MoonlightDancer wrote:but now I feel satisfied. I would encourage everyone to stop being a Christian and see how much happier you are.

This made me laugh out loud. Because one cannot actually do this. If you really ARE a Christian, then you cannot STOP being one. The DNA has changed...

MD, you may have stopped worrying about what God would think of your actions. You may have stopped going to church, or trying to pray, or learning about God. But you didn't stop being a Christian. Either you never were one and aren't now, or you still are one, you just refuse to act like it.

I don't have any biblical exegesis that will help you get this, MD--mostly because it is obvious that you don't have the equipment for understanding it (1 Cor 2:14). Which means that of the two options in the last sentence of the paragraph above, you may choose option one.

But I do have a story of my own. Back a couple of years ago I was going through a very tough time. The details don't matter, but suffice it to say that I was under a wicked lot of pressure in every area of my life. Probably I was clinically depressed.

And I considered the possibility of "giving up on God".

Except that I realized that if I did that, then my world really WOULDN'T make sense, I would be completely cast loose into chaos, and who would I believe in then? It wouldn't have changed my circumstances anyway: I'd still be under all that pressure, and without any consolation at all! At least with God I had the consolation of knowing that someday it would all be over and I would never have to face that sort of thing again, and still keep my life--an eternal one.

The thought of life being completely meaningless was one of the most frightening thoughts I've ever had.

I also went through a time in my life when I thought I was "happier" not being a Christian: except that I wasn't. I was doing anything and everything that I-me-mine-myself wanted to do: and I wasn't happy. I was miserable in my pursuit of the next thing to make me happy.

Just some thoughts.

mm

Excellent points, Dr. Ransom. Now I want to address another part of Christianity that seems to be missed, or not talked about very often around these forums: True Christianity in action and the power and authority involved. I'm talking about going beyond the theology (I do agree that it is very important to have solid theology) and the true power it has to change lives.

The early church in the time of Peter and Paul was truly the only chance for Christianity to get squashed. Before Peter finishes talking in Acts 2-4, over 8,000 joined the faith. You can read it yourself. In Act 2, 3,000 joined at Pentacost, then 5,000 joined with the healing of the crippled beggar in Acts 3-4. Just at the words of Peter. Now who was this guy? In societies' eyes, he was one of the lowest of the lowest. His only education was in religious studies of the Torah and fishing. He had 'foot in mouth' disease because he would always say the wrong thing at the wrong time. He denied Jesus three times, with an 'unbreakable' oath. He was a NOBODY. And yet he spoke with such power and authority that all the educated theologians didn't like it. The cripple was healed and the Sadducess were angry because Peter spoke about the Resurrection of Jesus. A miracle took place. The cripple who had laid at the Gate called Beautiful for 40 years was standing and and dancing before their eyes and they were more interested in theology.

What is it that enables this society nobody to be so bold? What about John? He is called the disciple that Jesus loved. He was also called a 'son of thunder'. He was an angry dude that demanded to be seated at Jesus' right side and called for judgment on towns that didn't heed Jesus' word. How is it that he could have stood before the kings and rulers of his time? John was the only one of the 12 that didn't die a martyr's death. They tried to deep fry him in oil, yet he survived. That's why he was on Patmos in exile for his last 30 years and when he wrote Revelation.

But that's just from the NT. What about later? Did you know that Queen Elizabeth of England said that (paraphrasing here) she feared the prayers of renowned preacher Edmund Burke far more than entire Spanish Armada? If you recall your history, Spain controlled about 1/4 of the world's land and population at that time. Why would the queen of a nation fear a single preacher more than the most powerful army in the world at that time? Nations have risen and fallen all due to one book: the Bible.

I remember hearing a story as a kid during a 'Mission Sunday' when my church had a missionary speak. They described how a church in, I believe, Soviet Russia or one of the nations that came out of when it fell was about to be destroyed by the government for another purpose. The church congregation (or pastor) told them to not do it or the government would fall. The church was destroyed and that very night a coup overthrew the government.

The USA was founded on the preaching of the Bible. Not many people make the connections between the American Revolution and the Great Awakening that took place just a generation before. In schools and movies, we are taught that taxes are the primary reason for the Revolution. That was just #11 of 27 Biblical violations depicted in the Declaration of Independence (singed by my direct ancestor, Oliver Wolcott).

The list goes on and on. There is not a single thing in this world that has such an impact as the Bible and Christianity. Why is that? I can tell you that it is much more than just theology. If the God of the Bible and the Bible itself are inconsistent as many claim, then everything I have listed above doesn't make sense. The only other religion I know that has had a remotely comparative world-wide impact is Islam. And the Koran teaches to advance by conquest and kill any who don't believe. The Crusades and the Spanish Conquest of the Americas were done in the same way and I acknowledge those actions to have happened. I do not condone them, but they weren't done with the power and authority I am speaking about. There are just some of the reasons why there needs to be good theology to go with this.

So, how does one answer how so many people cling to Christianity while they are being tortured, persecuted, etc? And what's more, how do these people walk out rejoicing that it happened? We hardly see that kind of thing in the US, but if you talk to a Christian who has lived in China, the Middle East, Indonesia, etc, your life will be impacted by the testimonies you hear. God is often accused of having 'few friends' because of the way he treats the ones he already has. But there's more to the picture.

To a Christian, the answer to these questions and these issues is pretty straight forward. But I am curious to how an agnostic, an atheist, or even someone else handles them.

Elwin, you seem to have some pretty big projection issues, which I wouldn't bring up except that it's impairing your ability to function when it comes to making coherent responses. <---I'm going to get a lot of flack for saying that.

