I saw this site last night. The man who wrote it obviously doesn’t like Christians. He asks 10 Questions beginning with:
- Why won’t God heal amputees?
- Why are there so many starving people in the world?
- Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people?
- Why does the Bible contain so much anti-science nonsence?
- Why was God such a huge proponent of Slavery in the Bible?
- Why do bad things happen to good people?
- Why didn’t any of Jesus miracles leave any evidence behind?
- How do you explain the fact that Jesus never appeared to you?
- Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood?
- Why do Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians?
OK, I will try to answer them:
God could heal amputees, cancer, hunger and everything else if he wanted but there is suffering in this world for one reason–SIN. I hate for it to be such a Biblical answer but that is the reason. The good things I get in my life are not because I have done anything good–it is because of God’s Grace.
I have no problem with Jesus not showing himself to me in person. But I have seen Jesus in other people. I’ve seen God in nature and in the way God’s people help those in need. I don’t believe Jesus said to eat his actual body or blood. It is a representation. But I guess those who are deceived will find anything they can to fault God.
The one question I agree with him on is # 10. It is a shame that followers of Jesus can’t keep their marriages together. Again it is because of our sinful hearts that people can’t make their marriages work. We can’t blame God for our our sinful hearts. I think it takes more faith to believe there is no God than to admit that we humans are fallible and need a supreme being to rely on. I’ve never seen God personally but He has radically changed my life and even if there was no heaven (but I know there is) I am a better person for living for Jesus than if I didn’t and lived a life of selfishness.
I have a challenge for those who don’t believe God. Ask God to reveal Himself to you. He is big enough for the challenge are you strong enough to accept that He is real?
What do you think?
Well, I certainly don’t hate Christians, but I think along those same lines, too. They’re valid questions- it doesn’t mean that hatred is behind them.
As for divorce- the OT allowed it, and modern Judaism allows it, for the very good reason that some spouses ( like my father, and a few others I could mention ) are, quite simply, utterly intolerable. Being yoked to a violent, raving, selfish psychopath is NOT a marrriage.
I am very good friends with a Catholic priest, a lovely, kind, and very realistic and pragmatic chap who’s seen a lot of the world and its ways. A friend of mine, let’s call him Terry, was also a devout Catholic, yoked in marriage to a fiend of a woman who gambled away all his earnings, flaunted her lovers in his face, never contributed anything to the house, and threatened to murder their children if he ever tried to stop her doing what she wanted. He was in despair, because, as a Catholic, he was hitched for the duration. As a Catholic, he couldn’t beat her or deny her sustenance, and he dared not risk his children being harmed. God, he firmly believed, had fated him for this Hellish existence for reasons known only to the Divine Mind.
Fr Tom pointed out to Terry that what he had was no marriage, and advised him to make a clean break. He left it up to Terry as to whether that would mean a separation or divorce.
Eventually, Terry divorced and married a widow. They are blissfully happy. Terry believes that he had to live in Hell for 40 years before he went to Heaven. If you knew his first “wife” (in name only) you’d agree with him. I think we need flexibility. Marriage should not be a prison for innocent partners, should it? When one’s doing all the effort, and rewarded with adultery and abuse, it’s no partnership.
OK God, reveal yourself to me. There, I said it. Are you happy now?
Aw, Fran beat me to God. Let me know how that works out for you.
I was pretty young when I started to wonder. The last time I prayed couldn’t have been past grade 2. I had accepted what I was told without analysis, but that would not turn out to be my way. However, I had a very open mind (I hope I still do today) and that was probably God’s undoing.
I started trying to rationalise all the conflicting beliefs I encountered, trying to build a complete model that included them all. Maybe there were lots of gods, maybe humans were created multiple times by their patron dieties all over the planet. The Christian god said this wasn’t so, but he would say that, wouldn’t he? He also said I wasn’t supposed to worship those other gods (that he still said didn’t exist) and he also said there were entire cities outside the Garden of Eden when his children fell from grace, so I felt he was sort of sending mixed messages. But, the more details I learned, the more unworkable it became. Even within what appeared at first to be a monolithic set of claims, I started to see that there was a huge spectrum of conflicting beliefs.
I could see this wasn’t going to work. So, I asked God to help me see the truth. Looking back, it seems like I asked him every day for a couple of months, but knowing the way childhood distorts your perception of time, it was probably barely a week. Meanwhile, I started removing elements from my model. Even then I had enough exposure to science to be quite confident that the Earth certainly did not rest on the back of a giant tortoise. Furthermore, it wasn’t the centre of the Universe; I had seen a working orrery, and I had recently looked through a telescope at the moons of Jupiter. (That was the most “religious” experience of my young life.) The more I removed from my model, the more it made sense.
Though I was having doubts, I was *willing* to believe. I was looking hard. I was still pretty uncritical. I mean, we had this cordless phone that would ring randomly with no pattern for a while, and then start acting like a sane phone again. I secretly suspected that some unseen agent was trying to send me messages. Not seriously, but enough that I didn’t like to be alone when it started doing its thing. Is it God? Is it aliens? Is it a dead relative?
Eventually, I stopped asking God. I wasn’t getting my answers that way. “We” never spoke again. I started to learn more about math and basic physics. The more I learned, the more it seemed to me that nothing truly infinite could exist within our Universe. God might be really, really powerful, and really, really smart, but omnipotent and omniscient? I could no longer fit that into my model. Eventually, I resolved not to believe anything I didn’t absolutely have to. That resolution has served me very well. I don’t deny everything that I don’t believe, I simply don’t make truth judgements when the outcome cannot affect me. I later learned this is similar to logical positivism.
I’m afraid it is probably too late for God, now. I can type the words you ask: God, please reveal yourself to me; but I could not mean them. Things make sense to me now. The Universe may be arbitrary, but it is not capricious. It does not bend to the will of any entity. It just is. It does not care about me, but I am at peace with it. I like to curse it, but it knows its all in good fun. It’s cool that way. Unlike some people…
Francoise,
You are my friend no matter what you do. I do pray God will reveal Himself to you.
Geekwad,
Thanks for sharing your story. I don’t think it is too late. It never is. My wife’s dad became a follower of Jesus in his 60′s. I pray you will reconsider my challenge.
Will you likewise ask the FSM into your heart?
Who is the FSM?
I am too hasty, as usual. In my glib way, I was asking you to consider what you are asking of me from my point of view.
The reason I told my story was to demonstrate that I HAVE asked God to reveal himself. Not once, but many times, with an open mind, with an open heart, and with the unimpeachable sincerity of a child. He did not.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, who guides our lives with his invisible, noodley appendages.
Geekwad,
You need to read the book I’m reading now called The Organic God.
The author talks about how God speaks to us in different ways. I really think it would be beneficial to you.
While It is true that divorce is higher in the Bible Belt it doesn’t necessarily mean followers of Christ are divorcing at a higher rate than non-followers. Dr. Scott Stanley (University of Denver), after looking at Barna’s surveys (where the original support for the Christians-divorce-at-the-same-rate came from) reached the following conclusions:
The factors driving the higher divorce rate have to do with religious affiliation. These factors include: marrying at a younger age, increased poverty, and fewer opportunities for economic development. Youth and poverty, in other words, play a larger role in the divorce rates than religious affiliation.
What constitutes “religious affiliation” is questionable. It is not unusual in the Bible Belt to find people who claim Christianity that Kevin and many of his minister friends would not recognize as “true believers”. Dr. Stanley reports that when “Christianity” is measured by frequency of attendance at religious activities instead of self report (“Sure I’m a Christian”) the following statements about married couples appear to be true:
They have higher levels of commitment to the marriage, higher levels of marital satisfaction, less thoughts/talk of divorce, and lower levels of negative interaction with one another.
I recall other research articles about couples who frequently attend religious services – regardless of what religion they practice – that make similar statements about marital satisfaction (and by inference, divorce rates), but I can’t put my hands on the articles just now. Dr. Stanley’s research can be found at http://www.prepinc.com/main/Articles.aspx.
It’s one thing for a pollster to take a survey; it’s another to understand the data. I think Barna simply got it wrong.
Thanks Bowden,
We all might need therapy after this thread!
Sorry, the second paragraph should read, “The factors driving divorce rate have little to do with religious affiliation.”
Kevin,
Your original answer in your post of “sin” is right on. Most people, Christ-followers included, don’t take into account that all of the dysfunction in or world is a result of the fall (Gen 3). Jesus’ ultimate mission was to restore what His original intention was – Eden…
[...] Pharisee) there is an interesting discussion about why bad things happn in this world. (Go and read Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?) In it a skeptic asks several questions about the nature of Christianity; the last question is Why [...]
I think it is amazing that we serve a God who loved us so much that He didn’t make us robots and gave us an opportunity to choose to love Him just as He has chosen to love us. With that choice we can either follow God’s way or not. When we choose not to follow God’s way and look to our own understanding, it results in a lot of difficult things.
We all create gods as we make our choices. But that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. We can try to create a world where He doesn’t exist, but the evidence remains. The author above asks why doesn’t any evidence of Jesus’ miracles remain? There does. Millions of changed lives through thousands of years. Nothing explains the growth and continuation of Christianity in spite of the horrors of humanity other than its truth. And, Christ’s resurrection can be deduced from quite a bit of evidence, even after 2000 years.
Oh, and specifically, as to your answer of sin… I’d add the sin of unbelief…
I would agree that just because these questions are being raised doesn’t mean the guy hates Christians. I didn’t see the YouTube so maybe that impression is in there. All of the questions except maybe #4 are asked by Christians at some point. #6 seems to be the theme in many of his questions. I think that this is one of the hardest things for people to grasp about God. They either want to see Him as good and lovely, or as the rule maker for no fun or understanding. I believe that these questions aren’t asked unless one is seeking and the seeking could last for years and years.
Janna,
I didn’t say he hated Christians. I’m sure he is seeking as all people are–they just won’t admit it. This guy is an evangelist but not for God but for the deceiver.
Good challenge you propose. I have a friend who is agnostic at best. He’s admitted to me that he’s afraid that if he asks Jesus into his heart that it might actually happen. (Huh?) Says he enjoys the freedom of not having Jesus to worry about and tie him down. (Huh?) I wish he understood the REAL freedom he would have by accepting Jesus as his savior. I’m just glad he talks to me about it.
I enjoy your blog.
There are many things in this life that we are meant to know and reside within our grasp, and there are others thoughts that is not given to man to know but reside exclusively in the mind of God alone. I had hope that my son would live with me until he was grown and become a productive member of society. When he started having serious psychological and behavioral problems relating to a form of Autism (Aspergers Syndrome) no one knew what to do. We spent years and thousands of dollars and all we knew was he had behavioral issues that would often turn violent, and explosive. We did the best we could to deal with it. There however came a day when it was apparant, that my son needed much more help than anyone could ever provide in my home. Why?
My brother and his wife had every expectation to live in their nice home rasing their kids together. They ARE dynamic Christians with many talents. Glenda sang with Clay Crosse’s sister Terri and was loved by many people. However one Friday morning, she called her husband at 9:00 to ask if they could go out that night because she didn’t feel like cooking dinner…and by 10:00 she was dead. She abruptly died at 34 leaving three kids motherless for no explicable reason. Why?
Nicole Nordeman wrote a song last year talking about a mother living for Christ and lost her baby at two months of age. Why? How is any of this fair to anyone? Especially to those who have died (to themselves) to live (for Christ)?
The fundemental problem is with the pseudo-theology of entitlement.
Jesus was preaching in a home as he often did and there was a very large crowd gathered. A paralytic was desparate and wanted to get close to Jesus to be healed. His friends feeling sympathetic dug a hole in the roof to lower this man down to Jesus. What do you think it was like when Jesus said to this man, “Your sins are forgiven.”?
God says HIS ways are Higher than our ways, and His thoughts are much higher than our thoughts. To God, the distress this man was sufferring on earth paled in significance to the distress he would face if he was to die in his sins. It was only after the reaction of the crowd that Jesus said, ‘So you will know I have authority to forgive sins, take up your bed and walk.’
Why God? is a question we may never know. We are not entitled to know all things as He knows them. Jesus does give us glimpses into who He is, and what He plans for us, so that we can KNOW that we, can trust HIM for the things we cannot see, grasp or understand. We will come to know Him in His fullness one day but on this side of eternity, we can only see glimpses, sometimes dim glimpses. However the most repeated command in the bible is, “fear not.” Once we do learn that we can trust Him, and it is not something we will just “poof” automatically do once we decide to become followers of Jesus. It is something that we must practice and learn as we walk by faith.
A lot of people talk about praying, especially on this the National Day of Prayer. Few will. I can tell you to trust Jesus, describe in infinite details how to place trust in Him, list the benefits…and I would be like a professor on TV explaining to a baby how to walk. That baby will never walk, until they learn to trust a parent, and develop and grow.
