDC
“And since test after test conducted since the”
Name one.
Name a test conducted at any time in history that proves the non-existance of God.
A wise man once said that we can only see what we know. Obviously your knowledge is lacking.
Instead of reading what you already believe try the experiment of reaching out to God. Make an honest effort and see what happens. Until then your opinions are little more than the sound of a tree falling in the forest and have no more bearing on this discussion than your re-interpretaion of history based on what you believe must have happened. The history of scholarship is littered with tales of fools who tried to revise history based on their own bigotries.
“Name a test conducted at any time in history that proves the non-existance of God.”
You’ve got the cart before the horse again, Joe. Since you’re making the claim that there IS a “god” the proof of that claim lies upon you. If I was making the claim that I had a Sasquatch in my freezer, or that there is a pink teapot orbiting Saturn, the claim would likewise be upon ME. There have been PLENTY of double-blind tests showing that “prayer” about something have absolutely no effect on whether or not that something actually occurs, but (as I said above), it may allow a person to relax in the belief that “someone else is in charge”. If it makes you feel better to belief that Zeus, or Horus, or Vishnu, or Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other “god” of your choice is in some sort of control over your life, it may make you feel better, but it has absolutely no relation to reality.
But SDC I just give you a test! Make an honest effort to find Him. If He doesn’t exist then all you have done is wasted a bit of time. If He does exist….
Put all your bluff and bravado to the test. I already did and found out that St Paul knew what he was talking about. Your turn.
Once upon a time (high school), I did exactly that. The result? Zip, zero, zilch, squat. Now, you DO realize that the sort of “test” you’re talking about isn’t any sort of test at all, and that it will just as easily “prove” to you that the block of butter in your refrigerator has supernatural powers, right? All you need to do is really, really, REALLY believe that said block of butter will answer your prayers, and it will miraculously start to answer your prayers. All that this “test” proves is that people who have a need to believe in the supernatural will find a way to believe in the supernatural, evidence or no evidence, which makes the idea of your test rather laughable, don’t you think?
SDC,
I see lots of evidence for God:
-Creation, natural laws and the beauty of nature
-Israel’s history, present existence and continually fulfilled prophecy.
-Testimony of faith of millions of believers
-Testimony of miracles of many people
-Miraculous speaking in tongues (which I have
personally witnessed)
– a supernatural awareness among people, whatever religion (ie even ancient tribes had to “appease spirits” etc…)
-unbelievably complex nature of the Bible
God makes it abundantly clear in the Bible that he will not perform miracles on demand for people who do not acknowledge evidence that is already there (ie. Mark 8:12).
Actually, there comes a point where a jealous God will actually work to confuse evidence in front of people who oppose Him or His purposes
(ie. 1 Kings 22:20-23; 2 Thess. 2:9-12).
SDC
Based on the way you are now ridiculing the experience of others I doubt that you made any such effort in High School. Yours are the retorts of the never tried not the responses of those who admit they have failed after sincerely trying.
Now go do the test and BTW I would like to know the names of the tests you alluded to earlier.
You see if you make a foolish statement its not up to your debating opponent to provide you with proof. That was your statement and as such is yours to back up with facts. In the mean time have fun in grade 10, too quickly it passes.
Stephen, the only thing that we are here PROVES is that we are here; it certainly doesn’t prove that we’re here as the result of any supernatural agency. Each of the remainder of your list is just as easily explained by that common human failing of “wanting to believe”; every human culture in history has had its share of people who claimed to have had some sort of supernatural powers (or connection to someone/something else that had those supernatural powers), and this is why being a mystic/seer/psychic/prophet/priest/medicine man/etc. has such a long and chequered past. The “prophecies” in various religions’ “holy books” are invariably so vague as to require a certain amount of “interpretation”, and of course that interpretation will be provided by those who have an interest in seeing those “prophecies” come true (exactly the mechanism that makes the predictions of horoscopes and Nostradamus so popular). If it was a simple matter of “testimony of faith”, all we would need to take a head count of which religion was the most popular, and that one would be the winner, right? Likewise, each religion has got its own myriad of “miracles” to point to to “prove” that it is the “one true religion”, no matter how questionable those “miracles” are. I’m reminded here of one of the supposed “Miracles of Fatima”, in which it was claimed that, in 1917, the sun actually danced around the sky for several minutes. This was attested to by numerous “eye-witnesses” at Fatima, Portugal, but there’s an inconvenient problem with this “miracle”; if the sun ACTUALLY “danced around the sky for several minutes”, how come NO-ONE ELSE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET NOTICED IT, least of all, thousands of soldiers on sentry duty in the trenches in France? So, given the choice of, on one hand, a case of an actual “miracle”, or, on the other, a case of mass hysteria by people who really, truly wanted to “witness a miracle”, I’m sure you can understand that my vote goes to mass hysteria. This “wanting to be part of something miraculous” likewise explains (and is a much more BELIEVABLE explanation, to boot) “speaking in tongues”; I’m sure 90% of the population can do a fairly convincing job of grunting, screaming, jabbering gibberish, and rolling on the floor if necessary. A “supernatural awareness” simply shows that most people have a DESIRE to believe that they are somehow special, and that some invisible, supernatural “parent figure” is looking out for them and can be appealed to for guidance or protection; this applies to modern religions just as well as it applies to stone-age tribes that desire to sacrifice a virgin to the “volcano god”. Finally, the complex nature of the Bible is nothing special; like all “holy books”, it was built up over a very long time, and every time a question was raised about one issue or other, the answer would either require long periods of “interpretation” (which had to be accepted without question, or you would be branded a “heretic”), or the “answer” would be along the lines of “if god wanted you to know the answer, god would have told you the answer”. I’m not singling Christianity out in this regard, since I don’t see any more evidence for any OTHER religion than I do for Christianity, but since these are the defences you raise on its behalf, that’s the way the debate is travelling.