That's what supports my contention that you're not really here to have a conversation. You'd rather use people for your own alternate intents. Trust me, I've tried that and it gets boring after a while. You just end up chasing fleeting thrills from the Fight and leading a reaction-based life.

Well Elwin, the thrill of the argument is one thing that's always been constant in my life. Some people like drinking to excess, some like to take drugs, some like to have sex - I like to argue. Still irrelevant to the actual philosophies I have talked about.

Therefore my challenge was this: simply show me you're not a troll and actually want to learn from someone else's beliefs!

You have no basis for this claim. Since I like to argue and refute your claims, you automatically assume I'm not learning. Since you've been at this business since before I could read, you should know that life is a learning experience and I learn things everytime I come on here, or go anywhere.

No serious Christian minds someone criticizing Christianity. But what would you think if I went on as if (as you seem to be projecting my motives to be) all atheists believe in alien abductions and are secret animal-abusers and have absolutely no morals at all? That would be wrong.

Since I was only giving you a taste of your own medicine when I said that, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make there. I agree, obviously.

Furthermore, if you wish to understand the beliefs you claim to criticize, I encourage better research. I had to chuckle at your misuse of Matthew 7:14. What does anything Jesus said in that chapter and sermon (yes, it's a whole argument He makes, not simply a bunch of Random Slogans) have to do with supposed holy wars?

You're taking what I say out of context, to try and say I took a line out of context. I could paste half the chapter in here if you like, but why waste space? Here's the premise of the argument: If God will always do the "greater good" (or the goo bahbooboo) he would not have revealed his word through scripture, based on the conjecture that "few" will find heaven, and millions died in the holy war, specifically millions of Muslims who are going to hell. Not to mention the Jesuit campaigns, or the wars going on right now.

As I said before: what's in it for me? Again your rather self-centered slip is showing — you seem to expect special treatment, at least here, and balk when someone (as you perceive) treats you in the same way. And again your lack of plain reading comprehension seems revealed: I already said, with numbers and everything, that you still haven't answered the stuff before, and that as soon as you do that, I'd be glad to engage you with other stuff.

If you don't want to respond you don't have to, but that's not what you do. You run around throwing red herrings without actually responding to any arguments. If anything in those links from last summer was so important, I'm sure you could find a way to state it again, instead of hiding behind them to avoid answering anything.

You're missing Fencer's point. The whole idea behind the Law of the Bible is that yes, God is showing us how bad our problem is. Only He can solve it and restore the relationship between Creator and created.

I made that point in my own argument; God's a self-indulging sado-masochist.

Yet as many here have tried to say already, one can't be consistent with that idea of self-made morality or even support logically the idea that consistency is required.

It is a factual wrong to say that morality exists, not a moral one.

Andrew, unlike your earlier lurch toward the incorrect assumption that I (or any other Christian) believes he or she is perfect, I struggle with these same things.

You said something to the tune of "I'm not answering you til you stop using words with moral connotations," and I said something like, "fine then I won't respond to you until you stop sinning." What's with the double standard, Elwin?

Outside of that there is no true happiness.

Empirical falsehood.

Elwin, almost everything you've said is irrelevent to philosophy. If you're just here to mess around, sure, that makes sense and I have nothing to say about that. I'm only confused if you actually want to talk philosophy and just don't get around to doing it anymore.

Hmm, "better" according to whom? Who defines "good" or "better"? Again, I could say I'm becoming a "better person" by being a racist, or abusing women, or being selfish even in little ways. How do you know I'm wrong?

It doesn't really concern me. In my mind I'm a better person--like I said, that's why I left Christianity behind. So I could be true to myself.

I'm asking why you seem to think that God simply loses interest in people who want to steal all things He's given them — food, air, life itself — and reject Him personally.

I guess I don't really believe that God gave us these things.

Based on your thoughts in the Mush thread, actually (to which I replied in this, you're considering things even beyond use-the-Bible-as-a-buffet lifestyle. Why do you think it's not true? One must come up with something beyond "I think" or "I feel" such-and-such.

I hope you also know that you're certainly not the first person to want to salvage the Bible for bits and pieces that appeal personally to them. It's a bit cliche, really. How do you think the Bible's Author feels about that?

Why do I believe the Bible is not true? I really have no way of knowing that it's true. If I was supposed to believe every book ever written was true until It was proved it wrong, where would I be then? I know that you're not satisfied with that but I don't think the Bible can be proved to be true either. This question seems a bit over the top.

And yet you said in the other thread that you're afraid of ending up romantically affiliated with someone who's selfish. We can continue that discussion there if you like, but why impose this belief on someone else? Why is "selfishness" (whatever that means, to individual people!) suddenly wrong? Something to think about — mostly the inconsistency, expecting someone else to do something you don't want to do yourself ...

I don't think being sexually selfish is a "sin", but it's just not something that appeals to me and it's something I'd tend to avoid. It has nothing to do with me projecting my morals on someone else; it's just my personal taste. We all have preferences.

Again, who defines "happiness" anyway? Is everyone "happy" in the same ways you are? That ignores the diversity of humans. What if I'm happy when I kick a little puppy? I'm not cracking wise. Many people truly do believe this way, and they're quite "happy" in such disgusting behavior.

Who defines happiness? I guess everyone in their own way. Yes diversity but our society is not generally tolerant of happiness at the expense of others. This, however, is not my concern. On top of that, my own definition of happiness does not include causing harm to others, or even puppies, or animals (which is why I'm a vegetarian.) This is why I'd consider myself a better person. Other people may say I'm not a good person; it doesn't matter. I am true to myself, and I am truly happy.