Nothing complex here. It’s not rocket science to know God. All I can give you is my witness. God has shown me enough of Himself, that I took baby steps and He proved He is trustworthy. I know I can trust Him as I live my daily life with the things I cannot possibly understand. I am a Christian, I am not God. I may never know whys. I really have no idea if my wife won’t get tired of me and divorce me tomorrow, or if my son will live or die. I don’t know a lot of things, but I do know HIM, and He has shown me His heart is good and that I can trust Him. I tell you, you can trust Him too.
In Christ
Andrew \o/
Titus 2:13
I agree with several others; those questions don’t necessarily seem like indications of hating Christians (although there may be other evidence that this person does). They are all questions that, in one form or another, I have asked myself. Some of the answers are easier to come by than others (for example, on #4, I don’t think the Bible contains a lot of “anti-science nonsense” as much as there are some people who interpret it that way), but others are things I struggle with daily, especially questions about how a good, loving, and just God allows so many innocent people to suffer. I agree with Kevin that most suffering is caused by other people making selfish or stupid choices (which is, more or less, the definition of sin), but that doesn’t really answer the question satisfactorily, because we all make mistakes. Why do my mistakes result in me maybe having a bad day, while the choices of governments, armies, and businesses cause small children to die of preventable diseases? What role do the choices I make about what to buy or how often to drive have in causing others to suffer?
For me, being a Christian is not about having all the answers. It’s about choosing to believe that God is with us in the questions, that God loves each of us deeply, and that we have a responsibility to make things right in this messy world.
TIA,
I never said he hated Christians. But he is an evangelist for the enemy.
I agree there are many tough questions that I don’t understand. I ask them a lot here. I wish it were more cut and dry. Sometimes I wish life was just about being good and having a check list. But I mess up more times than I would like to admit and I’m grateful for God’s Grace.
I don’t understand why there are starving people. But God has called me to be a part of the solution. I don’t understand why Christians can’t keep their marriages together (even if the stats are wrong–one divorce is too many) but I can help people see the need for a Biblical Marriage. I don’t care about science but I’m glad there are many Godly people who do. Sure sometimes I wish God would come hang out with me in person, but I promise you He has spoken to me in many ways.
I saw checks show up to my parents house for exact amounts they needed to pay bills. I saw the time when my dad’s car was in the shop and he went to pick it up and someone paid for it. I remember when we prayed for my mom’s breast surgery and when they did the x-ray before the surgery the lump was gone. I could go on and on. God is real and He lives in me.
For those who are seeking answers to their questions about God, His existence, this universe and our situations in life, you ought to examine the writings of a man who for many years had no belief in God and only became a convert reluctantly, and that is C.S. Lewis.
Kevin, sorry, I didn’t mean to misrepresent you. And I agree; I have also seen God provide in powerful ways. My point was that I don’t believe that faith requires having all the answers to questions like these. That’s why we call it faith.
You got it spot-on Kevin. When someone denies the reality of evil and the enemy, they tend to blame God for everything. BTW I’ve heard stories of amputees having limbs grow out, though I haven’t seen it firsthand yet. CBB
I understand Geekwad very well. I was taught that God answered prayers, and in my childlike innocence, I believed what my elders said to be true. Bitter experience proved otherwise. God was either deaf, or didn’t care, or didn’t exist. Why worship something that doesn’t respond? Why chat to anyone who doesn’t want to converse?
Ryanday- Jesus seems to have failed to accomplish his mission, particularly in the Middle East.
The world is no more dysfunctional now than it ever has been. Nature has always been “kill or be killed”- loooong before human beings appeared.
I believe that Charles Darwin found this troubling, that an all-loving and wise entity would make his planet Earth such a vicious, violent place! The “fall” didn’t cause all those talons and fangs and poison sacs, prickly weeds, earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. It’s ALWAYS been a dangerous place!!
It makes no sense to blame the product for its defects, rather than blaming the manufacturer. If your new Mitsubishi breaks down, do you rave and rant and curse it, a la Basil Fawlty, and flog the poor thing with a tree branch? No way. If you were sensible, you’d contact Mitsubishi and whine about their shoddy merchandise, wouldn’t you? If we are defective, it’s God’s fault. We are primates, and we behave like primates. We are no better, but all too often a lot worse than the other creatures with whom we live. Our days as a species are numbered, as all species are doomed to eventual extinction.
I refuse to feel guilty or wretched or miserable for being born a human being, nor will I grovel to any entity, hoping to escape the fires of Hell for the crime of being a member of our species.
The crime is not being a member of our species. God created man to be HIS child, to love and nourish and to live in perfect unity with God. The crime comitted was HIS child willfully chose to do wrong. Since that occurred all of mankind sufferred.
An all knowing God of course knew this would occur before anything was created. Does the knowledge that Children ARE going to be disobedient disuade parents from having kids? Of course not. I’d venture to say that is probably the only command of God (be fruitful and multiply) that our species has no problem with. God created us knowing we would suffer for Adam’s sin and endure all the ills for the ages since. So why did He even set creation into motion knowing that some of His creation would be lost to him?
Because there would be those of us who would choose to love Him.
Can’t make anyone love you. Isn’t it nice when somebody does of their own free will?
In Christ
Andrew \o/
Titus 2:13
It all comes down to Satan which God created. If satan didn’t exist we would all be angels bowing down to Allah.
If Allah didn’t create satan, then there would be no heaven and hell.
god does heal amputees: luke 22:47-51
A Patel,
I agree about Satan but I worship Yahweh & His Son Jesus.
If you believe that Satan exists as an evil entity, then you have to look at his alleged creator. As I said, it’s all God’s fault. He’s omniscient, right? That means he knew perfectly well what was to eventuate, yet he went ahead and did it anyway. Blame God, I say!
Y’know as a Christ follower I am ok to assign all of the blame to God…
God certainly created Satan. HE created all the things that are evil. He even created Evil. Job stated ‘Shall I only accept the things that are good?’ God sent an evil spirit to Saul… He is the creator. He created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. What “The Hell” was HE thinking?
HE WAS THINKING HE WANTS TO INTIMATELY LOVE US, AND TO BE INTIMATELY LOVED BY US.
Can you make those who have no choice, truly love you? Is this a theological hurdle too high to understand? There had to be Evil for us to know good. That is why the tree called the Tree of The knowledge of Good and Evil was part of HIS creation.
Lots of people think they understand the sacrifice of the Lamb in the Old Testament to cover our sins. Did you know that the lambs usually were brought in to live in the home? They would live, eat and play and the lambs would become part of the family as they naturally would fall in love, and the lamb loving them. It’s like we do our pets. There is no doubt I love my dogs and they love me.
However for the Jew, the appointed day would come. The man would come into the house, take his family’s lamb to the temple. The man would be the one to take the knife the lamb, a lamb his family loved. It was not the priest, not a temple worker. However it was done to cover the sins of him and his house. God set the terms.
You may say, how awful. YES it was awful. The cost of sin is death, and it’s bloody, and you will grieve the personal loss. Jesus allowed himself to become the perfect sacraficial lamb to pay the ultimate penalty for the high cost of our sins… But from the very first moment of creation, it has always been about loving the lamb.
In Christ
Andrew \o/
Titus 2:13
I’m still waiting to hear about the purple glass.
Thank you, Kevin.
I had assumed you were ignoring that. I am not God and i have no idea what significance that glass has. I only obeyed. Did you have a purple glass on your computer desk then? Was there a purple glass that has some sentimental value? I don’t know. You tell me.
Never assume anything. In a previous post, when I realised that you’d gone out of your comfort zone, I said that you could divulge that sign if it made you happy . And, I guess, asking you to do so slots me right into the “wicked and perverse generation”?
The answer is “No” to both questions. I don’t think I have anything purple in the house at all. It’s not a colour which suits me or my house.
Hinduism is far older than Christianity, Bryan. Does its incredible longevity mean it’s the truth?
Just a thought.
Those are interesting questions and answers are available. But before I’d spend time on them I’d want to know if it would matter how they were answered. Is the person seriously interested, or is it their handy list of reasons justifying their position? I’ve met too many people who use questions like that as smokescreens. I used to be a skeptic and then became a Christian after examining the evidence and reasoning behind it, so I have plenty of time for people who are authentically questioning things.
Kevin,
I’ve been going through “Disappointment With God” by Philip Yancey with my church lately. It talks about and doesn’t glibbly answer three major questions:
1. Is God Hidden?
2. Is God Silent?
3. Is God Unfair?
Have you read it?
Among several points he makes is that the miracles and visible presence actually weakened faith. This was a surprising argument and he does a good job building it.
Another point he made was that God transitioned His visible presence to the Church–a risky venture because not only can we represent Him well, but we can represent Him badly and often do. Some of those questions can be answered by saying sin are the reasons, others by the failure of the church to respond and BE the presence of God in the world–feeding the hungry, ministering to the hurting, etc.
My phrase in ministry is–”Pursuing Answers to Questions of Faith & Life”
Life does give many questions–and I may never find all of them–but I’m going to pursue after those answers. So many times I don’t recognize God’s answers, when He reveals, I don’t see it or I even slap His hand away. Faith is never easy answers or easy believism–that would be shallow. I would encourage everyone to not quit or give up.
Pursuing Him,
Kelly
Francoise, I am not exclusively slotting you into a wicked and perverse generation. Anyway, did you ask for a sign? No. Did I ask for God to give me a sign. No.
However He did.
We are all part of a wicked and perverse generation of people, and God gave miraculous signs and wonders to us all. Whatever significance the purple glass has, that is between you and God. I just conveyed what He told me to let you know.
Francoise, that would be assuming that the God of the Old Testament isn’t Christian… an assumption I don’t make. Christ precedes anything Hindu… And, the existence of a God who doesn’t loves unconditionally, which is Christianity at its heart, simply doesn’t exist in any other religion.
Francoise, it seems you are admitting God exists with some of your above comments… In fact, to say that there is injustice in the world admits that there are absolutes.
A Patel, I don’t know that I agree. God gave each of the creatures created in His image a will to obey or not obey. If we chose our own way rather than His, that is the root of evil, not Satan. He is a nice scapegoat, but we are perfectly capable of falling short without him.
Dozer,please lighten up, mate. It was a gentle joke. You spoke to God and God answered in what appears to be a riddle. In your post you wrote ” Who’s purple glass?” Who’s is a contraction of “who is”, so “Who is purple glass?” makes no sense whatsoever. If you meant “Whose purple glass”, it still makes no sense. How did you receive the message- as a visual image, or from words spoken into your ear or mind?
All my drinking glasses are clear. All my windows are clear glass. I’ve just realised that there is something purple in the house- my husband uses purple folders for clients’ wills. But definitely no glass.
Did you ( or God) mean a drinking glass, or a pane of glass? Is there some Biblical reference which I don’t know about? Is purple glass a heavy metal band? I haven’t a clue.
Bryan, the OT god is anything but loving, as I never tire of mentioning. He has the mental outlook of a 3 year old chucking a tantrum, and is forever on the warpath about something. BTW, he hasn’t answered your prayers for rain. Our dams are still emptying.
Interesting about Hinduism- have you ever read the similarities between Krishna and Christ?
Francoise,
Forgive my poor grammer please. Ever see the old American TV show the Beverly Hillbillies? I live in the same Ozark Mountains and I talk a little ‘hickish.’ It was definitely a visual image and I saw a purple glass. A purple drinking glass. I don’t understand it, but I know God gave that vision so that you could witness HIM.
So your glasses are clear… was there a clear glass set on top of a folder or something so it appeared purple?
I don’t know.
And I also don’t know why you think the God of the OT is different than the NT. He has always been a loving God…. then as He is now. Deuteronomy is one of the first books of the bible. Below was excerpted from Deuteronomy 7
========
God wasn’t attracted to you and didn’t choose you because you were big and important—the fact is, there was almost nothing to you. He did it out of sheer love, keeping the promise he made to your ancestors. God stepped in and mightily bought you back out of that world of slavery, freed you from the iron grip of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know this: God, your God, is God indeed, a God you can depend upon. He keeps his covenant of loyal love with those who love him and observe his commandments for a thousand generations. But he also pays back those who hate him, pays them the wages of death; he isn’t slow to pay them off—those who hate him, he pays right on time.
========
It’s been said if God is for you, who can be against you?
But the exact opposite is just as true…
If God is against you, who can be for you?
The Ozarks- haven’t been there-yet. No, have never seen the Beverly Hillbillies.
I’ve seen Beverly Hills, though, and it was an eye-popping experience.
