Sorry, once again it's something you'll have to struggle with against all those heretics-

Nahhh, you're not a heretic — you haven't claimed to be a Christian but said the exact opposite of what Scripture says. Thanks for that! (I often prefer discussions with a non-Christian than a "Christian" who believes or acts in a way that flatly, willfully-ignorantly contradicts Christ.)

I know you don't care what the Bible says. I'm just sharing what it does say. And if somehow you don't agree with how someone reads it, and think another interpretation works better, let's talk about why.

For example, I could say — repeating what TBG said, "Romans 1 says that men are without excuse and responsible for what they do know about God." And you might (and likely would, understandably!) say, "Well, that's your interpretation." My question would then be: "All right then, what's your interpretation?" Specificity adds enjoyment and depth.

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).

Sorry if I'm mistaken- I thought that

a) exclusivism means you have to specifically accept Christ as your Saviour

b) inclusivism means that you may achieve salvation if you have followed the natural law.

a) exclusivism means you have to specifically accept Christ as your Saviour

b) inclusivism means that you may achieve salvation if you have followed the natural law.

Ah, but there's the rub: you can achieve salvation by following the natural law of God, but no fallen human is able to follow it perfectly. That's why Jesus came: He kept the law perfectly and then took the sins of the world upon Himself. The question is whether you accept or reject that free offer.

TBG

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.

So there is no more reason for you to ask any questions about what is right/good or wrong/bad, because you have stated that the measure of your happiness determines same. If you are happy, it is good and right. If you are unhappy, it is bad and wrong.

Is there any point in you making further comments on the Bible, the God of the Bible, or Christianity? That depends. If you believe that YOUR measure of happiness should be EVERYONE'S measure of happiness, then yes. You will need to preach the Gospel of MD to everyone who will listen. Maybe run for President of the US or something. You'll need to make sure you know what your definition of "happy" and "good" are, so you can communicate it to others. Better get busting on that...you have yet, as Dr. R pointed out, to define these, even for yourself, beyond "whatever MD likes". In fact, you can just start writing books. Books and books and books detailing every decision that you make so that people who want to be happy can read them and make the same decisions and therefore be happy.

I definitely want to read your book. Oh...but while you're at it: I don't think you're going to be able to publish enough books on this. Because some people are going to have to make decisions that you have never had to make. So in order to be happy, they are going to have to ask you what would make you happy in their situation--so that they can make the same decision you would have made and therefore be happy.

Yeah. Might as well set yourself up as God.

Oh, wait. You've already done that.

(please don't say you haven't. I've shown clearly the logical outcome of your philosophy of life, i.e. "whatever makes MD happy = right/good")

If, however, you believe that I can be happy doing something else/believing something else than you do, then there's no need for you to state your opinion anymore.

Well...until I punch you in the nose. Then we will have to have this discussion again. What if it makes me sublimely happy to punch you in the nose? It must be good and right if it makes me happy, mustn't it?

So long, MD. It's been nice talking to you. No point in you hanging out in this thread or really in the Mush thread either. You have, yourself, answered all of your questions. If you ever have another question, all you have to do is ask yourself. If the answer is "it makes MD happy" then it is good/right. If the answer is "it makes MD unhappy" then it is bad/wrong.

Have a nice life.

(please note again my disclaimer: I am not really dismissing you. I am just pointing again the logical consequences of your arguments.)

You see, MD, there are only two options. One option is that the God of the Bible is right, and you are wrong--that true joy comes from seeking His glory according to His loving principles.

The other option is that you are right--and that whatever makes you happy is right/good and whatever makes you unhappy is wrong/bad. It follows, therefore, that there are a further two options: either you are god, and all humans must do what makes you happy in order to be happy, or nobody is god, and all humans must do whatever makes each individual happy.

Both of these options immediately fall apart when confronted: not everyone will be happy doing what you say makes you happy, nor will everyone be happy when everyone is doing what makes them happy, because what makes 99.99999% of rebellious humans happy is making sure that other rebellious humans are NOT happy.

That leaves us either at "have a nice life, MD--we won't be seeing you around because you've already answered all your own questions", at "MD is preaching the MD gospel in every thread on Narniaweb" or at MD asks "What must I do to be saved".

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.

Finding the truth is the only reason to argue, really. I know you dislike my style, but if one of you stepped up and conclusively proved me wrong, or yourself right, wouldn't that be a satisfactory end goal? Of course, nothing can be completeley proven, but the reasons to believe can outweigh the reasons not to believe, unless you're a "skeptic."

My reason was this: you're ignoring what I said before and just jumping over to other topics....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.

I admit I do ignore alot of irrelevent statements, such as you claiming that I wanted to be God last summer. I was happy to argue it for awhile, but eventually it wasn't going anywhere - it had no purpose. As for running away...I don't find this true as I was starting school for the year, and couldn't afford internet until about two weeks ago, and it's pretty impractical to post on this thread if you can only do so once or twice a week (for me, at least).

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.

I think that's a bit of a self-evident fact if you have morality, almost a utilitarian ideal. Unless he just doesn't like most of the people, and isn't selfless, or something like that. Of course this wouldn't be true if he hadn't thrown humanity under the bus, as it were, but he did.

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...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?

From my nihilistic persective, nothing is morally wrong with any of this. But since you feel it to be true, it makes Christianity self-referentially inconsistent to say the least. If God cannot do good without breaking his own moral boundaries, he is not even good.

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.

I agree that absolute and objective truth exists, but it's not the truths you're mentioning. It would be an absolute statement to say that God does not exist at all, and then it's an absolute that morality doesn't exist, as TBG has just pointed out to another member here.