MD, you may have stopped worrying about what God would think of your actions. You may have stopped going to church, or trying to pray, or learning about God. But you didn't stop being a Christian. Either you never were one and aren't now, or you still are one, you just refuse to act like it.

You're right. I was never really a Christian. I was scared into believing because I wanted fire insurance.

Nothing here is said about how it's wrong to ignore a poor person, either. An argument-from-silence, especially from only one verse, isn't very persuasive one way or the other (no matter how much evangelicals overemphasize John 3:16!).

That verse was meant to be an example, since it is overemphasized by evangelicals, as you said. But you have a fair point, one verse does not a convincing case make. Here's some more verses.

-The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23)
-Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
-Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. (John 6:27)
-My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life. (John 10:27, 28)
-Jesus said unto her, "I am the resurrection, and the life: whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die." (John 11:25, 26)[/list2fsmbtr1]

What I meant is that these verses choose to emphasize triumph over death. They all talk of never ending life...and since these verses are clearly not talking about biological life, I assume they are talking about the consciousness of the soul. But if hell is eternal punishment, then the souls that go there must have eternal consciousness as well. So these verses seem to imply not the death of a biological organism, but the death (or obliteration) of a soul.

I know that there are other bible verse that clearly say that the nonbelievers go to hell. But I believe that I have showed that there are many bible verses that talk of merely escaping death. Since it is impossible to escape biological death (except in the case of Elijah), these bible verse must be talking of soul death/obliteration...right?

And Jesus is clear about how Hell, for non-Christians, lasts just as long as Heaven does: forever. It's sad stuff, but I can't sugar-coat it.

You're right, you can't. I suppose this is where we part ways in lines of thinking.
You: The bible is true, so we must accept the reality of Hell.
Me: Infinite punishment for finite crimes is infinitely unjust! That's crazy!

And have you seen the perspective Jesus gives: not that a person should repent or be really-really-good in order to avoid Hell, but because a person is grateful that Christ went through that same kind of suffering on the Cross, so His people wouldn't have to?

This only makes Jesus's perspective seem even more strange to me. If this is so, God has basically set up a universe where the default for all souls is eternal torture. That's a pretty cruel universe, if you ask me. And unless Jesus spent an eternity on the cross, he could not have gone through the same suffering as one will go through in hell.

This all boils down to a universe where God creates souls that are destined to go to hell (and the souls can't choose whether they want to exist or not). God then sends part of himself to endure hell so that he has appeased himself. He can now offer a ticket out of the inevitable path to hell to the souls he has created. All the souls have to do is believe in him. Except that God chooses to let many of the souls never have the opportunity to learn about him, or be born into cultures where belief in him will result in earthly torture/death.

I am not trying to mock Christianity here. This is really how Christianity appears to operate to me!

You're missing Fencer's point. The whole idea behind the Law of the Bible is that yes, God is showing us how bad our problem is. Only He can solve it and restore the relationship between Creator and created.

I would argue that it isn't really our problem. We are doomed to be sinners - we were born with original sin, and that's not our fault!

Watziznehm - I have located Orthodoxy on Project Gutenberg and will read it when I have the time.

Tesseract

Now it seems that several new discussions have sprung up, so I'll reply to what you had to say, FoodForThought.

Well, first we need to define the goals of life. The 2 main biological goals of life are self-preservation and reproduction. I don't think there's any confusion there.

However, the first goal, self-preservation, is not always an individual one. Bees will commit suicide by stinging intruders to save the hive. They are not doing this to save themselves, they are doing this to save the whole colony, and preserve the life of bees.

Ah. So we are establishing that a bee will, in some cases, sacrifice itself to contribute to a greater good, which is the preservation of its colony.

If you're going to argue that human martyrs are selfless, I would have to disagree. Deep down inside, their motivation is clear - they want to go to heaven.

While this in itself is a highly debatable point, I will assume that you are right for the sake of the argument. I did not once speak of martyrs or religion, I was speaking of someone sacrificing for someone else. Whether it is an atheist, agnostic, or a Christian. Why do we give to charities in Africa if it will in no respect benefit our self-preservation or reproduction? You can label it as "emotion", but it is an "emotion" of selflessness, which goes against both of the two instincts that you presented.

It seems to me quite clear that much of humanity has a third instinct of charity. We are not merely a race of survival, but also a race of sacrifice, religion or not.

The only truly selfless human act that exists is an atheist giving up their life for a stranger.

Based on the fact that humans only have two instincts, it seems like any other act which goes against those instincts could be considered "selfless", such as donating to that African charity which has absolutely no benefit to you. The man who donates to this charity is not a "smart pig", since the donation in Africa will not have any beneficial effect on him. The only thing that will come from his donation is that a child will have some clean water to drink for the next month, and nothing more.

It doesn't appear to me that way at all because the idea that "all of our actions would be predetermined by physics" is an outdated world view. The official name of it is scientific determinism, first expressed in the early 1800s by French scientist Marquis de Laplace. Laplace reasoned that if we knew the positions and velocities of all the particles in the universe at one time, the laws of physics should allow us to predict what the state of the universe would be at any other time.

There are several problems with scientific determinism. First of all, the uncertainty principle dictates that we cannot measure accurately both the position and the velocity of a particle at the same time. The more accurately we measure the position, the less accurately we can determine the velocity, and vice versa. Nobody - not even God, theoretically - could know both the position and the velocity of a particle. So even if our actions WERE predetermined, we would have no way of predicting them and thus we would technically have free will from our perspective in the universe.

I think we are talking about completely different things here. I do not mean to say that we can determine the position or velocity of a particle. The sort of determinism I am talking about has nothing to do with that.