I would NEVER place a glass on hubby’s folders, purple or otherwise! He’d go ballistic if water were spilled on his documents
He might even terminate my employment!!
My very negative impression of the OT God is because of the numerous pages wherein he’s depicted as vengeful, (as per your above quote, and and I honestly CANNOT see how “love” can be vindictive!) and ordering wholesale massacres and enslavements. A god who demands animal and human sacrifices to appease his wrath is a complete turn-off. A god who wants a rape victim to marry her attacker is sickening. A god who punishes the pharoah instead of Abraham seems to be completely demented. I’m not saying this to be rude- it’s just how it appears to me.
This is what I’ve been asking this blog to explain- how do you reconcile the two? The cruel and despotic monster and the all-loving and forgiving father, who, nevertheless, demands a blood sacrifice before he can enter into a relationship with his creatures. Why not just forgive, and be done with it? Why all the drama? Why the insatiable need for blood?
Francoise that is an excellent question! A very deep question. I want to give you an answer as completely and thoroughly as I can. However that will take some time. I want to do a thorough job. I have a large home project (screening in my front porch) that I am doing tomorrow and church on Sunday. I hope you can bear with me.
I do not believe God was ever a cruel despotic monster. From my perspective He is and has always been a loving Father, faithful and ready to forgive. You already know that Christians believe He’s fair, righteous and His Holiness demands Justice for sin which was the shedding of blood. The shedding of blood is essential for forgiveness, but it’s not what saves us. That comes through faith in Jesus. In the Old Testament they looked forward to Jesus and his sacrifice and we look back towards it, but it was faith in Jesus that saves.
I’ll try and write back here on Monday -k? If anyone else can please go ahead and answer.
In Christ
Andrew \o/
Titus 2:13
Yes, fine. Still can’t find that purple glass.
What does -K mean?
Yes, fine about waiting til Monday – I perfectly understand the necessity of doing house chores. I just avoid them if I can
But screening is an essential one, seeing that your summer is looming, so go ahead. I don’t mind waiting. I’ve waited a long, long time to get answers. I’m patient.
Dozer, I’m from Arkansas… I know all about the Ozarks. I’m in England for now. But as we might say at home, “I’m fixin’ to go to the Philippines.”
Anyway, Francoise, have you ever considered that God is so loving that He allows us freedom, freedom to love Him or not? And, it isn’t that God is vengeful… it is that in His presence is love, and that when we are not in His presence, love is absent. Thus, hatred is present. So, when man chooses not to follow God it isn’t that God hates man, it is that man is choosing to be in the presence of the absence of love. ..
Francoise…I have a few minutes… started raining. I do not want to overly simplify this, but to really answer your question as to ‘why the need for blood?’ (I omitted your word insatiable, because that need was satisfied on the Cross) The simple answer to your question is blood is sacred. Jew could kill animals for food, but even the blood of animals was sacred. When they needed to they were to spill the blood on the ground as a sacrafice.
Also Please take a look at this Sermon by Charles Spurgeon from the 19th century. It does not answer your specific question directly, but there is a lot of information on why the blood.
http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0211.htm
I hope this helps. I have to go to the store now to get some more stuff for my porch. Have a good weekend. -k?
In Christ
Andrew \o/
Titus 2:13
( oh by the way….In my part of the woods, we often will end conversations saying, “Y’all come back now, y-hear?” or “You tell your momma I said hey. ok?” and a lot of us rednecks always looking lazilly at spoken language, nowdays have also dropped the “o” now too. That is what -k? means. I guess it’s like saying “g’day” which is for “good day.” )
And Bryan…. My porch….I’m fixinta go get-r-done soon as mah brofew brangs d’truck back. He bard it to git the earl changed on da Mustang. I also lef mah dang ranch on the tailgate. Shoot.
Feeling a little closer to home?
c-ya
Bryan, what you say is very strange. I’m not in the presence of God, so my ife is one of hatred? That is, my hubby and friends and neighbours don’t count? As a matter of fact, I’m surrounded by love, and treasure my little tribe greatly. I also love my new kitten, Catzilla, who gives me endless joy as he capers around the house. Yes, even when I found him widdling on my embroidery.
Thanks, Dozer, for the lesson in linguistics et al! I teach English to migrants, and am always assuring them that no matter how they pronounce something, you can bet that the Americans ( and Scots) can be even less comprehensible!
If you ever get a BBC programme, “The Story of English” on your TV, watch it! Fascinating stuff.
BTW, I found your message on the thread about becoming numb to teacher-student liasions, and posted a response.
Still no purple glass.
When God speaks to you, how do you distinguish between what he says, and the normal chatter that goes on inside our heads all day? What’s the difference? In tone, in volume-what?
Om fair dinkum in me pestrin, cobber, ridgy-didge.
There, your first lesson in Australian English, gratis!
OOhhh, sorry, I forgot to comment on blood sacrifices. Yes, I know that blood was sacred, and for the very good reason that people knew that severe loss of blood led to death. Blood sacrifices are also meant to separate the material from the spiritual. There was the ancient belief that as an animal died, it discharged some vital energy in its shed blood, and this could be harnessed by the magician performing the rite.
It’s recommended to look at lunar cults and the worship of feminine deities, and what the spilling of blood meant to them. Menstruation, ragarded, wrongly , as “unclean” by some cults, was revered by others, as it was directly associated with fertility . It’s believed that blood sacrifices, adopted by solar-worshipping cults, were an attempt by male priests to share in the mystery of why a woman could bleed for a week without dying, whereas that “magiocal ” property was denied to men. From this, you see an adoption of feminine clothing by male priests. Too long to go into here, but worth a thought, perhaps?
Dozer:
Let us not wax TOO poetic about it. Death, even tortured death is not the ultimate penalty in this context. Hell is. While I love the story about Jesus going down to hell to kick a little ass before the resurrection, I don’t think it’s cannon, and he didn’t get the full treatment anyhow. Since then, he’s been in paradise.
I do like your explanation for the existence of evil. It does paint God as a sort of a selfish jerk (we suffer so that he can be sure we really love him?) but it is pretty neat and satisfying.
Bryan Riley:
Tee hee. Okay, so Christianity is older than a couple thousand years, because Christ (a.k.a., God) is older than a couple thousand years. Of course, you have to make the same allowances for tortured logic to the Hindus. So I guess what we’re looking at is the ages of the Universe each claims. Haven’t looked it up, but I’m willing to bet the Hindus believe in a Universe older than five thousand years. More than ten or twenty even!
But I hear your complaint. This proves nothing, because God existed BEFORE the Universe! So lets consider that. As far as we know, this is God’s first Universe. Maybe he got started late because he spent a while hitchhiking across Europe or something, but all we really know about his previous life is that he felt he didn’t have enough love in it. Meanwhile, the Hindus have Vishnu, who has created so many Universes, he probably doesn’t even realize he’s doing it anymore. Like, a whole lot of them, even for infinite Universes.
I’m sorry, but on the basis of evidence we have so far, I’m still going to have to go with the Hindus as the older religion. If you think that’s all just too silly, maybe we should just agree that religions don’t exist before they are practiced.
GW, I agree that religions are the creation of man. I believe we are the creation of God. I believe we should follow the way the Creator made for us. That makes sense. If there is a creator it makes sense to follow the creator’s way. The creator would know best for the creator’s creation. I think Jesus is that Way. And that Way was dreamed up before any man came along to dream or philosophize.
Francoise, do you see the world as loving? I hear in your writing a presumption that there either is no god or that if there is a god it is not loving. Perhaps that is because you have not experienced love at its fullest. And, becuase you haven’t experienced that kind of love you put that on God. I’m not saying that you don’t give and experience some love in your life as humans talk of love. And, I’d also say that God is very present in this world, so love is here, around us, working through many, even those who don’t believe in God. But there will come a day when God allows each person to make their final decision to choose Him or choose their own way.
Bryan, the world is an extremely complex place. I could look at a butterfly and think that it’s evidence of a loving ( and artistic) god, or I could look at that vile insect in Africa ( forget the name) which lives in human urethras, and I could take that as evidence that god either hates humans, or doesn’t give a toss about them. It all depends on one’s own perspective, which is shaped by myriad forces. You’ve prayed for rain in my part of the world, and, I guess, when you prayed, you believed god would hear. Well, the dams are still falling, so that could mean that god either didn’t hear, doesn’t care or doesn’t exist. Take your pick. Some towns now have absolutely no water left, and are relying on the trucking in of bottled supplies, and that means for the hospitals, too, so they can wash their patients. I don’t see your god displaying any concern over them. The ground is bone- dry, the animals are dying, the crops are failing…need I go on? Love doesn’t withhold life’s most precious resources from its children.
Where is the proof that your god is real and/or the only god, and furthermore that it loves? I didn’t see it showing too much concern for humanity during the tsunami and Katrina, did you? Old and young, children and pregnant women, diabetics desperately needing insulin, putrid waters breeding dangerous illnesses- it would seem that god might have wanted a bit of a cull on the population, rather than loving them!
If he can’t control the forces of nature, he can’t be very powerful. If he could, but chose not to, then he’s not worthy of our worship.
I’ve prayed for changed hearts and restored relationships, Francoise, not so much for rain. I’ve prayed for rain if it would lead to you awakening to the fact God loves you and wants you to love Him, too. But if the lack of rain and the felt futility of our lives drives you and other people in Australia to a restored relationship then I would rejoice in the lack of rain and futility.
My little girl loves chocolate and candy. So much so that she will say that she is not going to eat so that she can eat more chocolate. My love does withhold what she holds most dear, chocolate and candy. From her perspective those things are what she needs most, but as her daddy, I know a lot more about health, need, and nutrition. So I withhold. If God knows that your spiritual health requires what appears to be suffering to return to reality… then praise God!
Do you believe you know all there is to know to the point that you can say that things that appear bad in one instant are eternally evil? And, if you believe in evil, then that suggests for certain that you believe in good. That suggests you believe in absolutes. That suggests that you believe in “god” of some sort….. It all boils down to what sort of god you believe in… There is One.
Did anyone ever consider that the divorce rate is so high because people choose their own mates rather than wait on the spouse God has chosen for them? We teach our children to date when they are 12 and 13 by putting on dances where they are supposed to be couples. They are paired up way before they should be thinking of marriage. Dating one after the other when there is no purpose at all. What do they learn? How to divorce. Surely not how to be married. Naturally after 10-12 years of “dating” we think it’s up to us to choose our own spouse, afterall, we’ve got plenty of practice. Not to say a marriage between Christians won’t work out but it can be a continuous struggle when it’s not the spouse God had chosen for you. For many, it is simply easier to just give up.
Just a thought. You can tell what I think of teenage dating. Even more so, the pressure from adults for teenagers to date. Dating is a very worldy activity.
Jana, it is borne out of a culture and a lie that has been taught from the beginning of time… it is all about me…
We must carry forth the good news of the Kingdom of God…. It is about our King… we are just the Sons and Daughters of the King. But it is ultimately all about Him.
Bryan, contrary to what some people ( like my husband!) think, choccolate is NOT a necessity of life; water IS. You can withhold chockies from your daughter, and I say, fine, you’re doing what you think best for her teeth and waistline, but if you denied her water, I would denounce you as a monster and a fiend.
The brutal fact of the matter is that 2/3 of Australia is in permanent drought, the other 1/3 in semi -drought. Our tropics can be just as dry and harsh as our inland, and the coastal areas aren’t much better.
No, of course I don’t think I know all there is to know!! That attitude would cut me off from one of life’s most enjoyable activities, and that is learning.
I guess the only absolutes are that there are no absolutes, as standards will always differ from one culture and time to another. What is acceptable to some folks is a taboo to others, hence my culture shocks in USA and other places. We can regard the practices of other countries as bizarre, or downright evil, and, naturally, they view us the same way! I dare say that you probably do not sleep in the same bed as your daughter, but that would be quite accceptable in some countries. I believe that in Italy, it’s quite OK for a mother and son to share a bed until the son is married. It doesn’t necessarily imply sexual activity, just a warmth of relationships with which we more uptight Anglo-Celts would feel uncomfortable.
I don’t regard a drought as evil- it just happens to be part of nature’s cycle, completely impersonal. Katrina and the tsunami could be seen as “evidence” that human life is not terribly precious in the eyes of any deities, including Jahweh. Or they could be viewed as part of the earth’s eco-system, more important than mere human communities. Take your pick.
Fact is, no amount of praying is going to change the type of geography I live in, or its weather patterns. Jesus may have told people that their faith could move mountains, but in the last 2000 years, it hasn’t happened! Not if you take it literally. Let’s be realistic. The cycles just go on and on, century after century, heedless of human or animal suffering. Not evil. Not good or bad- juts part of Nature. It is up to us humans to figure out science-based solutions.