Joe, I could do your test a thousand times, and unless I “miraculously” claimed to have seen your “god”, you would STILL not believe that I had made a good faith effort. (No different, I might add, than the Muslims who claim that all I need to do to be “saved” is to believe that “there is no god but allah, and Mohammed is his prophet”). There is no end of studies showing that prayer is a pointless exercise, but the most recent one I saw was a Harvard study of several hospitals and more 1500 patients who were undergoing heart surgery. This was a double-blind study (the same as those used in evaluations of medications), so that both the researchers and individual patients would not know if they were being prayed for or not, and each patient was tracked and graded as to how well they responded. In fact, the study showed that those patients who were prayed for did WORSE than those who weren’t prayed for, but still within the statistical deviation that you would reasonably expect (that is, no different from pure, random chance). A short synopsis of the study can be seen at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5313042 , but a more thorough look is contained at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403133554.htm As for “You see if you make a foolish statement its not up to your debating opponent to provide you with proof”, the foolish statement being made here is that there is an invisible omnipotent man in the sky that has the ability to control everyone and everything; I await your proof, if you have any.
SDC, I don’t doubt that some “miracles” can be accurately explained by personal delusions, biases, mass hysteria or natural anomalies – I just don’t believe that this accounts for all of them. It is also not a simple matter of peoples’ “testimony of faith” – this is just one more piece of the puzzle. I would not base my beliefs merely on a hand-count. I also would not expect God to produce results for any medical study trying to prove or disprove the effectiveness of prayer.
SDC
I have never said you would see God and because you compare Allah to Yahweh you confirm my suspicion of never trying my test in the first place. You don’t want to do the test I have no objection. I simply ask that you have the integrity to admit there are things that you don’t understand and then the maturity not to belittle other’s beliefs.
I honestly try not to belittle Islam. I examined its history, beliefs, scriptures and its theology then reached my conclusion, comparing of course my own experience to that of Muslims and former Muslims I am familiar with. I am picking Islam because it you mentioned it in your last post and I don’t want to take up Kate’s bandwidth with comparative religion courses.
Islam I put into the sam category as Mormonism simply because only one man reportedly had the ‘divine encounter’ I tend to be wary of like pronouncements. Jesus said that a minimum of two or three witnesses were required. The Bible has many witnesses including 4 different accounts of the ministry of Jesus. Jesus Himself stands in a long line of tradition and history. Islam can’t even get its history straight. It says that the sister of Moses is the mother of Jesus. That would make Miriam over 1000 years old when she gave birth to Jesus.
The Bible recounts real encounters with a Living God who expresses will and grants the ability to accomplish that will. Islam worships a god whose reaction could be that of a rock. Allah’s will remains a mystery and can never be known. The Christian God, Yahweh, loves His creation so much that it does not have to please or appease Him. According to Islam the blind appeasement and pleasing of Allah is everything required.
When I talk to a Christian I constantly hear about answered prayer and I have experienced it myself. When I talk to Muslims and former Muslims, they can never recount even one answered prayer offered up to Allah.
Nevertheless I disagree with people of all kinds of faiths including I might add atheists but I try to do it with at least some modicum of respect for a position honestly held. In your case however I detect from your infantile mocking, that you are operating from a default position and not a well thought out position so I tend to treat you with a lot less respect.
ex-liberal – I too believe God has not abandoned the Jews; I just believe a people will be brought to their knees where they will feel compelled to pray for forgiveness and salvation. I do not believe the Jews are an exception; they are just hell-bent on their traditions.
Did God force the Jews to call for Jesus to be crucified? No, the evil was in them. The Jews called for the slaughter of Jesus, and no sin was in him.
Jesus came to save the sinner.
I hope my points are a little clearer now. I certainly do not believe Jesus will abandon the world of sinners.
John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
teddy –
“Why the hell is teaching morality and personal responsibility not up their with reading,writing and math in our schools?” by teddy
If believe you would need a consensus on the matter of what morality and personal responsibility entails first.
I appreciate your comments, teddy.
You ask, “Why the hell is teaching morality and personal responsibility not up their with reading, writing and math in our schools?”
Well, teddy, that’s really the parents’ job (a job too many have abdicated), but the schools try—and are an abject failure: morality and responsibility cannot be taught on a foundation of relativism and equality (socialism), which is the creed of the “progressives”, who have taken over nearly every institution in this country. Having those people teach morality is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house: carnage! I know: I’ve been IN the system and seen the abysmal failure of instilling accountability and responsibility in the children the schools have to deal with, too many of whom come from the same kind of “at sea” families, which do not teach their children manners or respect. The family and school “boats” are leaking badly, but too many families, and certainly the school system, don’t do what needs to be done. Instead of rebuilding the boats to make them seaworthy, using the tried and true blueprints of our Judeo-Christian belief system, they try to bail the boats with thimbles, all the while saying, “What a good job we’re doing!” It can’t and doesn’t work.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, it is the ABSENCE of a respect for Christianity and Judeo-Christian values, which presuppose order—there IS a right and wrong— justice, hierarchy, and respect that, IMO, is responsible for so much of the ethical breakdown we see just about everywhere in our society. Yes, with Christianity, there is a certain degree of hypocrisy. (“Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue.” Francois de La Rochefoucauld) I’d rather see that, however, than a shrug and, “It’s OK to do what I feel like doing—with no shame—because what I want is what I want and I’m entitled to have what I want”: that’s the new morality. And I don’t see a sea change here any time soon.