What I am saying is that if the universe originated from matter, then everything is just a chain-reaction of "data" that was in that matter. Since the beginning of the universe, nothing could be any different than it is now. There is only one way that things could unfold ever since the beginning of the universe if it began with matter, because everything is just cause and effect.

You do not have freewill, because your actions have been predetermined by previous effects, traced all the way back until the beginning of the universe. I hope I have clarified what I meant more.

By the way, I learned much of that from Stephen Hawking's book "The Universe in a Nutshell", which brings me to your next post, where you start calling him crazy...

First of all, he says he imagines, no that he believes.

Forgive me if it was interpreted that I called him crazy. I do not think that he is crazy, I just think that his "imagination" is questionable.

Secondly, he's just applying the fundamental goals of life to aliens who are more powerful than us. The ultimate goal of life is to preserve itself and reproduce, regardless of whether things might be destroyed in the process. Humans have no trouble cutting down rainforests and destroying habitats that even fellow humans live on. Why would an alien think of us as anything more but animals, if they had developed to a point of being able to travel the stars?

And his reason for thinking that intelligent alien life exists is that, in terms of probability, it is very likely. I don't feel like paraphrasing his explanation, as this post has already taken about 45 minutes to write. He explains it more in his books.

I'll have to take a look on his book, then, to get a better understanding of the probably which he is speaking about.

I do hope that I don't come across as hostile, and I hope that I made my points more clear.

Responses to Tesseract

I know that there are other bible verse that clearly say that the nonbelievers go to hell. But I believe that I have showed that there are many bible verses that talk of merely escaping death.

Let's see if that holds up. One rule of reading the Bible, or reading anything, is that clear verses should be used to interpret less-clear ones. You don't take something a bit vague, re-interpret that, then use it over and against something that was already clearer on its own. These passages — and especially their intended audience — have a plain meaning that I think you've bypassed. Please don't feel bad about it, though! A lot of churches haven't taught how to read the Bible; they just assume we all know, then go off into Stupid Tricks and things like that.

What I meant is that these verses choose to emphasize triumph over death. They all talk of never ending life

And to whom is each verse's material directed? Christians, every single time. Go back and check. Yes, their emphasis is on life and avoiding death, but not simply physical death, but eternal, forever-death. Death must be defined by other passages that elaborate on the definition, and it is. To read the Bible rightly, we must apply that definition in these, because Scripture should interpret itself.

But of course, if Christ and others were addressing believers, there's plenty of reason to emphasize triumph and victory, for Christ has suffered to save His own from that eternal death: not merely physical death (as you said, almost all will suffer that) or soul-death (an idea utterly foreign to the Bible), but punishment-in-Hell death.

...and since these verses are clearly not talking about biological life, I assume they are talking about the consciousness of the soul.

That would be an incorrect assumption, but understandable, based on many Christians' tendency to take pieces of Scripture, go off with them into a closed room and try to figure them out apart from the whole. Elsewhere Scripture is clear evidence that Christ constantly means physical resurrection, after a brief period of the soul being "unclothed" or apart from the body (see 2 Corinthians 5).

You apparently refer to the physical-eternal-life concept as "biological life." But there's no precedent to assume Jesus only means eternal souls here. Can you show otherwise? If that were the case, why did Jesus need to rise from the dead bodily and prove over and over, by eating and acting physically that He was not merely some kind of disembodied spirit? You may also recall my earlier questions to you about where you think Christians' eternal existence is supposed to be. Many Christians misunderstand this. Here it seems you're repeating those misunderstandings here, assuming "bodiless soul" based on made-up ideas and not Scripture itself. It helps to interpret Scripture with Scripture!

You: The bible is true, so we must accept the reality of Hell.
Me: Infinite punishment for finite crimes is infinitely unjust! That's crazy!

Response 1: "Unjust" according to what? From whence comes this definition of "justice"? And "Crazy" according to what?

Response 2: God is infinite. Crimes against Him, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, and the source of all true joy, thus have infinite offense. To say otherwise exalts man and demands that God step off His throne and be like us, created-beings — who have no right to demand that of God.

(Disclaimer: I'm not saying I never do this myself — any sin is tantamount to saying, "God, I hate you; I demand your job." That's human nature. But that's also no excuse — and it's pathetic, reaction-based living.)

Moreover, I'm perplexed as to why people (including myself!) assume that if a person goes to Hell, he immediately stops sinning and would love God were he not in torment. This seems a wrong evangelical assumption: the main problem is that people just don't know the Gospel! That may be true for some people, but the fact is that many people know exactly what the Gospel is anyway, and don't care. They'd rather — well, be "happy" as they themselves define it, and get credit for their own imagined "good deeds." Play in mud-pies instead of go on holiday.

This only makes Jesus's perspective seem even more strange to me. If this is so, God has basically set up a universe where the default for all souls is eternal torture. That's a pretty cruel universe, if you ask me.

Self-consistency check: "Cruel" according to whom or what?

I think you're forgetting that whole Adam-and-Eve-rejected-God part. And as I wrote before, this would make sense if people by default were perfectly fine with God being in charge of the world and being the only sure source of love. To demand that God be perfectly fine with humans of their own will rejecting Him every day, taking His gifts but hating Him, is to demand a universe that does not exist.

And unless Jesus spent an eternity on the cross, he could not have gone through the same suffering as one will go through in hell.

Only God knows exactly how Jesus could suffer the same amount of punishment in a few hours as multitudes of His people would for eternity.

It's a mystery, eh? As creatures limited by time and space, that seems strange to wrap our heads around. I'm content to live with the mystery this side of eternity — and it's much less confusing than trying to define "justice" or "fairness" and employ them against a conception of God, while simultaneously thinking such a God does not exist and the Bible isn't true.