Francoise!!! Hey I don’t want you to think I am avoiding you or making excuses. My son was bit on the leg by a copperhead (venomous snake) yesterday out behind my house. He’s going to be ok but sitting around a hospital didn’t allow me much time.
I will get around to answer you.
In Christ
Andrew \o/
Titus 2:13
Dozer- yeeeeekkkkk! I sympathise- this country has a mega- plethora of nasties lurking in unepxpected places!. In any case, I knew you’d be busy with screening, etc. Don’t fret about me- just concentrate on your boy, OK?
Will do… but I do worry about you… You are important to my Lord Jesus and that makes you important to me. Keep looking for the purple glass. I know what I saw.
In Christ
Andrew \o/
Titus 2:13
OK, you saw it, but I don’t. I could, perhaps, webcam my entire house to demonstrate the lack of purple glass ?
Is webcam the correct term? I get confused with the Newspeak!
Don’t fret about me at all- just concentrate on your boy, who is far more to you than I could ever be. Snakes…eeeeeewwwwww. Shudder!
Don’t you see that rain falls on the just and the unjust? The sun shines on the same? Perhaps a view that if there is a god that god must be performance-based in its thinking is part of the problem for you. I believe God is relationally based. He is a willing Father to those who would be His children. He is a King who imparts Sonship on any who will partake.
There is more than enough in this world for all to enjoy. And pain and stress can make us stronger and more wise. Ease never can.
With all the distractions of life, this is what I came up with.
In my meager attempt here I want to make sure you understand I am not a Rhodes scholar and some great theologian. I am sure many could argue with me but I believe the simple answer that blood is sacred holy and carries life makes it why God chose it.
In Christ
Andrew \o/
Titus 2:13
==========================
From the earliest times, God decreed blood equated life:
“For the life of every creature is the blood of it” (Leviticus 17:14)
“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in His own image.” (Genesis 9:6)
The Penalty of Sin Is Death
When humans became sinners, they became subject to the penalty of sin, which is death:
“Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever, therefore The Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden” (Genesis 3:22-23)
“you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3:19)
“For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23)
Jesus Christ Paid The Death Penalty For Us, By His Shed Blood
“with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. He was destined before the foundation of the world but was made manifest at the end of the times for your sake” (1 Peter 1:19-20)
“for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28)
“But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water” (John 19:34)
Old Testament Sacrifices Were Symbolic Of The Messiah
“But when Christ appeared as a High Priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent, not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, He entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but His own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.”
“Therefore He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant.”
“For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood. For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship. Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.”
“Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the Presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer Himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the Holy Place yearly with blood not his own [see The Day Of Atonement for then He would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, He has appeared once for all at the end of the age to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for Him.” (Hebrews 9:11-28)
At Christ’s Return, He be wearing a “robe dipped in blood”? Revelation 19:11-15
Well, Bryan, it depends on what you mean by just and unjust persons, doesn’t it? A very subjective term. If you’re one of the more extreme Christian groups, you believe that all mankind is desperately evil, no exceptions.
Performance-based god? Why not? God challenged the Israelites to test his word and see how good it was, a propos of his promise to fill their barns to overflowing in return for their trust and devotion. Humanity has always stoked up its gods’ egos and attracted their attention by gifts, self-sacrifice, flattery, etc. to convince their deities that they’re really nice entities, and their favours were being sought. If your god didn’t answer, you moved on to one who would, or rather, one whose followers claimed that theirs would listen and answer. Catholicism maintains this, by crediting zillions of saints with powers normally ascribed to gods. “St Philomena didn’t answer? I’ve always found St X to be wonderful.” Yes, I actually overheard that in a Catholic church some years ago- it sounded like they were comparing brand names in a supermarket.
I’d guess that you’re not into Mariolatry, right? Most non-Catholic or non-Orthodox are not. Anyway, if ever you go to Poland, you’ll see the ubiquitous BVM. She’s in subways, on telegraph posts, in homes, in fields, shops, cafes, etc. Why? because the Poles believe this female deity to be powerful and maternal. I went to her church in Cestochowa ( apologies to any Polish readers- the spelling of your place names is not my strong point) and was staggered to see the magnitude of the congregation, and the theatrical way her image descended, as though from the Heavens, when trumpets sounded. On the walls you can see crutches, hearing aids, etc, placed their by the faithful who claim that she cured them of their ailments. It’s all pure theatre, and designed to place the subjects into a receptive frame of mind. Who cured them? Your God? Mary? Or just their own belief?
My point? Any deity seems to be capable of answering prayer or being deaf to it. I’d like to know how many worshippers at Cestochowa were NOT cured.
Rain will come eventually to this parched land. It’s our worst drought, so far. But all cycles come to an end, and will do so regardless of any prayers. It is just the nature of this interesting little planet. We either wait, or we provide our own water by desalination and recycling.
Dozer, I posted a thank you on some other thread- can’t find it now, but thanks again, I appreciate the time you took.
As I said before, you have to examine what ancient priests/magicians were trying to achieve with blood sacrifices, i.e, the mastery of the mysteries of life, the harnessing of psychic energy, the imitation of menstruation, etc etc.
Interesting that you state that Jesus died “for many”, which indicates not everyone. Like me, perhaps ?
Wearing a robe dipped in blood? Yech!
If Jesus was dead when the lance pierced him, how did the blow and water flow?
Ooops, I meant blood and water ( old age, can’t see as well as I once did!)
francoise,
you need to know some biology .Only when a person is dead , blood and water will come.Else ,only blood will flow.
Back to the original question…I have to disagree. Falling back on the “it’s-because-we’re-sinners” response just doesn’t cut it as apologetics. Sure, it makes sense to Christians, but to those who are on the fence about the Gospel, it comes across as rather less than graceful. There’s a better answer, which I’ve posted at:
weblog.xanga.com/Beloved_Spear/619619240/why-doesnt-god-heal-amputees.html
Marfty, cardiac action is needed to force blood to flow.
Fraincoise ,cardiac action will be there as long as the person is alive.
Yes, back to the question of original sin.
I want you to imagine that you have committed a crime and that your child is also held responsible for your crime. I want you to imagine how this could ever be called justice.
God moves in mysterious ways?
Or does it look more like a standard, off-the-shelf form of cowing the masses? “You’re a no-good, filthy maggot! Now go do what I tell you!”
Marty- my point is that jesus was supposed to be dead when they lanced him.
Geekwad – it’s now almost 6 months, and God still hasn’t appeared. I thought you’d like to know.
Damian, yes, I heartily concur.
I have a question for the believers: Supposing that you owed me money and couldn’t repay the debt. My insane egocentricity demands that you be put to death. No, I cannot just forgive you and be done with it- you jolly well have to DIE!
But then, for some inexplicable reason, I change my mind and decide that I won’t murder you- instead, I will take my son, a blameless, innocent being who has never harmed a soul, and have him put to death with barbarous cruelty. I stand by and watch him being flayed alive, spat upon, bruised and battered before being hung naked to die in agony. And then- you and I can be friends again !
Is it just? Is it even sane? Does it make any sense whatsoever ? Not to me, it doesn’t.
Francoise,
Ignoring the question-begging and straw-man elements of your question, I’ll point out one of many responses from a Christian worldview: Jesus is God and willingly sacrificed himself for us:
John 10:17-18 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.
Actually I thought they were good questions…and some of the things Jesus said and di, intentionally lead to these questions… (which I think is why He did some of them)…
He will, all of them eventually, (so he says), amputees, cripples, depressed and lonely,etc…… I think the real premise to this question is “why won’t he heal amputees right now.. Who really knows, except for God, but he said they work to gether for His purposes…
Frankly this one shouldn’t be blamed on God… but men… it isn’t like we don’t have enough food… I think this one should be asked rather to men… and then ask the question…”Why do we have so many rich people in the world why so many are starving”…
Ultimately men are selfish… and would rather have pleasure than feed someone else… that isn’t God’s fault… in fact He said we all are sinful…and selfish… the fact that we get food at all is grace from God, after all it all belongs to him… it is man who is selfish and unfaithful…
God never demanded anyones death.. in fact He said that He would that everyone would not perish but have etrnal life…
Also is there anyone who is innocent and hasn’t sinned against God… no there isn’t… a better question is this… “Why does God allow the guilty to go unpunished for so long”…
The fact that anyone kills anyone else, and causes suffering, only to get away with it, is evidence of God’s mercy…but He has also said that there will come a day when His mercy runs out and all are brought into judgment..
What… you would have to live in a cave for hundreds of years to really believ that, or just plain don’t want to admit that over 90 % of the achievements in science came froma direct result of the bible, and those who believe it…
This is a historical misunderstanding… God was not a “proponent of slavery” men were, the word of God set fair standards of Masters (like the boss), to treat slaves (like the emplowee)fairly… God also required that all slaves (slavery at that time were those who willingly sold themselves as slaves to pay off their debts), be freed every 7 years… regardless of the amount owed…
Again another evidence of God’s mercy and wisdom for sinful, self absorved men, who treated others poorly…
There truly is no such thing as a “good person”… there have been men who exampled a sense of moral acceptability in the eyes of others, but everyone has fallen short, and is guilty…
If you were in a courtroom guilty of murder, and said… “I don’t deserve to go to jail for murder, I have given money to charity”… that is the equivolent of man’s goodness…a better question to ask is “why do
good things happen to bad people?”
We get air to breath, bodies to live in, and food, and those are good things that all come from God…
If I had a dog that kept biting my hand every time I fed it… I would stop feeding it… but God is merciful…
We may be excellent people morally… but we are all guilty and no one is good…
There is all kinds of evidence… I am not sure this question is anything but an emotional response to a jaded perspective…
Time changed around Jesus…(AD BC), the fact that the nation Israel even exists, or that Christianity is still here is miraculous, and foretold for nearly 6000 years… not to mention the other stuff…This person should take a trip to Israel.. there still talking about it today after 2000 years… how Christ performed miracles… Evidence that lasts that long is truly miraculous…
Oh He has, to everyone… but sometimes our eyes are shut or blinded and we can’t see…
Jesus was speaking in an analogy… The same people that followed him for a few weeks only for bread.. came to Him while he was teaching people about God in the temple, and demanded more bread… to them He said “my flesh is true food, and my blood is poured out for the forgiveness of sins”..
They left at “eat my flesh and drink my blood”, because they didn’t get what he was saying…and didn’t bother learning “how to fish”.. they just wanted to get fish for themselves…
Jesus was teaching them how to come into a relationship with the living God, and be forgiven of their sins, but they didn’t stick around long enough to find out…they were filled with pride from not getting their bellies filled, rather than seeking to learn how to fill others… this statement by Jesus people still run away from today, because it doesn’t fill their bellies…
This is the saddest, and most legitimate question…
and all I can say is I don’t know, I am sorrowed along with you…
Neil,
Could you spell out which elements were question-begging and straw-men? I’m not trying to be dense, I’m just not sure I follow.
Also, you mentioned that Jesus = God but the verse you cited from John seems to portray Jesus as separate from the Father, who presumably is the one God Specifically:
my Father loves me (Jesus loves Jesus?)
I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. (authority from whom?)
I received from my Father (Jesus received from Jesus?)
The Synoptics tell a different story of Jesus’ willingness to lay down His life vs. His obedience to lay it down:
Mat 26:38-44 (Jesus asks 3 time to make the cup pass – but in the end He is obedient to the Father’s will) Luke 22:42-44 (Jesus asks twice for the cup to pass but in the end is obedient to the Father’s will), and Mar 14:35-36 (Jesus asks twice for the cup to pass, then says: “not what I will, but what thou wilt”) – an explicit statement that Jesus’ will is contrary to the Father’s will, yet He obeys the Father will.
Avery,
So, why do you believe those things? And more importantly (from an evangelist’s standpoint), why should I believe those things? …that God will heal amputees, that it’s OK for God to watch people starve to death, that God never demanded anyone’s death (see Deu 32:41-42, Exo 32:27-28, Num 16:30-35, Num 16:46-49, and many more), that God wouldn’t prohibit slavery if he were against it (men were also a proponent of adultery but God prohibited it), that bad things should happen equally to Hitler and Mother Teresa since they are both “bad”, that Jesus has appeared to me?
The only miracle that you mentioned was the existence of Isreal and Christianity. Why do you believe that is a miracle? And more importantly (again from an evangelist’s viewpoint), why should I?
Boy.. great questions askanatheist…
You don’t have to believe those things.. first off, because you have a “free will”.. meaning God gave you your mind, but you have free exercise…
You should however believe those things, because they are true… isn;t that the nature of believing?