You say, “Surely their are some basics we could ALL agree on, no matter our backgrounds.” One would think so. But the Charter has “entitled and empowered” everyone to have their own version of “the good”. It’s now like the Tower of Babel. We all speak our own language and are supposed to. Hypocrisy again—getting rid of the old teachings does not get rid of hypocrisy! Although the new dispensation SAYS that all of us and our beliefs are equal, that’s not true. Notice that those being hauled before the Human Rights (sic) Commissions are generally believing Christians, whose beliefs are much more benign than those of other religious groups which get a free pass.
As I’ve pointed out, when Christianity is flushed out, the baby goes with the bathwater too. We should be very careful what we wish for—and think very carefully about what’s worth standing up for. (It would be nice if the Christopher Hitchens of the world had the sense to understand this.)
Joanne, you quoted Matthew 5:17-18
“Think not that I come to destroy the law…but to fulfill”
This verse proves my point that the law is over.
Jesus fulfilled the law Himself by leading a sinless life and then dying in our place – the just consequence for sin. If Jesus fulfilled the law, there is no more law to condemn those who believe on Jesus.
Paul did not contradict the Corinthians’ entirely when they said “All things are lawful”. He corrected them by saying “all things are not helpful” (1 Cor. 6:12). Don’t get me wrong, sin is still bad.
Jesus did not die just to save us from rituals and annoying ceremonially rules, he took the teeth out of the law entirely. The rituals were there to remind people of their sin. When Jesus came, we saw the very image of God and they were no longer neccessary.
In Matthew 5-6, Jesus articulates a law far more severe than the Mosaic one – and impossible to keep. He did this to prove to those pompous individuals who thought they were clean by keeping some 613 ordinances, that the law was something much deeper than that.
His sacrifice became the only solution.
The law is over for Christians, we do not realize it though because we are saved by hope and not a full reality in the present (Romans 8:23-25). The law is still tutoring us to a certain degree (Gal. 3:24) because we still have a sin nature.
If Jesus fulfilled the law, there is no more law to condemn those who believe on Jesus.
Without repentance the Law still applies.
Even with repentance, the Law still applies to criminal homocide;
1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
“SDC
So you think that the contemporary Jews who wrote the story didn’t know about that contemporary traditon and all its strictures? I think that the inclusion of the story lends credence to the story not de-legitimizes it. Had it not happened it would not have been invented because of the very tradition you quote.”
This is an interesting attempt to square this particular circle, Joe, because it assumes that the observant Jews who believed that their “prophet” was dead KNEW that said “prophet” would turn out to be resurrected when they went 3 days later to do something that is prohibited by their law (something that was their law THEN, and remains their law TODAY). This is an awfully “convenient” story, of the sort that EVERY religion has, and I can’t help but wonder why people don’t take an objective look at their own religion in the same way they look at others’; if another religion has holes in it the same way that Christianity does, the instant Christian reaction is “See? It doesn’t make sense because of the inconsistencies in the story, so it CAN’T be true.”, yet they are perfectly willing to gloss over the exact same sort of inconsistencies in their own religion. (Eg. the story of Joseph Smith being “given a new book of the Bible engraved on golden plates by an angel”, but those plates being taken back by that “angel” when people wanted to see them; everyone who is NOT a Mormon can instantly recognize this for a first-class con job, but Mormons believe it JUST as strongly as YOU believe the stories that YOUR religion is founded on. The same can be said for every OTHER religion as well.)
“Different apostles stating the version of the same events differently is absolutely and utterly normal and expected.”
The problem, Joanne, is that these stories are presented as “proof” of some sort of “miraculous event”, when (as presented), they wouldn’t normally be considered as “proof” of a NON-miraculous event. The whos, whats, wheres, whens, and hows related in each of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John not only do NOT agree on many of these things, in many instances they tell contradictory stories. If you were investigating a crime, and four different supposed “eye-witnesses” to that crime gave you four stories that differed from one another as much as THESE four do, you’d KNOW that someone was lying to you.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Why do I always have to come in at the tail-end of a thread?
I listened to the whole debate. And although both men were good representatives for their positions, the argument might as well be out of the 19th century.
Atheism vs. Christianity, as if these divisions still existed as they did in the time of the Scopes monkey trial.
Here are a few quick caveats.
1. I’ve said from time to time that Paul Tillich is on of my favorite theologians. Although theology has moved on, his imprint has been indelible. He is reknowned as one of the most important theologians of the 20th century.
He and others were very influenced by one teacher who suggested that in the modern world people have trouble relating to the imagery and period that the Bible is usually cast in.
So Tillich and others worked throughout their lives to recast the message of the Bible into ideas that could be studied in universities. So now there is Christianism as competitive, metaphysical, and epistemological positions that can be studied as philosophy. Tillich addressed the question, yes, but what does Christianism mean?
So Biblical, mythic imagery can be translated into ideas. And ideas can be translated into imagery.
If atheists feel they are bemused at Biblical imagery, then they need to be examining the rich and sophisticated world of Christianism as profound ideas about the nature of divinity and the nature of man and the nature of reality.
2. Today a large segment of theology completely understands that the Bible contains facts, contains legend, and even possibly some myth. Theology is not at all uncomfortable with this view. You understand that legend always contains elements of fact. Billy the Kid has had a lot of legends grown up around him, but the fact is that there really was a Billy the Kid, and he really did perform a lot of the things attributed to him. Today theology understands contemporary science and does not at all reject it.
In some departments of theology the direction taken by sub-atomic particles is being examined from the point of view of the direction being precluded by some divine hand.
3. We now have the dimension of transpersonal psychology. And as a consequence, we have some understanding that parts of a human being are not physical are are unconscious to the ordinary, waking psychology of a person. Carl Jung has even suggested that consciousness is not an epiphenomemon of matter. In other words, matter and earthly life did not create consciousness. Consciousness existed before the individual came to be born.