I am not trying to mock Christianity here. This is really how Christianity appears to operate to me!

I believe you! And this is a great question. I wonder exactly how anyone could believe this stuff unless God Himself has already touched the human heart with His Spirit and revealed personally how amazing and loving He is. He created a universe in which people have the freedom to make meaningful choices — as we all say we want! — and yet now contains a history of His actions to save them, with the rescue plan of salvation to permit His people to gain fellowship with Him.

This all boils down to a universe where God creates souls that are destined to go to hell (and the souls can't choose whether they want to exist or not).

Again, this is where NarniaWeb's "Reformed" guy gets to stand up and proclaim that Biblical truth of free will. God is sovereign, yes, but He is not responsible for the evil that humans freely choose to practice. So to say "God creates souls destined for Hell" skips past a whole middle step. "God created man (body and soul/spirit), who originally chose to hate Him, and that tendency has been passed down from generations whose penalty is His punishment."

To claim or imply otherwise that if all were fair, God would either step in and magically prevent human free will if they chose wrong (an autocratic, robot-runner God), or else God would simply look the other way if people freely chose lesser and pathetic "happiness" apart from Him, is to make up a universe that the Christian says doesn't exist.

It also leaves undefined — as I know I keep saying — what "fair" means.

God then sends part of himself to endure hell so that he has appeased himself. He can now offer a ticket out of the inevitable path to hell to the souls he has created. All the souls have to do is believe in him.

Maybe it's my reaction to evangelical-jargon, but I'd prefer "people" rather than "souls." Makes it sound like all God is after is the "good stuff" inside someone's body, and doesn't care about His physical creation (when Scripture is clear He's working to reconcile all things to Himself).

Glad you got the "appease Himself" part right, when many Christians don't! But I'm not sure I would say "offer a ticket." Whatever you believe about who does what at what point of salvation, God saves completely, from the first to the last. He doesn't merely "offer a ticket"; rather, He actively saves those whom He wills, who them freely believe in Him. (References available, but some of that is mostly a Christians-only issue.)

Except that God chooses to let many of the souls never have the opportunity to learn about him, or be born into cultures where belief in him will result in earthly torture/death.

Yet many of those people ignore the testimony He has given in His creation (Romans 1) and don't react based on what they do know.

Again, I think this is a common evangelical assumption, which should drive a Biblical Christian nuts (and which should drive a non-Christian nuts): People don't believe just because they don't know! This just adds a lot of shiny to people, acting as if they're morally neutral and just need to hear about Christianity, which they'll readily accept if only they're told. That ignores sin, and the fact that many people know exactly what the Gospel is, and reject it. Why? They feel "happy" the way they are. Thanks, God, for the gifts (if that), but I don't care for You personally.

Greg Koukl has a great video about the "what about those who have never heard?" question. It's been asked before, and answered over and over, and then asked again (by "those who've never heard" the answer). But now you have the opportunity to hear it. What will you do now that you know where to find the answer? The same with the Gospel — what will you do? Let God, Who is all-fair and does not punish people equally (references available upon request), worry about them.

We are doomed to be sinners - we were born with original sin, and that's not our fault!

That only works if a Christian tried to say "God judges you for your original sin." Incorrect-o. Scripture is clear He judges based on what people freely do. Claiming "my original sin made me do it" is no excuse.

Responses to MoonlightDancer

Why do I believe the Bible is not true? I really have no way of knowing that it's true.

What is it you're looking for to prove it's true or untrue?

Many people say the same thing about God: "He needs to prove He exists and then I'll believe easily." That sounds reasonable. But they haven't given much thought about what proof they want that He does exist.

I don't think being sexually selfish is a "sin", but it's just not something that appeals to me and it's something I'd tend to avoid. It has nothing to do with me projecting my morals on someone else; it's just my personal taste. We all have preferences.

Again, let us say my "preference" is to be selfish, and for you to put up with that and give me what I want. I am not being hyperbolic; there are men out there, and I'm sure you've met them, who demand that a woman give them whatever their little whims desire, without any other expectation or responsibility. Their preference, the only way they can be "happy," is for you to submit to that. Why should you say no? What if people like that become the majority in the world — as they will, and as has happened in cultures where dictators take over?

Other people may say I'm not a good person; it doesn't matter. I am true to myself, and I am truly happy.

More just-opinions, mere feelings, and no definition of "good" or "happy."

But now comes the most important question.

In my mind I'm a better person--like I said, that's why I left Christianity behind.

But actually you you didn't leave behind real Christianity. As Mother-Music, pointed out, and as you later agreed:

I was never really a Christian. I was scared into believing because I wanted fire insurance.

So I'm curious as to why you're faulting the Bible for something it never said: "believe only because you're scared and want fire insurance." That's something man made up and you believed. Now you're going off into even more made-up stuff (and not original with anyone, either!).

How exactly does more of the same making-stuff-up fix the problem?

Responses to Andrew

I'm going to get a lot of flack for saying that.

You wish (?)!

Well Elwin, the thrill of the argument is one thing that's always been constant in my life. Some people like drinking to excess, some like to take drugs, some like to have sex - I like to argue.

We can agree on that: argument can be fun, if done right. I do enjoy debate for the same reason I love battle scenes in well-done films: conflict makes things interesting. But imagine a film like, oh, say Transformers 2, which everyone agrees (even the lead actor!) had way too many battles and junk for its own sake, and not toward some greater end, with people you care about winning.

Now imagine The Return of the King and its battle scenes, for the fate of Middle-earth and its people — which we've come to care greatly about throughout the series. There's a battle with people I can root for, and for a greater purpose — peace, wonder, magic and transcendent truths — than simply blowing things up for its own sake.