As far as why I believe God will heal amputees… because of the resurrection…
Everyone, good, bad or ugly will be raised from the dead… and for those who have trusted in Jesus, and the forgiveness found in Him, they will inherit eternal life, healing, and everlasting joy…that’s the promise anyway…
The bible teaches that everyone will be raised from the dead…and judged…
(If you don’t believe this, you’ll find out later whether or not you believed the truth)
As far as God demanding the death of some… I think the difference between saying that and the truth, is the difference between demanding that a child be punished for nothing, and that a child be justlky punished for discipline’s sake…
Remember the context of the initial question was concerning God demanding the death of the “innocent”.. and as I stated… no on is innocent… so how could that even be possible…
However God gave the law to dter those would be guilty parties from doing the things that they would do…
What God demanded was obedienc, and the crime for failing was death…. that is not the same thing as demanding death of innocents…but rather deters the death of innocents, and justly punishes the guilty…
I don’t know why God prohibited slavery… He hasn’t ever revealed that, that I know of, but surely it was better for those who were slaves, than it is today for some men who are “free”, because under God’s system, slaves were treated very well…
As far as that bad should happen both to Miother Theresa and Hitler… again, this is about guilt, and all are guilty, albeit not equally guilty…
But that is the failure of most of humanity…
For some reason (probably sin and selfishness), man thinks that God created man to be man’s servant, when the adverse is true…
Man (including Mother Theresa and Hitler) are all guilty, but not equally… and we all deserve death…
The real mystery is that anything good happens to any of us…
Ultimately in the end (the day of judgment), all of us are going to get what we all deserve… but some will be forgiven, (not because they were better, but because they trusted in Christ)….as the Lord declares..
As far as Israel being a miracle… do a little research on the beginnings of the nation…
It exists because God created it from nothing….
And Christianity is a miracle, because Jesus has been raised from the dead…
Had He not appeared to more than five thousand prior to ascending to Heaven… it would have all ended on the cross…
From an evangelist’s standpoint this is why you should believe…
Not because I said so,
Not because some other Christian said so,
Not because the evidence is compelling,
Not because you may go to heaven or hell depending on it….
Not because you can be saved…
but simply this…
Because it is true….
If it isn’t true.. don’t believe it… if it is, sell everything you have, and buy it… and then do not sell it…
A couple of edits
dter should have read “deter”
God prohibited should have read “I don’t know why God didn’t prohibit”…
Sorry I don’t type, but I will try and do a better job of proof reading before I post…
Avery,
I think you may have missed the point of my question. To illustrate, let me make a few claims that are contrary to your beliefs, but I’ll use a few of the same types of arguments you used so you can judge for yourself how effective and believable those types of arguments are:
You don’t have to believe that Krishna exists because you have a mind and you can believe whatever you want. However, you should believe that Krishna exists because it’s true. The Bhagavad Gita teaches that Krishna is the source of the entire material world. Even if you don’t believe this now, you will find out that this is true after you die.
How convinced are you? Not very? And why not? After all, it’s what the Bhagavad Gita says – and the Bhagavad Gita is a divine text.
I hope I did a good enough job with my example to at least give you a little bit on an idea of why simply parroting and ancient text (poorly in my example since I’m not familiar enough with the Bhagavad Gita to really do it justice) is not convincing. I also hope my examples were obvious enough so that you can recognize the types of arguments that you used.
To say that I should believe something because it is true really is saying that I should believe it because you say it’s true. Here’s another crude illustration: don’t believe in Santa Clause because I say Santa Clause exists, believe in Santa Clause because Santa Clause really exists! Can you see the problem? It’s not reasonable for you to believe in Santa Clause just because I say he exists – it would only be reasonable if I could give you a credible reason why you should believe it – half eaten cookies, an empty glass of milk, reindeer poop and sleigh skid marks on the roof, footprints in the fireplace, some independent corroborated sitings, etc. There may or may not be an alternative interpretation of the evidence, but at least there is some pretty strong evidence that might fit my claim.
I agree with you on this one. What’s still missing is a good reason why I should believe that it’s true.
Sure Askanatheist, I can see your point of view.. but we are comparing apples to oranges as far as proof goes…
Before I was a Cristian I dabbled in other religions. I never got into Krishna, but found the precepts of Hinduism really interesting. The only problem is I found out that while historical the dates, times, authors, etc, are very slippery and not really historically significant…
No scholar is sure on the texts, the author, or the origination of the texts. There is scholarship that estimates the beginning of Hare Krishna around 1500 BC… but there is so much variance in texts, and in practice that historically, archaeologically, and even influentially… it is merely a book of poetry, to be recited and chanted… and not to be actually “literally apllied” from a historical standpoint…as most Hindus would tell you it is about precept not accuracy…
To quote one Hindu “even if the whole of Hinduism were proven to be historically inaccurate, it would not lose significance to spiritual understanding”, (from a neighbor)
Similarly…
If someone offered me a 100 dollar bill with George Bush’s head on it.. I wouldn’t take it no matter how compelling it was, because it is an obvious counterfeit…
Would you counterfeit a penny? No you would counterfeit something of value like a hundred dollar bill…
The precepts can be true and credit given to the wrong God, and that is a counterfeit…
All of the rest of the characteristics can be identical, but if it isn’t completely true, it is worthless…
Now why we are comparing apples to oranges is this…
The bible is historically outstanding, deserving serious consideration. In several tests the Bible surpasses all other books in history. One could even say that the history of the Bible is so compelling that to doubt the Bible is to doubt history itself, since it is the most historically verifiable book of all antiquity. The only book more historically verifiable than the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) is the New Testament. Consider the following.
More manuscripts exist for the New Testament than for any other of historical antiquity. 5,000 plus ancient greek manuscripts, 24,000 in all with all other other languages. The consistency and sheer number of manuscripts allows for a tremendous research base by which we can test the texts against each other and identify what the originals said.
The manuscripts of the New Testament are closer in age to its originals than are any other document of antiquity. All of the originals were written within the time of the contemporaries (eyewitnesses), in the first century AD. And we currently have manuscript parts as old as 125 AD. Whole book copies surface by 200 AD. And the complete new testament can be found dating back to 250 AD. Having all the books of the ew testament initially written within the times of eyewitnesses means that they did not have time to turn into into myth and folklore.(Hinduism boasts in its myth and folklore, and Christianity rejects the notion of it). Plus their truth claims were held accountable by active persecution and by members of the Church who, as personal witnesses to the events, could check the facts.
The New Testament Documents are more accurate than any other of antiquity. Many scholars shwo that 99 plus percent of the manuscripts of the bible in antiquity are accurate. (there isn’t another text for another religion that can make that boast). Those are good statistics for the National Treasury to boast in concerning their stockpile of bills being authentic.
I understand your furstration with the multiplicitus other religions…but even as tim progresses, Christianity will further prove itself to be true, (because it is), and other religions will continue to be believed because people want to, in spite of the reality of truth.
Probably the most compelling issue today is the fact that almost every other religion has alot of room for subjectivity… and Christianity does not…
You can talk about Buddha, Islam, Krishna, and any other religion today, and people are fascinated by you… the moment you bring up the cross of Christ… consciences are pricked, and people get angry…
Why , because deep down inside… they know its true…
I have to say… that an evidence that Christianity is true, is the fact that so many atheists devote their entire lives trying to disprove it…
I don’t see atheists poking at Hindus, or at Muslims much, but they can’t stand Christianity…why not?
Personally i think is because those are easy pickings… as any atheist knows… but with Christianity… there is something disturbingly threatening to the rationale, lifestyle, and knowledge of an atheist…
I have always wondered why they consider it the biggest threat to their faith…?
You should do a little research on Hinduism principals, practices, and evidence… fascinating…
Again however… I have given you some rational evidence… we haven’t even touched on prophecy… or your own conscience (and everyone else’s) as proof…
None of those are reasons you should believe…
again, you hould believe because it is true, as the evidence suggests… and as the truth states… (there is salvation found in no other name, except that of Jesus Christ)… that is a bold claim, but not one that fails to be substantiated…
I tried alot harder on the typos this time… I hope it is more intelligible…
Another thought that occurred…
Each morning when you wake up, you are putting faith in the fact that your car will start…
You don’t get up and prepare for a mechanical emergency, throw in your coveralls, and grab your toolbox, and then try and start your car…
Something in you believes that your car will start, which is why you put on cologne and shave, and are not prepared to get dirty…
Your car is trustworthy, (most likely), so you trust it to start…
You don’t know 100% that your car will start every morning… so why don’t you put on your coveralls?
Similarly, christianity is trustworthy, as time, history, etc has shown…
You wouldn’t not try start your car, just because you didn’t know 100% for certain that it would start…
Even saying that you would believe if you were 100% sure is somewhat hypocritical…
No one is 100% sure about anything except for death…
A wise man, even if his irrational fear of failing at starting his car, would get someone else to start it for him, and when it is running say “Jump in”…
A fool would stand back and say, “I can’t because It may die as soon as I get in”…
Jesus was the man, (the God-man) who started the car (the resurrection)….
As I get older the more I realize how unsure life, wisdom, and even my own rationale is… because I have been proven wrong a million times…
Christianity is trustworthy, and true… because its author is trustworthy and true…
If you want to be 100 % sure about everything before you believe it… you won’t really get very far….
Because so few things are for sure…
Avery,
Regarding your first (of 2) posts: you did well at understanding why my devil’s advocate arguments were not compelling – but you still seem eluded by my main point – about why the arguments were not compelling. The point was not whether the Bhagavad Gita is sufficient evidence to make you believe in Krishna, the point is rather that rational people need evidence to believe, empty claims aren’t compelling no matter how passionately and enthusiastically they are presented.
You did present some reasons why I should believe the Bible which is great! It’s what I have been pushing toward since we’ve begun our conversation. You said:
Maybe we can discuss why you find the Bible to be historically accurate. First, do you feel that it is all historically accurate, or are just parts of it historically accurate? And by accurate, do you mean that it corroborates other historical sources, or do you just mean that the extant manuscripts are reliable representations of the autographs?
Do you mean historically accurate or do you mean that they accurately represent the autographs?
I have seen atheist sites devoted to discussions of Islam, but I think you are right that the majority of English-speaking atheist sites are more focused on Christianity. Could it be that the largest religion in English-speaking culture is Christianity?
Do you believe in the divinity of Lord Krishna? If not, you should – not because of the sacred texts – but because it’s true. Do you agree? If not, then why not?
Trustworthy in what respect and what has time shown?
Francoise, God did show up.
Askanatheist…
Yes… trustworthy in history, in content, verifiable by historical, archaelogical accounts, and secular historians… even within 70 AD of the actual event at the cross, and the life of Jesus….
I think where you may be going is in concern to the “autographa”.. or the actual documents…
That is a moot point unless you are willing to never spend or take a dollar again…
Reason being, simply this…
Unless you have a stockpile of gold taken from the federal reserve each day and placed in your back pocket, your dollar is worthless, unless you trust, and believe in it…
You see that dollar represents the value of gold in the federal reserve…(as it says)
what proof do you have of the original?
You must exercise faith based on reasonable evidence even to buy or to sell anything in this country…don’t you?In order to spend a dollar, you must believe it has value, and to recieve one, you must believe it has value…
it is a little hypocritical to say that you won’t believe in what you don’t have evidence to support, but do it every day!
As far as the autographa… there is as much evidence of the original, and probably more of the original than (unless your the “donald”) in your bank account of authentic biblical manuscript evidence of the autographa… but I think you are clearly biased to Christianity…and don’t want to believe it…
It is easy to want to believe in the value of a dollar, because it suits your thinking, (making you the arbitrator of value and reality), but still based on principles of faith…
Unless you can throw away all of your money as worthless until you see the gold in the federal reserve for yourself… then you can’t say that the manuscript evidence of the scripture is bunk, because you haven’t seen the originals…
Other than not having the originals, everything else leaves little room to doubt the historical, archaelogical and chronological account of the testimony of those that penned it…
So again, we are back to the fallible human standards of measure, and the choice whether or not to believe compelling evidence…
I say, don’t believe it because of the evidence.. but believe it because it is true, and it is valuable…
All of this however is a sidebar…
The greatest evidence of the “truth” of christianity, is the resurrection of Christ…(something that seems to continuously be sidestepped)…
I think this would be a good areea of focus… what do you think?
Hey Askanatheist,
If the tone is passionate it is only because I am passionate and it reflects in what I write.. but I want you to know I value your views… and tone is never well reflected in a blog as it is in person…
I still want that cup of coffee… seriously…and if I come through Georgia, I’m stopping by…
Avery, you need to actually read your Bible. You seem to think it’s far more credible than it actually is. Going back to Askanatheist’s example what you are doing is pretty much the same as a Hindu scholar would do if they were to focus only on particular aspects of the Bhagavad Gita to prove its authenticity.