4. We now have a hundred years of psychical research like the ongoing programs in the psychology department at the University of Arizona. We have thirty or forty years of research into the near-death and ‘out-of-body’ experiences. Much of this research has passed through the levels of critical certainty, such as the work of Dr. Kenneth Ring and others. We now have a large number of accounts that suggest non-temporal realities and the survival of the personality after bodily death.
So people standing on a stage discussing atheiem and religion as if they are offering the final word on this matter simply sound like a discussion that should have taken place a hundred years ago.
SDC
Your logic is so twisted I won’t even try to reply. Let me finish off this thread by stating that my faith is not based on the Biblical accounts. It is based on personal experience. I entered my adulthood as an avowed atheist (actually more of a believer in scientism). It was only after He led me to belief in Him by introducing Himself to me that even began to study the Bible or theology. My faith is based on a real encounter with the Living God. I know you don’t want to believe that and that is your perogative. However I can say as a former atheist you don’t know what your missing. The empty philosophy of causeless causality is a game played by fools and the hopelessly conceited.
An old joke goes something like this: A scientist thought he had proved life evolved by creating life in the petrie dish and boasted in his heart “see God I can make life from these common elements.” Then that still small voice replied, “Now make your own elements out of nothing”.
Being human we love to stand on our own little pile of dung and think that we know it all. What we don’t know is that we are not on top of the dung we are underneath it and opening our mouths only makes us more full of it.
As I said earlier in this thread we will never learn anything if we think we know it all.
Stephen – St. Matthew 5: 18 “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
Has heaven and earth passed? No.
I know many people exist Stephen who believe as you do. They usually believe that once they have given their life to Christ, they are saved for all eternity, no matter what sins they commit after that point. I do not know if you feel this same way too, but the Bible refutes this belief over and over.
When I get a chance, I’ll give you some Bible passages.
Joe – very funny analogy. I believe that a smart man knows enough to know he knows very little, and a stupid man doesn’t.
Joanne,
With regards to, “I do not know if you feel this way too”. I have struggled with the whole “once saved, always saved” question seeing some verses that seem to teach it and some that do not. I think that the challenge here might be that God, in His completeness, resides outside of time and has a more advanced concept of “sequence of events” than us. Please don’t put me in the camp with those that might think they can do anything now that they are saved. However, I do believe that God, in his merciful grace, does have a very long leash.
When Jesus says that “one jot or one tittle shall no wise pass from the law” I believe He was acknowledging that the law still has a place while the earth is still shrouded in sin – it points people to a saviour.
Also, many of the Old Testament prophecies, as yet, are still unfulfilled. Israel is being regathered, as prophesied, but they still have not converted en-masse to Jesus (Ezekiel 36-37). I believe this will occur after the anit-Christ.
The law, with its allusions to Christ is still pointing them to Jesus.
ol hoss, you quoted: “no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him” – 1 john 3:15
Jesus said whoever hates their brother without a cause has already murdered him (Matt. 5). So if a believer is annoyed at someone and losses their temper, does that mean that if they died that second they would go to hell? We are all way to sinful to be able to repent from all our individual sins as and after they happen. We are not even aware of all our sins. Grace has to step in at some point. You might agree with me here.
What I believe 1 John 3:15 is talking about might be a person who continually has muderous/hateful thoughts but does not recognize them as being wrong. – If someone does not recognize sin as wrong, I might question whether they were saved in the first place because then they would not need Jesus to save them.
“If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.” Romans 7:16,17
The only real un-reedemed sin occurs when we refuse to bring a sacrifice, and in the context of the OT law, that is “willfull” sin. Jesus is our sacrifice, there is no other that can save since the blood of bulls and goats could never cover all sins for people.
“For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth there remains no more sacrifice for sin” – Hebrews 10:26
Joanne, Stephen et al. Your struggling with sin & sin nature is a very good thing and the once saved always saved debate is one that I have been involved with once in a while.
However as I have matured in my faith I came to realize that in these discussions I always made God too small. I always thought of God as reactive and not redemptive. I thought that if I committed sin, a big thumb would come out of the sky and squish me like a bug.
Since then I have grown up a bit. God does not treat us according to our actions but rather God treats us according to His plan. When I was most lost in sin God granted me more Grace. As Jesus said, “I didn’t come to condemn the world, I came to save it.” Looking back I can say that the times of my greatest suffering were when I was most sincerely trying to follow God’s leading. It almost seemed that I wasn’t being punished for my bad intents but for my good intents.
A few years ago my son’s were sharing a laugh with me saying that I had encouraged them to take a hard course in life so that they might be wealthier. As they struggled they would think to themselves, “Does Dad hate me this much”? Of course now they look back and can affirm that indeed I did love them and the hard course I laid out for them was more than worth it.
Looking back I too can say the course laid out for me by my Heavenly Father was indeed worth following.
Joe, your quote: “It almost seemed that I wasn’t being punished for my bad intents but for my good intents” brings to mind Psalm 34:19:
“Many are the afflictions of the righteous”
(actually I had to look it up)
It blows the “health and wealth gospel” heresy right out of the water (along with a whole lot of other verses).
Someone who is offended at the concept of suffering being redemptive should ask themselves, how do people learn empathy for each other? Is it not by walking in their shoes for a time? Even non-christians would have to admit this.
Because we humans have trouble exercising compassion and understanding without tasting a bit of suffering ourselves, it proves that suffering is indeed redemptive to a certain degree.
I appreciate the contribution of Christianity in the development of some of the better aspects of western civilization. I also appreciate the contribution of western civilization in the development of some of the better aspects of Christianity. I think it was and is a two way street. Seeds need fertile soil in which to grow and produce more seeds. I think that Greg from Dallas is talking about some of this ongoing dialog.