So that's why I debate, not just for the thrill of the explosive reactions, but for a greater beauty: action for a transcendent reality. Other Christians here, I'm sure, are in it for the same.

Still irrelevant to the actual philosophies I have talked about.

Which, as I said (twice? three times now?) I'd be glad to get to as soon as I find out you hope to argue for a purpose, such as learning, not just arguing for its own sake.

You have no basis for this claim.

You mean, now I may not, based on what you say next:

Since I like to argue and refute your claims, you automatically assume I'm not learning.

That would be true if I did the same with other friends in this discussion. It's not the reason I cited for you, though. My reason was this: you're ignoring what I said before and just jumping over to other topics. Remember that? Plenty of atheists/agnostics have been in here before (I miss Gandalfs Beard!), or folks with honest reactions and questions like Tesseract. I don't expect them to bow over and convert. That would be boring! But let's not do big fake-outs and ignore the other guy's best case, or run off when things get tough — which is what you did do before. But now it seems you're repairing that damage, and I thank you.

Since you've been at this business since before I could read, you should know that life is a learning experience and I learn things everytime I come on here, or go anywhere.

Great to know. I hope, then, that even while loving argument, it's for the greater sake of learning stuff. That's why I come here, because it's like a gym — while I may like to think I already have a working body and can keep it sharp just by consuming Christian Stuff, books and such, I like to stay in shape by putting all that nutrition to practice while running!

About Mathew 7:14 — okay, now you've clarified that line of reasoning. But I'd still wonder why you assume (stepping into the Christian belief system and analyzing its structural integrity from the inside) why, if God is truly "loving," simply must save more than a minority. Where does that notion come from if not made-up ideas from the outside? And again, I only ask that because you've purported to show how Christianity itself is flawed from within. Does Scripture say in one place anything like "God is only loving if He saves the majority, or all people" (that's the RBV™, the Rob Bell Version™ of the Bible ) and then say elsewhere, "God only saves a few"? If so, we do indeed have ourselves a contradiction. But it never says that. In fact, it's clear elsewhere (references available upon request) that God is not obligated to show mercy — only His justice.

If anything in those links from last summer was so important, I'm sure you could find a way to state it again, instead of hiding behind them to avoid answering anything.

Well, I'm about to take back everything I said before, unless you want to take that back first. Yes, you really do want to learn from the stuff back there, as long as it's convenient for you, eh?

Here's why I bring up my past with internet arguments. I've been in many of them that went on for months, and it turned out the other person was not at all interested in dealing with new stuff. He wanted to ignore new answers, then simply jump away and deal with another objection. I'd follow, but only after dealing honestly and openly with the first issue.

So apparently the new standard is "the argument must be rephrased if it counts for anything." Here it is re-re-re-rephrased, then: prove any of your moral judgments or even expectations for consistency have any intrinsic worth in any territory outside your own head.

Regardless, though, it's clear you did read what The Black Glove originally said, thanks to your "goo bahbooboo" a few lines up. (Pause for methodic grins and slapping of knees.) Now please, good sir, show you have a sense of humor and can see the irony: you say "greater good" and even reference the nonsensical syllables TBG pointed out you might as well say, but have thus far refused to see the point — that you have no objective reason for claiming anything is "truth" or "good."

That applies here too:

God's a self-indulging sado-masochist.

And what is "wrong" with that?

This is why I said before that you have a god complex. You hear that and think "I'm better than the Biblical god; who is a twisted idiot." And what better way to act like what you claim to condemn by condemning this as if you yourself are a god and have any right to make these moral judgments or any moral judgments at all, on yourself or anyone?

You said something to the tune of "I'm not answering you til you stop using words with moral connotations,"

Bad translation. Where did I say anything close to "stop using words with moral connotations"? Instead I said, "Define these words you keep using, these alien terms like 'good' and 'bad' and 'self-indulgent,' etc."

and I said something like, "fine then I won't respond to you until you stop sinning." What's with the double standard, Elwin?

That only holds if you make the bad translation first, and of course, continue to enforce the notion, undefined, that things like "consistency" are required. Oh, I agree, a person's belief should have internal consistency! But both of us are agreeing on that based on a foundation of absolute truth that ultimately can only be founded and defined by Christianity. You've so far refused to admit that, which of course, counts as inconsistency — which proves you want to salvage Christianity for parts when your own belief system breaks down — proving again that atheism/agnosticism contains utterly unsatisfactory logic on its own.

(Pauses, sighs for a moment, then brightens.) It's an awesome day outside, at least where I am. Finally, warm weather and the onset of spring! (In my best Daffy Duck voice) "Anyone for tennis?!"

Wow, when this thread starts up it moves fast!

Going back to basics here, I'll try this one ( first saying I agree with some of Andrew's points, not all)

The Black Glove wrote:
Without God, morality not only doesn't exist, it has no meaning whatsoever. "Good" and "bad" have no more meaning than "benfaby" and "gwird."

Here is what you can do, Andrew. Whenever you make a statement that has moral connotations to it, try substituting a nonsense word instead, since it will have the same meaning, according to you. Or you might try simple emoting. Thus, if you were going to say that following God is bad, you should just say, "Boo following God."

First, that's an argument that has to be proved, not simply asserted.

Is morality impossible without God? Many philosophies, from Stoicism to Confucianism, would deny it.

From my standpoint, this breaks down into two questions.

How can the concept of morality arise from naturalistic assumptions?
And should we thereafter feel bound to follow it?

The first is the question raised by Lewis as to how can the meaning of concepts such as "right" and "fairness" arise, if we are simply animals concerned with survival and reproduction?