If you are serious about testing the validity of the Bible you should first look for Biblical criticism, of which there is plenty (and much without agenda) look for work by Bob Price or Richard Carrier to name a couple.
The best way to test whether something is true is to try your hardest to knock it down. You need to be honest with yourself. I remained a Christian for many many years telling others that I had tested Christianity but the reality was that I hadn’t because the very act of being willing for it to be wrong was a step I felt I couldn’t make.
You say things like “The greatest evidence of the ‘Truth’ of Christianity is the resurrection of Christ” but it you are honest with yourself you will see that there _really_ is no evidence other than the strong conviction inside yourself and in your fellow believers.
To understand the impenetrable effects of this kind of belief all you need to do is expose yourself to someone of a different religion with a similar level of fervour and try to point out to them their logical inconsistencies. Try telling a Hindu believer that their guru doesn’t walk on water as he claims or that the statue of Mary crying is a fake or that Joseph Smith was a crackpot – you will come up against exactly the same form of argument that you are using.
Avery,
I’m happy to let you lead me to any evidence you have to offer. So focusing on the resurrection is fine with me. That being agreed, I’ll postpone challenging your claims about the historicity of the Bible for the moment, and I’ll postpone responding to your challenges about evidence vs. inductive reasoning for now too.
I’m betting we will come back to both topics in the course of discussing the ressurection anyway. Is this OK?
You betcha! I’m serious too
Marie- “God did show up”- can you extrapolate on that, please? I don’t know what you mean.
Wow, this discussion has carried on a while… i haven’t read any of the above since my last comment – on May 8th! Perhaps I can wade through it in the near future.
Faith versus conclusive proof. Hmm, it seems it will always require faith at some level for us humans.
Faith versus conclusive proof. Hmm, it seems it will always require faith at some level for us humans.
I would say it’s more like faith vs reason. Some would argue that there is no conclusive proof of anything (in fact this is the position of science). I would argue that most of the faith exhibited in this discussion is a form of retreat from reason, not an innate human requirement.
“Faith” that the chair you are about to plonk yourself down on won’t break is really just economic reasoning whereas faith that Jesus was born of a virgin because someone wrote about it in a book is “unreasonable” in its purest sense.
Sorry, that top sentence in the previous post should be a quote.
Bryan,
I think it can be confusing to talk about both reasoned faith (belief based on reasoning about evidence) and blind faith (belief based on premise while ignoring any evidence which might undermine the premise) and call them both “faith”. Faith that the sun will rise tomorrow is quite different than faith in God. The former is based on reasoning about evidence, the latter (at least in discussions we have here) is based on a premise.
Francoise, God showed up in your e-mails when I wrote you of my great love for you. It is God’s great love and His alone. I don’t have such love within myself. God loves you so much that He brought you to my mind yesterday as I worshipped Him and so I poured out my heart in prayer for you. God loves you so much that when I pray for you, which is often, my heart is overwhelmed with His love for you. I have never felt this for anyone else – ever.
OK, I appreciate your explanation, Marie. What I am trying to understand is- should there be a visible, tangible evidence that God is in my life? I haven’t noticed any alteration since Kevin challenged unbelievers to ask God to enter into my life. I did, and so far, nothing’s happened. I would expect that if a supernatural entity, ie the creator of the universe, was to manifest into my existence, I would surely notice something, but I haven’t, hence my puzzlement.
Askanatheist
Alright you’ve heard the arguments before bro, in the same way I have discussed with other religions some of there evidences…..(believe me being an evangelist means talking to lots and lots of people, in the thousands on a personal level).
I am not as ignorant to suppose that being an “anti-ebangelist”… I mean atheist.. (jokingly, hope you get that and aren’t offended)…that you have also talked to thousands…
Would it be okay if I posted an article on the resurrection, (or rather a link) , and we could discuss it?
Hi AAA,
The verse I cited wasn’t to demonstrate support for Jesus’ deity (plenty of that here: http://www.whatthebibleteaches.com/wbt_130.htm) but to show that Jesus – as God – went to the cross willingly.
Your questions seem to center around the concept of the Trinity. You might want to do a search on that to get some more background.
Re. question begging: “insane egocentricity.”
Francoise, He entered into the periphery of your life in order to get your attention.
When you asked the question, did you ask believing that He would do what you asked?
Avery,
No offense taken. How about “a-vangelist”?
)
Certainly!
Neil,
What about the verses I sited where Jesus says “not my will”?
As Inigo Montoya said to Vizzini in The Princess Bride, “I do not think it means what you think it means. ”
“Begging the question” is a kind of logical fallacy where you presume what you set out to prove as part of your proof. That’s why I was a bit confused when you said that Fran’s assertion begged the question.
Ok man (the a-vangelist was good)
Here is the article… mind you.. his view is nearly identical to mine…
Resurrection article by Josh McDowell
Thoughts?
Avery,
When you meet A3, go to Bahama Breeze like we did when we met him during Catalyst a few weeks ago.
It wasn’t an assertion, it was a boiling down the theological claims into a human scenario. It simply doesn’t make an ounce of sense to think that the murder of an innocent poerson can ever be justified, much less glorified.
What’s Bahama Breeze?
A3 .. that’s good now I know what to call him…
I’m up for it
Avery,
You can read about our lunch here. The link for Bahama Breeze is in the post.
avery,
Thoughts?
A few
How about if we start with the various claims of “fact” under the “A QUESTION OF HISTORY” section near the top?
McDowell is recounting the events in the Gospel and presuming that they are factual because he believes that if they were not, eye-witnesses would have disputed them. As far as I can tell, the rest of his argument hangs on this conclusion. Do you agree?
Let’s look first at the Gospel of Mark since it is the earliest account of the resurrection, written some time between 65 at the earliest and 80 at the latest (35 to 50 years after the resurrection would have taken place). Let’s consider any eye-witnesses that could have been around during the time of the writing, and let’s look at what the author of Mark actually wrote. Would that be ok?
A3
Sure… sounds like a plan…
Great! Then let’s start with a few basic observations about The Gospel According to Mark and see where we agree:
* the autograph was anonymous
* ca 70ce is the most accepted date of authorship and we can accept that date for this discussion
* the autograph ended on verse 16:8
Where we don’t agree, we can present the evidence at hand and maybe see where the differences in opinion lie. Ok?
Also, just so we can keep track of where we agree and where we differ, I made a statement about McDowell’s presumptions and his argument hanging on them and asked if you agreed. Do you?
“What about the verses I sited where Jesus says “not my will”?”
Jesus’ will was to follow the Father’s will, and He did so. No conflict there.
Re. dating of Mark – see when was the New Testament written. It was probably written in the 50′s.
Just because liberal scholars say 70 AD is the most accepted date doesn’t mean it was true. If you want to appeal to authority then sharing their reasoning would be helpful. Liberal scholars have an extreme bias. That doesn’t mean they are always wrong, but it does mean that I want to hear their reasoning along with their conclusions.
And even if it was 70 there is no reason it wouldn’t have been reliable.
I recommend “Can we trust the Gospels” by Mark Roberts – http://www.amazon.com/Can-Trust-Gospels-Investigating-Reliability/dp/1581348665/ref=sr_1_1/104-8591725-8606312?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193745975&sr=8-1
Last try on the logical fallacy explanation: Francoise (deliberately?) distorts the Biblical view of the cross then says she can’t understand it. Straw man. Part of her premise was claiming that God is insanely egocentric. She offered no proof. Begging the question.
A3…
I agree with the premise of your question concerning the eyewitnesses…
I want to remind you though… in a court of law… eyewitnesses give testiomony concerning their own personal experiences.. and these can be subjective, but the differences can help the judgment of the jury to see the “facts”… the eyewitnesses do not make the facts, but the corroboration of testimony of subjective viewpoints can reveal the facts… do yuo agree with that premise?
BTW I think it is cool that you met with Kevin… I am looking forward to that too…! Now I know your serious…(from the reasonable evidence you have displayed) ha!
Neil,
It’s true that Jesus’ will was to obey the Father’s will. However, it is also true that Jesus’ will and the Father’s will were not the same with regard to the plans for Jesus’ sacrifice – Jesus’ statement makes that clear… that is, unless you don’t take Jesus’ statement literally, or unless you don’t believe the statement was reported accurately.
The only claim I could find in the reference you cited that argues for an early Markian gospel was: “The book of Acts, written by Luke, ends with Paul was in prison in 62 AD. Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke before he wrote Acts, so it was presumably written in the late 50’s. Most scholars agree that Luke was not the first Gospel. Therefore, the earliest Gospel must have been written no later than the mid to late 50’s”
But there’s an obvious flaw in that logic – let’s assume that Luke’s account of Paul’s incarceration in 62ce was accurate. That only sets an early boundary for Luke – it means that Luke could have been written no earlier than 62ce. But it says nothing about a late boundary. That is, Luke could report Paul’s incarceration if he were writing in 120ce.
I looked at Fran’s post again, and all I could see was that she proposed an analogy. You may or may not dispute the claim that her analogy applies. However, I don’t see where she argued against any straw man, she only argues (implicitly) that her analogy applies.
The statement of a premise and failing to support it is not the same as begging the question. Treating what you set out to prove as a premise is begging the question.
Avery,
Yes, I agree.
This is a great discussion – we’re covering some good ground. Can you present reasons for presuming that Mark is using eye-witnesses as his source?
It was cool meeting with Kevin – he’s a good guy!
Oh ye of little faith!
Neil,
Forgot to respond to this… sorry.
Agreed!
This is not really part of my response but a genuine question as an asside: what is your definition of a “liberal scholar” and why do you believe that they are biased as a group?
Here are a few indicators:
* references to synagogues (Jesus performs miracles and admonishes the authorities in these large synagogues) – this suggest that the writer lives in the Jewish diaspora since he conceives of synagogues as large and containing many rulers, like diaspora synagogues – synagogues like those didn’t exist at the time of Jesus. In contrast, early Christians thought of themselves as Jews and were accepted at many synagogues into the second century.
* the crucifixion scene with the two thieves on either side of Jesus is strongly reminiscent of a similar scene in Life of Josephus which is written in 95.
* “my name’s sake” in Mar 13:13 refers to the term “Christian” as applied to Jesus’ followers, which is anachronistic because the term didn’t come into use until long after Jesus’ time. Paul’s epistles show that early Christians referred to themselves as “the Saints” or “the Elect.”
* It’s likely that Mark wrote in an environment where Roman rule was a constant presence (near 70) as evidenced by his attempts to absolve the Romans of the responsibility for Jesus’ death by painting Pontius Pilate as a weak, indecisive leader, rather than the brutal tyrant that everyone knew him to be.
Anyone with a passing knowledge of ancient history knows what a foul despot Pilate was, and his depiction in the Gospels is utterly at variance with the reality. He had the lips of crucified rebels sewn up , becuase their screams of agony disturbed him. Charming fellow.
“what is your definition of a “liberal scholar” and why do you believe that they are biased as a group?”
See anyone on the Jesus Seminar or those who share their a priori conviction that miracles never happen.
Not sure what you mean by Mark 13:13 being anochronistic – the NIV reads “All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.” Are you saying that the original Greek used the word “Christian” in that verse?
Just fyi – Acts 11:26 notes that believers were first called Christians in Antioch, apparently early in Paul’s ministry, so this was probably within a couple decades of the resurrection.
I encourage you to double check your sources on synagogues. That is the first time I’ve heard a claim that they weren’t around early in the 1st century in the form described in the Bible. Jesus would have gone to large and small synagogues.
I’m not sure if you are misunderstanding on purpose or not re. Jesus’ will. All I can say to the unconvinced is to re-read the Matthew and John sections carefully and draw your own conclusions. I see no conflicts.
“Anyone with a passing knowledge of ancient history . . .”
Since there are more and better and earlier copies of NT documents than nearly anything else in antiquity, I find that to be erroneous.
Check out “Pontius Pilate” by Paul Maier. Terrific historical fiction by a history professor who goes to great lengths to ensure accuracy. He also translated Josephus’ works, which contained more on Pilate.
Hey, even Wikipedia – which we all know is conservative and perfectly authoritative
– says this about Pilate: “Little enough is known about Pilate, but mythology has filled the gap.”
“But there’s an obvious flaw in that logic – let’s assume that Luke’s account of Paul’s incarceration in 62ce was accurate. That only sets an early boundary for Luke . . .”
There is no flaw there. It is possible that Acts was written later, but it seems more probable that it stopped there because Paul wasn’t dead yet (insert Monty Python joke here) and that Jerusalem hadn’t been demolished. In fact, the fact that the 70 AD events aren’t mentioned anywhere (except Revelation, perhaps) gives strong evidence for early dating.