I was raised as a Christian but currently think of myself as positively agnostic even though that sounds dumb. I have rejected Christian theology but retained some of the philosophy if that makes more sense. I was given a new testament many years ago with the words of Jesus high-lited in yellow. I still read it and contemplate or even meditate on some of the tougher nuts. My favorite testament is Matthew.
My basic reason for rejecting Christian bible based theology is that it just seems way to complicated and more mythological and allegorical than factual.
When I contemplate questions affecting my life that are not in the empirical domain such as “is there life after death” I don’t need a complex theology to support my decision to believe the affirmative. To me it just makes for a better life to assume that their is some form of continuation after my demise, even though there is no apparent reason, that I can comprehend, for why this continuation might be so.
My moral values are surely derived from my western/Christian upbringing but they are basically condensed down to the golden rule.
There is a part of me that sees myself seeing myself or is in some way an observer of my life. I try to respect and acknowledge that particular aspect of the human condition in others.
Doug it is good to hear your honesty. Your present position could be what Jesus Himself spoke of, and when the mustard seed had grown, it became such a big plant that even the birds of the air took shelter in its branches.
However I think you got a bit sidetracked in trying to understand the Bible so you can understand God. Turn it around. Forget about trying to understand the Bible and all the vagaries of men’s understanding. Get to know God.
Experience Him in you every day and you will realize many of the theologies are little but men’s groping for what they do not know.
Lest anyone think I’m speaking heresy remember what Jesus said, “Seek the Kingdom first and all these other things will be added to you”.
Doug Newton,
“My basic reason for rejecting Christianity is that it just seems way to complicated…”
It is the complicated nature of the Bible that makes it so fascinating. 40 authors weaving together a common message over hundreds of years, explaining things that even they do not understand at the moment but that is revealed over time.
I personally believe that many “contradictions” in the Bible are nuances into deeper meanings. When the “contradictions” are solved, the supernatural nature of the bible is given further validation. Someone could just not make all this stuff up.
Consider even the golden rule:
Galatians 5:14 says that “all the law is fulfilled in one word. even in this: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’ “.
However, when Jesus sums up a description of the law in Mark 12:29-31, He puts loving others behind the “first” commandment (however similar): “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all you strength.”
To the casual skeptic, this might seem like another Bible contradiction proving it is all false. However, I believe one must consider the time the statements took place. Before Jesus died, people had to be very concerned about trying their utmost to love God by obeying all sorts of rules. Jesus, before his death, had not yet torn down the enmity between people and God. (Eph. 2:15-16). After Jesus death, the purpose of the law changed somewhat (at least from a human perspective). This is all just a theory though, I may be wrong.
Thanks for your kind advice Joe.
Stephen
I expect ultimate reality to appear paradoxical from our limited perspective so I accept that there will be contradictions between Christians and between faiths.
When I acknowledge and respect in others that internal observer or witness that I mentioned, then I could say that I was acknowledging and respecting an aspect of the divine or infinite that I share with them, since this witness is the only part of me that I expect to survive, in some fashion, the death of the body and ego that is doug newton.
Stephen – Revelation 21:1 “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.”
This is all after the first resurrection and the 1000 years later when the Book Of Life is opened and the dead are judged.
Doug,
I agree with your first statement regarding people seeing different aspects of truth.
However, I do not believe that Chritians and Muslims, for example, basically follow the same “God” though (I don’t know if you believe this or not). There are some very stark contradictions that cannot be reconciled and I don’t believe we would be intellectually honest to try to do so.
I respect people’s “internal witness” to a degree.
I have heard plenty of stories of miracles from Christians which do help bolster my faith.
I do not automatically follow people’s feelings and “supernatural” inclinations though as being legitimate since we all (definitely including myself) are very capable of deceiving ourselves in a whole host of areas. I believe there is also a devil who performs miracles and who is more than willing to participate in our deceptions.
For me, the reason I believe in God as described in the Bible is very much based on empirical evidence – without which I think I would have rejected God long ago based on perceived injustices in the world. Sure, I cannot see life after death but faith has to come in somewhere.
The fact that there are millions or billions of followers of Islam proves there are a pretty large group of “witnesses” testifying to a certain idea. What I find compelling about Christianity is that Jesus proves Himself by those who do not confess to follow Him. The Bible is basically a passed-on history of Israel -a whole nation of witnesses. If we can find references to Jesus Christ in writings of Judaism (Old Testament evidence which I believe is substantial) we help prove that there was not a biased agenda to promote Jesus – this is just one more piece of empirical evidence as I see it. I believe Satan helps motivate anti-semitism to try and destroy God’s witness. Fulfilled Bible prophecy of a re-established Jewish state is just another piece of evidence. Israel is the evidence that keeps on giving. I believe Satan helps fuel anti-semitism because He wants to destroy God’s witness.
When you describe, “an aspect of the divine or infinite that I share”, I think of how God made every person in His “image” (Gen. 1:27). I don’t believe that each person makes up a little portion of God, but I believe God is a “person” who experiences emotions just like us (anger, sadness etc…). Maybe us being made in God’s image is why we believe there is life after death – we will inhabit eternity, like God.
Let me know if I am way off topic from what you were trying to discuss.
Doug – “My basic reason for rejecting Christian bible based theology is that it just seems way to complicated and more mythological and allegorical than factual.” by Doug
I find is amazing how I can have read a passage in the Bible numerous times and have no understanding, and then read it later and understand it fully. I have to wonder how I could not have understood it the first time when it seems so obvious now. Any lay person cannot read the Bible and make perfect sense from it. The Bible is a great book of mystery – its treasures stored up and its understanding reserved for those worthy.
..or perhaps I should have said “reserved for those unworthy”.
Joanne,
so if I understand you correctly, you believe there will be no more law only on the new earth (or way in the future)? I think I can agree with you somewhat. We can get a glimpse at Christ’s complete redemption now though.