Immediately, there's a hole opened in the argument of how "ought" can arise from "is'.

We all assume the idea of "mother love" is good, yet mother love arises from evolutionary principles, based on a particular reproductive strategy.

How about "greater love has no man than this, that he lays his life down for his fellows" ?

or "greater love has no ant than this, that she lays down her life for her sisters"

Suddenly we're talking about inclusive fitness and kinship altruism.

As J.B.S. Haldane said, after a moment's calculation, "Would I lay down my life to save my brother? No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins."

The point is, not whether we are simply animals (we are), but what kind of animals are we?

If we were descended from leopards or aardvarks, the question of morality would be moot- of course we wouldn't help fellow members of our species- why should we?

But, as it happens, we are descendants of social apes who lived in small groups, and who, when coming down from the trees, were fairly large but slow and ill-equipped with fangs or claws, and so developed the principle of strength in co-operation.

Greg Koukl has a great video about the "what about those who have never heard?" question. It's been asked before, and answered over and over, and then asked again (by "those who've never heard" the answer). But now you have the opportunity to hear it. What will you do now that you know where to find the answer? The same with the Gospel — what will you do? Let God, Who is all-fair and does not punish people equally (references available upon request), worry about them.

Glad to see he accepts the inclusivist belief of Lewis and the Catholic Church- exclusivism is such an incredibly morally foul philosophy.

Evo Psychology continued:

But, as members of a group, we want to increase our personal benefits in being in the group, even though this may sometimes require us to back off on our (short-sighted) personal interest in favor of what benefits the group as a whole.

This brings up issues such as fairness, which clearly already exists in chimps and bonobos.

If you present a situation of one person dividing a hundred dollars, where if you agree you get the share they give you, but if you disagree you get nothing, most people will not accept $10 if the other person gets $90, even though they're clearly further ahead.

Why? Because we're geared for the long term- if I'm persnickety this time, you'll have to deal with me later.

Our morality can clearly arise from a small-group situation of dealing with the fact that you will probably not be big and strong enough to enforce your own arbitrary power, but if you wheel and deal enough- including keeping your promises when you have to- you can come out ahead.

The Black Glove wrote:
Without God, morality not only doesn't exist, it has no meaning whatsoever. "Good" and "bad" have no more meaning than "benfaby" and "gwird."

Here is what you can do, Andrew. Whenever you make a statement that has moral connotations to it, try substituting a nonsense word instead, since it will have the same meaning, according to you. Or you might try simple emoting. Thus, if you were going to say that following God is bad, you should just say, "Boo following God."

but of course the same argument applies following the Euthyphro argument from Socrates (as applied to monotheism):

"It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."[1]

If 'good' means "whatever God wills" it has no meaning- try substituting a nonsense word instead, or just say "yay following God"

OTOH, if "good" has a meaning apart from "what God wills", then morality necessarily exists as something apart from God.

Ok, I'm back for a bit.

Is morality impossible without God?

No, just meaningless. Without a lawgiver, there can be no transcendent law, therefore concepts such as "right" and "wrong" would constitute (most likely) emotive concepts. Thus, if I say "murder is wrong," what I mean is "boo murder." I am expressing disapproval.

Here's the question: how can moral claims be normative in the absence of a transcendent law deriving from the Divine Nature of a Divine Lawgiver? How are they meaningful at all?

"It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."

Yes. The question is a false dichotomy. I don't think that there can be any sort of intelligible moral standards apart from God. God's nature (which is unchanging, and therefore non-arbitrary) is the standard.

exclusivism is such an incredibly morally foul philosophy.

So you are excluding it?

EDIT: Just had to add this: here's an interview by Tim Keller on common objections to Christianity, including many of the ones you have presented, Graymouser. Martin Bashir interviews Tim Keller on "The Reason for God"

The early church in the time of Peter and Paul was truly the only chance for Christianity to get squashed. Before Peter finishes talking in Acts 2-4, over 8,000 joined the faith. You can read it yourself.

Uh, when you say "you can read it yourself" you mean you can read what the people involved said about it later. Because I mean you must admit that Acts is a record of something that happened prior to it being written down.

In Act 2, 3,000 joined at Pentacost, then 5,000 joined with the healing of the crippled beggar in Acts 3-4. Just at the words of Peter. Now who was this guy? In societies' eyes, he was one of the lowest of the lowest. His only education was in religious studies of the Torah and fishing. He had 'foot in mouth' disease because he would always say the wrong thing at the wrong time. He denied Jesus three times, with an 'unbreakable' oath. He was a NOBODY. And yet he spoke with such power and authority that all the educated theologians didn't like it. The cripple was healed and the Sadducess were angry because Peter spoke about the Resurrection of Jesus. A miracle took place. The cripple who had laid at the Gate called Beautiful for 40 years was standing and and dancing before their eyes and they were more interested in theology.

What is it that enables this society nobody to be so bold?

Uh, the same thimg that enabled an illiterate camel merchant named Mohammed? or a failed promoter from Vermont called Brigham Young? or a wandering scholar looking for a government job called Confucius?

But that's just from the NT. What about later? Did you know that Queen Elizabeth of England said that (paraphrasing here) she feared the prayers of renowned preacher Edmund Burke far more than entire Spanish Armada? If you recall your history, Spain controlled about 1/4 of the world's land and population at that time. Why would the queen of a nation fear a single preacher more than the most powerful army in the world at that time? Nations have risen and fallen all due to one book: the Bible.

Sorry, have not found one reference on Google to a preacher called Edmund Burke in the age of Elizabeth. References?

.