D’oh! My earlier comment was swallowed. Here’s a quick recap:
Mark 13:13 – huh? That verse doesn’t use the word “Christian” in the original Greek or in any version I saw, so where is the anachronism? Maybe I misunderstood your point.
Re. Pilate – see “Pontius Pilate” by Paul Maier – great historical fiction – he also did a translation of the works of Josephus. Most of what we know about Pilate is from the Gospels or Josephus. Not sure how one could draw other conclusions without giving tremendous weight to the Gospels, which have more and better and earlier transripts than other works of antiquity.
Re. liberal scholars – see the Jesus Seminar types – i.e., those who dismiss miracles a priori.
Re. synagogues – that is news to me – I have never heard it even hinted that large and small synagogues wouldn’t have been around in the early first century but were in the late first century.
The alleged Josephus link – whatever it really is – wouldn’t mean that the Gospels had a late dating – unless someone was predisposed to assume that they weren’t original.
Here’s a good link on Jesus as revealed outside the Bible – http://www.whitehorseinn.org/images/ntreliable.pdf
Not sure what else to say about the “I lay down my life” verse vs. the “not my will, but your will” verses. I see no conflict but will leave it to the unbiased to draw their own conclusions.
Sorry for the redundant comment – the 1st one had a delay in posting.
Wow! This thread is still alive!
Interesting insights all across the spectrum.
A3 I have parent teacher conferences today… and something at church tonight…
I have to prioritize… but I will get back to you on what you wrote later on tonight or tommorrow…
Don’t give up on me yet !!!!
No problem – it’s been the same with me – I’ve been in all-day meetings 2 days straight. I’ve been trying to respond to Neil but haven’t been able to set aside time to it. (Neil, I’ll try to get to it tonight… in between trick-or-treaters
) This is a very interesting conversation and I’m interested to see what it goes.
A3, I’ve asked Kevin to forward you my email address. Write if you wish. If not, I won’t be offended.
We had our first Australian Halloween last night- nothing at all like the USA’s version!!
Hi all – no problem – I’ll be busy passing out candy tonight!
Neil,
I asked: “what is your definition of a “liberal scholar” and why do you believe that they are biased as a group?” You said:
So you’re saying that true scholarship is “Price-less”?
(just kidding)
Which of these do you feel is the best way to approach the Bible (and why):
* presume that it is divine and historical unless I find proof that it is not
* make no presumptions, consider at all evidence whether it supports or negates the claim of divinity or historicity
* presume that it is not divine or historical unless I find evidence to support that it is
I was referring to the original Greek uses the word, dia, which is often translated as “name’s sake” (most translations of Mark 13:13 translate it this way)
The term doesn’t show up in extra-biblical sources until later, and then only in as a pejorative term (see Josephus, Antiquities, and Tacitus Annals). Either Luke is our only source of an early usage, or Luke wrote late enough that he didn’t know that the term wasn’t in use in Paul’s time. Which to you think is the likely case? And why?
I just did – they still say the same thing
House churches and synagogues were around early (the term “church” and “synagogue” were synonymous – not yet distinguishing between Christian or Jewish congregations). However, these were just houses that early Christians or Jews used as informal meeting places. There is no evidence of any formality or special structural modification to these early domiciles. They fit Paul’s descriptions of Christian meeting places. Domus ecclesiae (houses with a renovated meeting room) and aula ecclesiae (houses that were more elaborately renovated with alters and other Jewish or Christian symbolism) didn’t begin to appear until late 1st century when the meeting became for ceremonial. There were no large synagogues for Jesus to go to in His day. The appearance of these synagogues in Mark’s gospel is evidence of a later composition.
The information is from Dr. Michael L. White’s work. As far as I know, it is uncontested.
I’ve read the sections again and…
…wait for it…
…they still say the same thing!
It’s clear that Jesus prefers not to go through with the sacrifice (Mat 26:39 – “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me…”). But in the end, He defers to the Father’s will anyway (Mat 26:39 – “…nevertheless not as I will , but as thou wilt.”).
Summary of Mat 26:39:
Jesus’ will about the sacrifice = don’t go through with it
Father’s will about the sacrifice = go through with it
Jesus’ will about obedience to the Father = obey, even if it means doing something He doesn’t want to do (i.e., something that is against His will but consistent with the Father’s will)
I think you were responding to someone else here?
“…but I’m feeling much bettah!”
It is certainly possible, but the author (you by any chance?
) doesn’t claim that it is merely possible, instead he says that “…it was presumably written in the late 50’s.” There is a very big difference between deeming something possible and presuming that it is true. The logical flaw is presuming that Luke wrote early based on the evidence presented.
Yea – I’ve done that a few time my self
I think I’ve responded to everything but let me know if there were additional points that I might have missed. Sorry this response took so long, I’ve been in all-day design meetings and it was hard to get a large-enough block of time to respond. For the same reason, some of the responses might be terse; I didn’t intend them to be, I was just trying to get done before the meetings started up again.
Hi AAA,
“I was referring to the original Greek uses the word, dia, which is often translated as “name’s sake” (most translations of Mark 13:13 translate it this way)”
I see that some translations read that way, but back to the original point you made – why is that anachronistic and supposedly evidence for a late dating?
“The term doesn’t show up in extra-biblical sources until later, and then only in as a pejorative term (see Josephus, Antiquities, and Tacitus Annals). Either Luke is our only source of an early usage, or Luke wrote late enough that he didn’t know that the term wasn’t in use in Paul’s time. Which to you think is the likely case? And why?”
Even if I take your “doesn’t show up” claim at face value (nothing personal, but I’d have to research this myself before I agreed or disagreed with that), that doesn’t mean the term “Christians” wasn’t used within a couple decades of the resurrection. This seems like a liberal slight-of-hand argument, where they assume what they should be proving, namely that the term wasn’t used early on. The implication is that Luke must have written it late because he was obviously lying about the term being used earlier. Jesus Seminar scholarship at its best.
For the benefit of those joining late, I’ll paste the John and Matthew verses where Jesus is speaking and again point out that I see no contradiction. Your analysis of Matthew is OK, but I can’t see why you insist that John contradicts it. Read John carefully and tell me what part is so contradictory.
John 10:17-18 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.
Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”
“The information is from Dr. Michael L. White’s work. As far as I know, it is uncontested.”
Thanks for the laugh. I hadn’t heard of this guy but after looking him up on Amazon I remembered the silly PBS special he co-wrote, “From Jesus to Christ” (presumably based off his book). You are right: His work is uncontested by the Jesus Seminar and PBS.
Glad you have good taste in movies and know the lines to the Holy Grail! Hope you had an opportunity to see Spamalot. Even my teenage girls love the movie and the musical.
“The logical flaw is presuming that Luke wrote early based on the evidence presented.”
Huh? Seems like it is a logical inference. Luke was written before Acts, and there is evidence for Acts being written before Paul died. Is is bullet proof? No, but I find it more weighty than those who automatically assume it was written late.
P.S. Hope my replies didn’t sound terse, either (yours didn’t).
Sorry, missed this one:
“Which of these do you feel is the best way to approach the Bible (and why):
* presume that it is divine and historical unless I find proof that it is not
* make no presumptions, consider at all evidence whether it supports or negates the claim of divinity or historicity
* presume that it is not divine or historical unless I find evidence to support that it is”
It is a mix. I don’t know too many people who go at it in a completely linear fashion. I think people should read it charitably, as in just taking it at face value and reading it the way they would anything else – e.g., history, poetry, parables. Of course, the Bible claims to speak for God (only 3,000 times or so), so it is fair to hold it to a higher standard.
I would encourage people to look at fulfilled prophecies (e.g., predicting the Greek empire 200 yrs. ahead of time), archeological evidence (the Bible’s best friend), manuscript evidence, reliable transmissions, the overall coherence, historical evidence outside the Bible, etc.
Neil,
Sorry it took me so long to respond – I’ve been in meetings all week and haven’t had much free time. Anyway, here goes…
I did indeed! I saw it while in NYC – what a great performance – I loved it! (but not as well as the movie which is still in a class by itself)
Here is the statement I’m contesting: “The book of Acts, written by Luke, ends with Paul was in prison in 62 AD. Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke before he wrote Acts, so it was presumably written in the late 50’s.”
The author’s doesn’t merely present the omission of Paul’s death as evidence of an early penning, he uses the single piece of evidence to presume an early writing from which he builds the rest of his case for an early penning of Mark. Don’t get me wrong, I believe omissions like this truly are evidence that help us to date texts. But it is very week and vague evidence for which there are other reasonable interpretations. The all interpretations should be weighed against all available evidence.
Here are a few examples of evidence the author is either unaware of, or has chosen to ignore:
Luke 21:5-38 – Luke presupposes that the Temple has already been destroyed.
Irenaeus says: “After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.”, Irenaeus is saying that Peter and Paul were already dead before the penning of this gospel. According to Church tradition, Peter and Paul died around 64ce at the hands of Emperor Nero. Then Mark was written after 64ce and Luke/Acts was written after that.
Luke/Acts does not reflect any knowledge of the bitter persecution of Christians during Domitian’s rule(81-96ce).
My question was: “Which of these do you feel is the best way to approach the Bible (and why):
* presume that it is divine and historical unless I find proof that it is not
* make no presumptions, consider at all evidence whether it supports or negates the claim of divinity or historicity
* presume that it is not divine or historical unless I find evidence to support that it is”
Your response was:
By “charitable”, do you mean that we should believe it unless we find a reason not to? (if so, then you answer is simply the first of my three choices above). Or when you say it is fair to “hold [the Bible] to a higher standard”, do you mean it is reasonable to doubt the Bible’s claims unless we have evidence that they are true (that would be the 3rd of my 3 choices)?
It seems that you are presuming that prophesies were actually fulfilled rather than allowing that they may have been written after the events they describe (or that the manuscripts were redacted). Can you share any evidence that bares this out? What about the archaeological evidence that contradicts the Bible stories?
If the term is indeed best understood as “name’s sake”, and if by name sake, Mark means a defamatory term (which seems to be the case), it may well refer to the defamatory name, Christian. If it does, and if there is reason to believe that the term, Christian, didn’t appear until later in the 1st century, then it helps us place Mark in the later 1st century.
The term doesn’t show up in extra-biblical sources until later, and then only in as a pejorative term (see Josephus, Antiquities, and Tacitus Annals). Either Luke is our only source of an early usage, or Luke wrote late enough that he didn’t know that the term wasn’t in use in Paul’s time. Which to you think is the likely case? And why?”
Just a note before my response: I don’t expect you (or anyone) to take anything I (or anyone else) says at face value. I encourage you to spend the time to look directly at the evidence, agree with me (as a courtesy) when you find that the evidence supports my position, and correct me (as a favor) when the evidence does not.
Now to respond: I agree – it doesn’t mean that the term, “Christian,” was not used earlier. In fact, it doesn’t mean that the term wasn’t used way earlier, like say in the 1st century bce. After all, it just means one who is of the messianic belief or tradition. I personally don’t think we have any reason to believe it was used that early, do you? If you agree, then we’re really talking about evidence for the first use of the term, “Christian.”
We can set an early boundary for when the term, “Christian,” was used from from texts that we can reliably date, and which use that term. Then if a second text, which we are attempting to date, also uses the term, we can establish an early boundary for that second text. The early boundary isn’t the earliest possible date, it is the earliest date we can be resonably sure of, based on the usage of that particular term. The writer still might have written earler, but unless there’s evidence that he did, are earliest reliable date is the early boundary established by the usage of the term.
By the way, that would be a great example of “begging the question” that I was trying to explain to you earlier regarding Fran’s statement.
Can you point out which assumption I am presuming (that I should be proving) so I can respond more directly?
I haven’t seen any scholars asserting or inferring that Luke lied. Could you please provide a reference?
Glad I was able to give you a chuckle
In case you don’t know anything about Michael White, (other than you found the PBS broadcast to be “silly”), he holds the Ronald Nelson Smith Chair in Christian Origins in the Classics department at UT. The chair was established in response to a gift given to the university to honor Rev. Ron Smith’s ministry and commitment to Biblical education (http://www.stdave.org/about-us/Clergy).
Just out of curiosity, what did you find silly about the documentary (I didn’t watch it)? How does whatever-it-was that you found silly discredit White’s work regarding early synagogues and churches? It may be that I simply misinterpreted what you said earlier – that even though you don’t trust “liberal” conclusions, you will consider evidence by “liberal” scholars and then draw your own conclusions (which is actually what “liberal” scholars seem to do themselves, and it is how they arrive at their “liberal” conclusions – so maybe you have more in common with “liberal” scholars than you’d like to think!
).