In one of my early posts I said “No more law.” as a complete sentence. It helped trigger our mini-debate. I acknowledge it is wrong as a statement when standing on it’s own.
I do believe, however, that the purpose of the law in justifying people is over. We do not gain righteousness by keeping any laws or by any good deeds because Jesus did it all in our place.
When Romans 10:4 says, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (NKJV), I believe it shows an end to the law but only in the sense that it does not serve to justify people. Doing good deeds and keeping laws (of any type) will not get people into heaven.
Let me know if this changes the aspect of our debate any.
I do believe, however, that the purpose of the law in justifying people is over.
Actually it never began. The purpose of the Law always was to show us how far we had fallen not how to attain righteousness.
Jesus’ righteousness came from who He was (is) not what He did. Who He was (is) dictated what He did.
We on the other hand born with the nature of Adam act according to what we are and no amount of Law will change that.
Fortunately we, in Christ, receive a new nature at the time of our new birth.
“Your logic is so twisted I won’t even try to reply.”
Joe, THIS, coming from someone who’s prior argument was essentially “Yes, I know it doesn’t make sense, but that’s what makes it make sense”? It personally doesn’t matter to me exactly what you believe in (be it your chosen religion, ghosts in the attic, fortune-telling, the Loch Ness monster, little greeen men, or anything else that there is no verifiable evidence of), but it truly astounds me how so many people are willing to turn off their internal “fact-checker” (their sense of scepticism or “yeah, I’ve heard that one before”) when it comes to one thing and one thing only; their religion. I evaluate arguments on their own merits and evidence, and while keeping in mind the motivations of those who are presenting those arguments. That means that although I am a Conservative at heart, I don’t blindly accept what a Conservative politician tells me, any more than I blindly reject what a Liberal (ptooie) politician tells me. I evaluate their arguments based on those arguments and on the evidence in favour of or against those arguments, while keeping in mind the motivation of those people presenting those arguments.
SDC you are becoming a bit unhinged. I never said I blindly accepted anything. Religious, political, scientific, academic or pop culture just to hame a few. If you knew me the way my friends know me you would be calling me the biggest skeptic around.
What I will tell you again is that my belief is based on my experience and when I read the Bible I see my experience reflected in the experiences of the people in the Bible. I and literally Billions of other people have encountered the Risen Christ and your going to tell me that because you don’t think Mary tried to annoint a dead body those billions of people have not had a valid expience? Now I do feel sorry for you.
Your whole argument biols down to Law and Tradition says it can’t happen therefore it didn’t happen. My argument is people don’t always follow Law and Tradition. Look at the person in the story. She was a prostitute. Was she obeying law and tradition when she was peddling her wares? If she didn’t obey the laws and traditions when making her living what makes you think she is going to be too hung up on the law and tradition when it comes to death and burial rituals.
BTW the traditon you speak of was not as quite as inviolate as you would like to believe. People’s bodies were interred until the flesh rotted off the bone then the bones were disineterred and placed in boxes called osuaries.
Stephen – this is a very short read, but pretty much explains it as I also see it. You are not saved by your works, but are not saved without them.
“Besides, if we could be saved by works, then righteousness would have been based on the law and Christ would have not needed to die.” by the author on the link below.
http://www.carm.org/questions/faith_works.htm
1 John 2:4 “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.”
There are statutes and judgments that do not come with retribution, but blessings and are solely for our well-being, such as the food laws. Deuteronomy states a way to live – what is wrong and isn’t wrong. There would be no way to know if some of these things were wrong unless it was stated to be so.
I always keep in mind that God loves us, so his laws, statutes, and judgments are for our well-being, health, and happiness, not for judgment or to take away our joy, but quite the opposite. When I read something I do not understand, I believe there is a reason for it that is for my own good….even if I do not understand it at the time.
Joe: “Actually it never began. the purpose of the law was always to show us how far we had fallen and not how to attain righteousness
I believe you are right. Israel got carried away with keeping laws because God made them conditional for an ordered life on this earth (ie. successfully inhabiting Israel)
God had to shift their perspective on the purpose of law with Jesus Christ. Keeping the law was never a means to salvation after death.
Joe: “Actually it never began. The purpose of the law was always to show us how far we had fallen and not how to attain righteousness”
I believe you are right. Israel got carried away with keeping laws because God made them conditional for an ordered life on this earth (ie. successfully inhabiting Israel)
God had to shift their perspective on the purpose of law with Jesus Christ. Keeping the law was never a means to salvation after death.
SDC forgive me if I am flogging a dead horse but your brand of atheism is not a very scientifically sound one. A scientist would look at the evidence from both sides and then devise an experiment to see which side is true. For instance I say that there are microbes living in water. You say since you can’t see them there are no microbes living in water. A dispassionate scientist would say lets build a microscope and find out which is true.
I say there is a God who loves you and wants to have a relationship with you. You say no such Being exists. My question is have you tried to find out or has your mind been made up from the beginning. I changed my mind based on my experience and I am certain that you too can share that experience. Until you try to gain that experience you are no more than a bag full of hot air spouting opinions about which you know nothing.
Your position reminds me of a little boy at Christmas time who gets a big box. He shakes it and it doesn’t rattle. He checks for heft and it feels like it is just a box with wrappin paper on it so he decides there is nothing in the box and he never opens it up. Had he opened the box he would have found an inheritance cheque from his Grandfather worth millions of dollars.
Until you make the effort don’t bother spewing.
Joanne,
I read the address you listed and I could not find anything to disagree with. I believe it was all an accurate evaluation of what the Bible says.
What I take issue with is Christians who might have a limited view of grace and say Jesus only ended the ceremonial part or the small details of the law. Who might say Christians are still incumbant to keep the rest of the law or else they are not really saved.