The list goes on and on. There is not a single thing in this world that has such an impact as the Bible and Christianity. Why is that? I can tell you that it is much more than just theology. If the God of the Bible and the Bible itself are inconsistent as many claim, then everything I have listed above doesn't make sense. The only other religion I know that has had a remotely comparative world-wide impact is Islam. And the Koran teaches to advance by conquest and kill any who don't believe. The Crusades and the Spanish Conquest of the Americas were done in the same way and I acknowledge those actions to have happened. I do not condone them, but they weren't done with the power and authority I am speaking about. There are just some of the reasons why there needs to be good theology to go with this.

So you acknowledge that Christianity advanced in the same way as Islam, but, hey, it's different- but you refuse to say why!

So, how does one answer how so many people cling to Christianity while they are being tortured, persecuted, etc? And what's more, how do these people walk out rejoicing that it happened? We hardly see that kind of thing in the US, but if you talk to a Christian who has lived in China, the Middle East, Indonesia, etc, your life will be impacted by the testimonies you hear. God is often accused of having 'few friends' because of the way he treats the ones he already has. But there's more to the picture. But that's just from the NT. What about later? Did you know that Queen Elizabeth of England said that (paraphrasing here) she feared the prayers of renowned preacher Edmund Burke far more than entire Spanish Armada? If you recall your history, Spain controlled about 1/4 of the world's land and population at that time. Why would the queen of a nation fear a single preacher more than the most powerful army in the world at that time? Nations have risen and fallen all due to one book: the Bible.

To a Christian, the answer to these questions and these issues is pretty straight forward. But I am curious to how an agnostic, an atheist, or even someone else handles them.

For the same reason that people who are not Christian cling to their religion while being tortured persecuted etc.

If you truly know nothing of these things I suggest you Google the Dalai Lama, Dalun Fa, Shia, Sufiism and others.

Or, since you Christians spent a couple of thousand years torturing, persecuting, expelling and massacring them, you might ask one of God's Chosen People.

Ok, I'm back for a bit.

"Graymouser"]Is morality impossible without God?

No, just meaningless. Without a lawgiver, there can be no transcendent law, therefore concepts such as "right" and "wrong" would constitute (most likely) emotive concepts. Thus, if I say "murder is wrong," what I mean is "boo murder." I am expressing disapproval.

Here's the question: how can moral claims be normative in the absence of a transcendent law deriving from the Divine Nature of a Divine Lawgiver? How are they meaningful at all?

Two distinct questions. I answered the second on the grounds of our heritage from the social origins of our ancestors. Which renders the first question meaningless.

We have the moral impulses we do thanks to our heritage as members of small groups who keep a wary eye on each other to make sure nobody cheats ( while trying our best to cheat ourselves)

"It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things."

Yes. The question is a false dichotomy. I don't think that there can be any sort of intelligible moral standards apart from God. God's nature (which is unchanging, and therefore non-arbitrary) is the standard.

Doesn't answer the question. Can God order something which is not good?
Not" Wouldn't He, but couldn't He?"

exclusivism is such an incredibly morally foul philosophy.

So you are excluding it?

Oh, definitely, on moral grounds- if God existed, He would run, puking, from the concept.

Doesn't answer the question. Can God order something which is not good?

No, because he can't go against His eternal unchanging nature, from which all morality derives its meaning.

Oh, definitely, on moral grounds- if God existed, He would run, puking, from the concept.

How is it immoral, exactly?

TBG

Welcome back, TBG.

if God existed, He would run, puking, from the concept.

I'm glad to see re-proved that this isn't an issue simply of non-Christianity versus Christianity, but of "here's what I say God would or wouldn't do, if He existed" versus "here's what the Bible, which claims to be inspired by God Himself, says about Him."

As long as the arguments persist that Christianity is "immoral," internally inconsistent and self-defeating, the discussions will be most interesting!

Another thought. When Christians start making up stuff about God (such as, so the myth goes, all those thousands of Crusaders who decided God wanted them to kill people), non-Christians are among the first to complain. But how come, then, non-Christians get to make things up about what God supposedly would do, or by what He would be repulsed?

Morality being the idea that a person deserves the results of their actions.

Exclusivism being the idea that someone should be tortured for eternity for the crime of being born someplace where they couldn't have heard the Gospel.

Morality being the idea that a person deserves the results of their actions.

Where are you getting this notion of desserts? Let's say that I murder someone in order to inherit and then never get caught: was that then a morally right action, since the results of my actions were beneficial?

Exclusivism being the idea that someone should be tortured for eternity for the crime of being born someplace where they couldn't have heard the Gospel.

That's not the crime. The crime is not believing in a God who has clearly revealed Himself to all (Romans 1).

Welcome back, TBG.

if God existed, He would run, puking, from the concept.

I'm glad to see re-proved that this isn't an issue simply of non-Christianity versus Christianity, but of "here's what I say God would or wouldn't do, if He existed" versus "here's what the Bible, which claims to be inspired by God Himself, says about Him."

As long as the arguments persist that Christianity is "immoral," internally inconsistent and self-defeating, the discussions will be most interesting!

Another thought. When Christians start making up stuff about God (such as, so the myth goes, all those thousands of Crusaders who decided God wanted them to kill people), non-Christians are among the first to complain. But how come, then, non-Christians get to make things up about what God supposedly would do, or by what He would be repulsed?

I must admit I don't particularly care what your version of the Bible says what God would do
(even though, I note that once again, alas, most of your fellow believers think you are wrong- I'm sure you knowwhat God wants, and so pay no heed to those benighted ones ( however many millions) who fail to understand your incorruptible interpretation of the Word is absolutely correct.

Sorry, once again it's something you'll have to struggle with against all those heretics- My disagreements are on a much deeper level