I’m glad you agree that Michael White’s work was uncontested by the Jesus Seminar and PBS. Will you also agree with my original assertion (without your modification) that it is uncontested – meaning generally uncontested?
Hi AAA,
I appreciate your attempts at dialogue but this is getting repetitive and not terribly productive. I’ll just give you a couple representative examples rather than replying to every point, then you are welcome to have the last word.
Re. Luke lying, you wrote “Either Luke is our only source of an early usage, or Luke wrote late enough that he didn’t know that the term wasn’t in use in Paul’s time.”
My bad – I should have said, “lying or mistaken.” Your contention, which I find unsupported, is that the term “Christians” came up later so that Luke is the only source or he is wrong. If he is wrong he is either lying (my original inference) or mistaken (unlikely, given how spectacularly accurate every verifiable detail is in his writings).
“I’m glad you agree that Michael White’s work was uncontested by the Jesus Seminar and PBS. Will you also agree with my original assertion (without your modification) that it is uncontested – meaning generally uncontested?”
No. I haven’t researched that to know if anyone was aware and cared to specifically respond to his alleged claims about synagogues in the early 1st century. I know enough about the Jesus Seminar to conclude that whatever they put out is highly suspect, and I have heard countless orthodox scholars who had zero reservations about the synagogues as described in the Gospels. In fact, I have heard preachers such as John MacArthur go into great detail about the customs of those synagogues. I find it rather obscure and fanciful that they would argue against the Gospel counts on that point. It is like, “Is that the best they’ve got?”
I am quite familiar with the a priori assumptions used by Jesus Seminar “scholars” and the “evidence” and “logic” they use. I read a book co-authored by Marcus Borg, another guy with a PhD but who is a seriously confused thinker masquerading as a Christian. Hey, Satan knows scripture, too, so just because someone has a title at a public university it doesn’t mean that much to me.
Re. Mark 13:13 (“All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved”), where you prefer the versions that say “my namesake” instead of “me” and draw the conclusion that this somehow means a late dating for Mark. This argument self-destructs at every turn. You wrote:
“If the term is indeed best understood as “name’s sake”, and if by name sake, Mark means a defamatory term (which seems to be the case), it may well refer to the defamatory name, Christian. If it does, and if there is reason to believe that the term, Christian, didn’t appear until later in the 1st century, then it helps us place Mark in the later 1st century.”
Let me highlight a few words from your response: “If . . . if . . . may well . . . if . . . then.”
I wouldn’t put much stock in a conclusion that comes after three “if’s” and a “may well”, even if the “if’s” weren’t so weak.
In addition to the other problems with that argument, “Christ” was a title, not a name. There is no good reason to think that he meant, “Christian,” and even in the highly improbably event that he did, it still wouldn’t prove that Mark had a late dating!
Your argument only works if you assume that Luke was wrong/lying as well in the book of Acts. Hey, if your interpretation of Mark 13:13 was right in that he meant the term “Christians,” then that would be more evidence for an early dating. You have assumed Mark’s dating and even his motives and made unsupported claims about Pilate (“It’s likely that Mark wrote in an environment where Roman rule was a constant presence (near 70) as evidenced by his attempts to absolve the Romans of the responsibility for Jesus’ death by painting Pontius Pilate as a weak, indecisive leader, rather than the brutal tyrant that everyone knew him to be.”)
In short, your Mark 13 argument is the most obscure and unsupported attempt to pin a late dating on the Gospels that I’ve seen.
Again, feel free to have the last word and perhaps I’ll catch you fresh on another thread.
Peace,
Neil
P.S. missed these . . .
“It seems that you are presuming that prophesies were actually fulfilled rather than allowing that they may have been written after the events they describe (or that the manuscripts were redacted). Can you share any evidence that bares this out?”
Here’s a bit on Daniel – just do a search and you’ll find more. http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3a.html
“What about the archaeological evidence that contradicts the Bible stories?”
I would do a search on whatever examples you have. I have yet to come across anything that hasn’t had a good answer, but am familiar with many things that support the Bible and mock the skeptics. Here’s a sample: http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html
Many, especially those who are young in the Christian life, are at times troubled with the suggestions of skepticism.
GOD NEVER ASKS US TO BELIEVE, WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENTE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE OUR FAITH.
God has never removed the possibility of doubt. Our faith must rest upon evidence, not demonstration.
Those who really desire to know the truth will find plenty of evidence on which to rest their faith.
WE LIVE IN A WORLD FULL OF SIN, many of the stuff are just consecuences of living with sin which is all around us. We are pilgrims in this wolrd. we are going to heaven. there there will be no more pain, no pore sickness, and thats how everything was supposed to be. but us humans got away from God. this is the consecuences of our actions.
Now listen!: The word of GOd, like the character of its divine Author, presents mysteries that can never be fully comprehended by FINITE beings!. mysteries too deep for the human mind to explain.
There is sufficient evidence of their divine character.
anyways if you want to know more
write me at pauloparaguayo@hotmail.com
I was doing some research for my Divorce Online Canada Blog and found you website and I must I am very impressed with the depth of writing and content please keep up the good work on all our behalf’s… Especially reporting the misplaced ideas in todays world, it’s like I tell my clients: “It’s so much more beneficial if both parties can come to a mutual agreement… Maybe even give a little and take a little less in some regards it might seem that your the one always giving more, but in the long run it will come back to you 10 times…”
Thanks,
Howard M
It’s funny that God “can” heal people with cancer, but cannot heal amputees. Religion is an insult to humanity.
Hi,
I too stumbled up on this youtube videolast week. It bothered me because of the manipulative way it was put together. But I have a different beef I’d like to raise:
Towards the end of the video it states:
“Your religious beliefs hurt you personally and hurt us as a species because they are delusional.”
You can easily see how untrue this is, many Christians who believe in God have started ministries and organizations who’s main purpose is helping others: amputees, starving children, orphans, mine casualties, people with disabilities such as blindness and other unfortunate soles. It is quite common to see Christians helping the species. I think it’s extremely rare when atheist try to help the species in these ways.
I couldn’t find any resources for helping amputees on http://www.WhyGodDoesntHealApputees.com. Kevin, could you add a link or two on this thread so we can all be encouraged to send money / volunteer to help amputees? Even if only a few people donate it’s a help.
The world is a better place with God, and I believe in Him.
Hello all,
2 questions:
1.Why are you Christian? (Either you were raised from birth or that is the most prominent religion around you.) If you were born in the Middle East you would be Muslum or Buddist and so on.
2. Why does every person in a religion think that THEY’RE religion is right. ( they ALL prove equally true.)
As a former Christian those 2 questions bothered me quite a lot. (And I’m pretty sure SATAN didn’t put those questions into my head, I thought about things logically)
(not that those were the only reasons I left)
Thank you for listening I would love to hear from you. (Because If one of us is right then it shouldn’t shy away from evidence or research.) Thank you
“If you were born in the Middle East you would be Muslum or Buddist and so on.”
I don’t see what that proves. You were born in a more pluralistic culture but that doesn’t make your view correct. We need to examine the truth claims of the religions.
“Why does every person in a religion think that THEY’RE religion is right. ( they ALL prove equally true.)”
That statement is false. One of the following is possible when we die, but under no circumstance could more than one be possible:
1. Reincarnation (Hinduism, New Age)
2. Complete nothingness (Atheism)
3. One death then judgment by God (Christianity, Islam, others)
Jesus was either the Messiah (Christianity) or He was not the Messiah (Judaism and others), but He cannot be both the Messiah and not the Messiah.
God either doesn’t exist (Atheism), He exists and is personal (Christianity) or He exists and is impersonal (Hinduism).
Jesus either died on the cross (Christianity) or He didn’t (Islam).
God either revealed himself to us (many religions) or he didn’t (Atheism, Agnosticism).
I know it is an oversimplification but it served its point.
That was one of the conclusions I had reached, either they were all right or all wrong. Religion isn’t that trustworthy, in the sense that,
You can pick your religion, ignoring the fact that others around you or on the other side of the earth think opposite, and believe that THEY are right because of certain reasons. All proving true in one way or the other. ( Small, vague truths that come together, but don’t add up if you put it to an actual test.)
The only reason most people are religious is because they were raised that way.(Because the parents were also.) Or the threat of “horrible torture and suffering”, if they believe otherwise, weighs over they’re head. I admit that it still does prey on my mind, mainly because it is a serious psychological idea. (the worst thing you can imagine+burning forever)
As more and more questions came up that either couldn’t be answered and the more I was educated on the subjects of astronomy and evolution, all those questions were answered.
By the way in case any of you still doubt evolution you’ll be dismissed as a lunatic, and not able to speak at any REAL science/biology lectures.
Upon learning that fact I quickly came to the realization that GOD must have used evolution as his “guiding hand”. But…
I hit another wall, the way that it is actually set up is that it is a process that has no foresight. It makes a lot of bad “experiments” and kills off, ruthlessly, any of the “stragglers”
When comets come out of the blue and wipe out 70 to 95% of life multiple times throughout earths violent past if makes you wonder, why would that happen?
God still could technically be out there merely setting up the universe and stepping back, but … thats no god from any religion, and, why would you serve him if he doesn’t show himself or even ask to be served. I’m sure that I would make my presence known.(there are theories even about how universes are made up, like the “M-theory”,)
So that was a “summed up” version of a FEW of the reasons why I presently do not attend church and believe in “God” (if given enough evidence though, I can be persuaded to think otherwise, you must ALWAYS keep and open mind )
I’m sorry to have rambled and wasted your time if you believe I did so.
Thank you
P.S. thank you Neil for correcting my simplified question.
Hi Ben,
That is great that you are keeping an open mind. Christianity is historical in evidential, in that it points to real people, places and events in history. There is lots of evidence and reason for it.
Re. the threat of hell – as an aside, it isn’t torture, it is punishment – the due punishment for our sins, unless we trust in Jesus and have his righteousness transferred to our account and our sins transferred to his. Is Hell a “threat?” I suppose so. But scare tactics are only inappropriate if the consequences aren’t real.
I encourage you to take an open minded study of the Bible. I think you’ll find that all the tough questions people ask (Why do bad things happen?, etc.) are addressed there.
Peace,
Neil
If Hell was not there ,Christ would not have to die on Cross. HE died to save us from HELL which is due to us (ALL PEOPLE EVER BORN ON EARTH).
I feel people have hard time grasping the concept of sin and hell.
I asked once that how a loving GOD can sent anybody to hell to suffer for eternity and so there cannot be a Hell.
But i cannot find a satisfactory answer to the question why the almighty GOD HIMSELF had to suffer and die on cross.
That obvoiusly led to the conclusion that hell is such a horrible place and it is 100% real.
As a corollary ,I found the and experienced the LOVE of GOD .
I may sound old fashioned and preaching .I would like to say to all reading the blog that I WAS SAVED FROM HELL.
Ben,
I liked your comments and found them to be very intersting.
Can try to answer your two questions.
1. My forefathers accepted Christ as their God facing opposition, persecution, violence and hardship. I am very proud of this fact and their Faith Life .
Following Christ is my “free will” choice .Their Life may be an inspiration.
2. I would like to consider myself as not belonging to any religion.
My simple definition of Christian is a person who believes in the word of God -a person who lives a life of Faith.
Few things I would like to add about my understanding and perception of God.
God came to earth searching for the lost ones ..He is making as much as effort as we make to find us and probably more. …HE is making HIMSELF available 24X7X365 in ALL Languages ABSOLUTLY NO BARRIERS… and Possibly the Best Help Line ever known to mankind…
And Finally,
The God of Christians says He came to SERVE and not to get SERVED..
P.S. I would like to know about “M-Theory”.
[...] there is an interesting discussion about why bad things happen in this world. (Go and read Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?) In it a skeptic asks several questions about the nature of Christianity; the last question is Why [...]
Great post, People need to read this.
I got rudely kicked off and I’m forever banned from that “Why won’t God heal amputees? web site because I’m the only creature presently living on this atheistic planet today, who can truthfully answer that most irritating question and in full detail…
I’ve never been afraid of anything, I’ve even interviewed a number of entities over the years to gain a further understanding of this all too real spiritual realm… My name is Blacksheep I don’t believe anything in that so-called Bible and never did. I base my belief in this invisible entity?/ GOD! on the fact that I have contacted this holy thing not using any of that prayer nonsense…
Why won’t God heal amputees? is a valid question one that deserves a valid answer… Thus, to put it mildly here, those who read that poorly worded ancient book and pray often, have no idea who or what they are really praying too…
Therefore, the only way to answer this question to the complete satisfaction of a most skeptical (and rightly so) world, is to expose the author of the bible for what it truly is? something none of you can’t even imagine…
Doubt can admit fear, but fear can lead to Faith