Galatians 5:18 says “if you are under the Spirit you are not under the law.” (NKJV). However, there is always a tendency for people to try and justify themselves with laws (ie. penance) because we are not always following the Spirit – I believe this is a misguided approach/solution.
It is only natural, that someone who is genuinely saved would produce some good works since by confession, they are agreeing with God that certain things are good or bad. They would not be honest with themselves if seeing Jesus changed nothing about them. Without any works, God will prove their whole conversion experience was false.
“BTW the traditon you speak of was not as quite as inviolate as you would like to believe. People’s bodies were interred until the flesh rotted off the bone then the bones were disineterred and placed in boxes called osuaries.”
You’re confusing two different traditions here, Joe, and I would hope that you’re not doing this deliberately. Unlike Judaism, the early forms of Christianity definitely have a tradition of keeping “relics”, among which are pieces of famous bodies or entire skeletons held in ossuaries.
My scepticism is based in personal experience, the same way your belief is. Since I see absolutely no evidence for the existence of any sort of “god”, I see no more reason to believe in a “god” than I do to believe in magical pink unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, ghosts, fortune tellers, or any similar claimed phenomena. The reason “psychics” and similar con-artists have been so successful throughout history is that most people genuinely WANT to believe in these things, despite the evidence showing that they are fakes. Put into a religious context, this means that people who WANT to find a religious “explanation” for something (eg. “I prayed for wealth, and I won $40 in the lottery”) will FIND that “explanation”, all evidence to the contrary. Religion DOES provide a sort of mechanism that allows religious people to ease their minds, in that if they believe that some sort of omnipotent power is watchiong over them, they will allow themselves to be more at ease, because they believe that “god is in control”, but that has no relation at all to reality.
“A dispassionate scientist would say lets build a microscope and find out which is true.”
And since test after test conducted since the Middle Ages has not shown the existence of anything even RESEMBLING a “god” or supernatural powers, believing in such is akin to believing that the carton of milk in your refrigerator can answer your prayers. I’m open to looking at any sort of “evidence” you may have, but so far, any such “evidence” I’ve ever seen has come down to “You just have to believe”, which puts all religions at exactly the same place. If there IS a “god”, and if this “god” has the powers that you ascribe to him/her/it/them, then he/she/it/they are more than welcome to make their presence known to me at any time of their choosing, but I haven’t seen squat to that effect yet.
SDC
“And since test after test conducted since the”
Name one.
Name a test conducted at any time in history that proves the non-existance of God.
A wise man once said that we can only see what we know. Obviously your knowledge is lacking.
Instead of reading what you already believe try the experiment of reaching out to God. Make an honest effort and see what happens. Until then your opinions are little more than the sound of a tree falling in the forest and have no more bearing on this discussion than your re-interpretaion of history based on what you believe must have happened. The history of scholarship is littered with tales of fools who tried to revise history based on their own bigotries.
“Name a test conducted at any time in history that proves the non-existance of God.”
You’ve got the cart before the horse again, Joe. Since you’re making the claim that there IS a “god” the proof of that claim lies upon you. If I was making the claim that I had a Sasquatch in my freezer, or that there is a pink teapot orbiting Saturn, the claim would likewise be upon ME. There have been PLENTY of double-blind tests showing that “prayer” about something have absolutely no effect on whether or not that something actually occurs, but (as I said above), it may allow a person to relax in the belief that “someone else is in charge”. If it makes you feel better to belief that Zeus, or Horus, or Vishnu, or Odin, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other “god” of your choice is in some sort of control over your life, it may make you feel better, but it has absolutely no relation to reality.
But SDC I just give you a test! Make an honest effort to find Him. If He doesn’t exist then all you have done is wasted a bit of time. If He does exist….
Put all your bluff and bravado to the test. I already did and found out that St Paul knew what he was talking about. Your turn.
Once upon a time (high school), I did exactly that. The result? Zip, zero, zilch, squat. Now, you DO realize that the sort of “test” you’re talking about isn’t any sort of test at all, and that it will just as easily “prove” to you that the block of butter in your refrigerator has supernatural powers, right? All you need to do is really, really, REALLY believe that said block of butter will answer your prayers, and it will miraculously start to answer your prayers. All that this “test” proves is that people who have a need to believe in the supernatural will find a way to believe in the supernatural, evidence or no evidence, which makes the idea of your test rather laughable, don’t you think?
SDC,
I see lots of evidence for God:
-Creation, natural laws and the beauty of nature
-Israel’s history, present existence and continually fulfilled prophecy.
-Testimony of faith of millions of believers
-Testimony of miracles of many people
-Miraculous speaking in tongues (which I have
personally witnessed)
– a supernatural awareness among people, whatever religion (ie even ancient tribes had to “appease spirits” etc…)
-unbelievably complex nature of the Bible
God makes it abundantly clear in the Bible that he will not perform miracles on demand for people who do not acknowledge evidence that is already there (ie. Mark 8:12).
Actually, there comes a point where a jealous God will actually work to confuse evidence in front of people who oppose Him or His purposes
(ie. 1 Kings 22:20-23; 2 Thess. 2:9-12).
SDC
Based on the way you are now ridiculing the experience of others I doubt that you made any such effort in High School. Yours are the retorts of the never tried not the responses of those who admit they have failed after sincerely trying.
Now go do the test and BTW I would like to know the names of the tests you alluded to earlier.
You see if you make a foolish statement its not up to your debating opponent to provide you with proof. That was your statement and as such is yours to back up with facts. In the mean time have fun in grade 10, too quickly it passes.
Stephen, the only thing that we are here PROVES is that we are here; it certainly doesn’t prove that we’re here as the result of any supernatural agency. Each of the remainder of your list is just as easily explained by that common human failing of “wanting to believe”; every human culture in history has had its share of people who claimed to have had some sort of supernatural powers (or connection to someone/something else that had those supernatural powers), and this is why being a mystic/seer/psychic/prophet/priest/medicine man/etc. has such a long and chequered past. The “prophecies” in various religions’ “holy books” are invariably so vague as to require a certain amount of “interpretation”, and of course that interpretation will be provided by those who have an interest in seeing those “prophecies” come true (exactly the mechanism that makes the predictions of horoscopes and Nostradamus so popular). If it was a simple matter of “testimony of faith”, all we would need to take a head count of which religion was the most popular, and that one would be the winner, right? Likewise, each religion has got its own myriad of “miracles” to point to to “prove” that it is the “one true religion”, no matter how questionable those “miracles” are. I’m reminded here of one of the supposed “Miracles of Fatima”, in which it was claimed that, in 1917, the sun actually danced around the sky for several minutes. This was attested to by numerous “eye-witnesses” at Fatima, Portugal, but there’s an inconvenient problem with this “miracle”; if the sun ACTUALLY “danced around the sky for several minutes”, how come NO-ONE ELSE ON THE ENTIRE PLANET NOTICED IT, least of all, thousands of soldiers on sentry duty in the trenches in France? So, given the choice of, on one hand, a case of an actual “miracle”, or, on the other, a case of mass hysteria by people who really, truly wanted to “witness a miracle”, I’m sure you can understand that my vote goes to mass hysteria. This “wanting to be part of something miraculous” likewise explains (and is a much more BELIEVABLE explanation, to boot) “speaking in tongues”; I’m sure 90% of the population can do a fairly convincing job of grunting, screaming, jabbering gibberish, and rolling on the floor if necessary. A “supernatural awareness” simply shows that most people have a DESIRE to believe that they are somehow special, and that some invisible, supernatural “parent figure” is looking out for them and can be appealed to for guidance or protection; this applies to modern religions just as well as it applies to stone-age tribes that desire to sacrifice a virgin to the “volcano god”. Finally, the complex nature of the Bible is nothing special; like all “holy books”, it was built up over a very long time, and every time a question was raised about one issue or other, the answer would either require long periods of “interpretation” (which had to be accepted without question, or you would be branded a “heretic”), or the “answer” would be along the lines of “if god wanted you to know the answer, god would have told you the answer”. I’m not singling Christianity out in this regard, since I don’t see any more evidence for any OTHER religion than I do for Christianity, but since these are the defences you raise on its behalf, that’s the way the debate is travelling.
Joe, I could do your test a thousand times, and unless I “miraculously” claimed to have seen your “god”, you would STILL not believe that I had made a good faith effort. (No different, I might add, than the Muslims who claim that all I need to do to be “saved” is to believe that “there is no god but allah, and Mohammed is his prophet”). There is no end of studies showing that prayer is a pointless exercise, but the most recent one I saw was a Harvard study of several hospitals and more 1500 patients who were undergoing heart surgery. This was a double-blind study (the same as those used in evaluations of medications), so that both the researchers and individual patients would not know if they were being prayed for or not, and each patient was tracked and graded as to how well they responded. In fact, the study showed that those patients who were prayed for did WORSE than those who weren’t prayed for, but still within the statistical deviation that you would reasonably expect (that is, no different from pure, random chance). A short synopsis of the study can be seen at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5313042 , but a more thorough look is contained at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060403133554.htm As for “You see if you make a foolish statement its not up to your debating opponent to provide you with proof”, the foolish statement being made here is that there is an invisible omnipotent man in the sky that has the ability to control everyone and everything; I await your proof, if you have any.
SDC, I don’t doubt that some “miracles” can be accurately explained by personal delusions, biases, mass hysteria or natural anomalies – I just don’t believe that this accounts for all of them. It is also not a simple matter of peoples’ “testimony of faith” – this is just one more piece of the puzzle. I would not base my beliefs merely on a hand-count. I also would not expect God to produce results for any medical study trying to prove or disprove the effectiveness of prayer.
SDC
I have never said you would see God and because you compare Allah to Yahweh you confirm my suspicion of never trying my test in the first place. You don’t want to do the test I have no objection. I simply ask that you have the integrity to admit there are things that you don’t understand and then the maturity not to belittle other’s beliefs.
I honestly try not to belittle Islam. I examined its history, beliefs, scriptures and its theology then reached my conclusion, comparing of course my own experience to that of Muslims and former Muslims I am familiar with. I am picking Islam because it you mentioned it in your last post and I don’t want to take up Kate’s bandwidth with comparative religion courses.
Islam I put into the sam category as Mormonism simply because only one man reportedly had the ‘divine encounter’ I tend to be wary of like pronouncements. Jesus said that a minimum of two or three witnesses were required. The Bible has many witnesses including 4 different accounts of the ministry of Jesus. Jesus Himself stands in a long line of tradition and history. Islam can’t even get its history straight. It says that the sister of Moses is the mother of Jesus. That would make Miriam over 1000 years old when she gave birth to Jesus.
The Bible recounts real encounters with a Living God who expresses will and grants the ability to accomplish that will. Islam worships a god whose reaction could be that of a rock. Allah’s will remains a mystery and can never be known. The Christian God, Yahweh, loves His creation so much that it does not have to please or appease Him. According to Islam the blind appeasement and pleasing of Allah is everything required.
When I talk to a Christian I constantly hear about answered prayer and I have experienced it myself. When I talk to Muslims and former Muslims, they can never recount even one answered prayer offered up to Allah.
Nevertheless I disagree with people of all kinds of faiths including I might add atheists but I try to do it with at least some modicum of respect for a position honestly held. In your case however I detect from your infantile mocking, that you are operating from a default position and not a well thought out position so I tend to treat you with a lot less respect.