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

If you give God the get outta jail free card of the divine command theory, then it follows that there is no intrinsic good or evil, it's only words we attach to "God's will/nature" or not. If that is true, god could have commanded anything to be right, such as adultery. You have God this rock of ages sitting around being himself, and then creating beings nothing like him so he can force them into relationships with him, by way of our natural instincts of self-preservation.

Elwin I hope I have hit all your important points, if not please let me know. And yes, it is very nice out today.

If that is true, god could have commanded anything to be right, such as adultery.

Not at all: this too flows from the Divine Nature and is not arbitrary in the least.

If you give God the get outta jail free card of the divine command theory, then it follows that there is no intrinsic good or evil

Intrinsic worth is a function of intelligent beings. If there is a transcendent standard of morality that is intelligible (that is to say, meaningful) then it must have an intelligent source. Intelligibility implies intelligent design.

You have God this rock of ages sitting around being himself, and then creating beings nothing like him so he can force them into relationships with him, by way of our natural instincts of self-preservation.

Au contraire, we are created in His image, and therefore bear at least some resemblance to Him. If you want to deny that fact and create your own hell, you are free to do so---but then you're just playing God with yourself. Andrew, this is what Dr. Ransom and I have been driving at all along: you want to be a law unto yourself---autonomous. The trouble is that only God can be that (because of his being, well, the ground of all being) and so, by extension, it does seem that you want to be God.

And of course, Andrew, you still don't have a convincing reason why God doesn't exist. It seems to me that you're running from Him, trying to escape from the "Hound of Heaven" who is hunting you down with His love.

Still with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
Came on the following Feet,
And a Voice above their beat—
‘Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me.’
~Francis Collins

TBG

MM wrote: Is there any point in you making further comments on the Bible, the God of the Bible, or Christianity? That depends. If you believe that YOUR measure of happiness should be EVERYONE'S measure of happiness, then yes. You will need to preach the Gospel of MD to everyone who will listen.

I don't believe everyone will find happiness the same way I have but I believe some people could. Therefore I see it as something worth sharing.

With that being said, I tried the whole be-a-good-Christian and it made me miserable.

If you are happy, it is good and right. If you are unhappy, it is bad and wrong.

I don't really see it as "bad" or "wrong." I've gone through periods in my life where I was miserable and depressed and I don't think it was wrong. It was good because it made me stronger. I believe both happiness and sadness are equally beautiful--but being true to yourself is the most beautiful thing of all.

You will need to preach the Gospel of MD to everyone who will listen. Maybe run for President of the US or something. You'll need to make sure you know what your definition of "happy" and "good" are, so you can communicate it to others. Better get busting on that...you have yet, as Dr. R pointed out, to define these, even for yourself, beyond "whatever MD likes". In fact, you can just start writing books. Books and books and books detailing every decision that you make so that people who want to be happy can read them and make the same decisions and therefore be happy.

There's nothing I'd like more than to run for president (and my friends would tell you the same thing) And I'd love to write a book someday. Absolutely.

However I get the feeling you are mocking me so...in that case, I think you might be taking things a bit too far. I'm not offended though.

Well...until I punch you in the nose. Then we will have to have this discussion again. What if it makes me sublimely happy to punch you in the nose? It must be good and right if it makes me happy, mustn't it?

I'm beginning to think it would indeed make you VERY happy to punch me in the nose but like I said...our society is generally not tolerant of that. So if you did, you'd be arrested for assault and It would probably make ME happy to press charges.

It just makes sense to define your own happiness within the bounds of society's rules.

if you still intend to do it I would strongly suggest you check this out:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2325172_punch-someone-face.html

The other option is that you are right--and that whatever makes you happy is right/good and whatever makes you unhappy is wrong/bad. It follows, therefore, that there are a further two options: either you are god, and all humans must do what makes you happy in order to be happy, or nobody is god, and all humans must do whatever makes each individual happy.

What's so bad about wanting people to be happy? Like I said, our society isn't so tolerant at happiness at the expense of others--so acting out against that is probably going to lead to a less than happy experience.

Nonetheless, I don't think happiness is the ultimate end, and I don't think it's "right" or "wrong" to be happy, or to not be happy. But I think beauty comes from being true to yourself. Find the best life you can live, and live it. If that includes the Bible, great. If it doesn't, that's also great.

That leaves us either at "have a nice life, MD--we won't be seeing you around because you've already answered all your own questions", at "MD is preaching the MD gospel in every thread on Narniaweb" or at MD asks "What must I do to be saved".

I like the second option. I better start writing my gospel. THE GOSPEL of MOONLIGHTDANCER! And of course running for president.

I want to build on something I mentioned earlier, this is kind of geared at TBG but not completely pointed at him.

To the question of whether morals can "exist," without God, I would say not unto themselves; there's not morals floating around in outer space. Morality is an abstract idea that all cultures seem to share on some level. Why are they so universal if, as I claim, they do not exist? Well, the whole purpose of morality is to allow society to exist. I am speaking of objectivist morality, but that's the only kind I think that isn't easily debunked, except maybe utilitarianism which still has objectivist standards at its roots. Man cannot coexist peacefully together without adhering to some moral standard. I do not argue that at all. I only argue that there's no actual value in building up an artificial society on made-up principles. If you look at all of society's "problems," they're simply natural instincts manifesting themselves through an artificial society. STD's, addictions, serial killers, wars...it's all our natural instincts that we can never escape, rearing their heads, almost giving the finger to the idea of man coexisting. Now, I absolutely agree that if we have immortality, then morals have value. Everything does! But until we find a way to make humans immortal - which I think could happen, but I don't know if science can do it before a society breaks down - then nothing has purpose to the individual. ALot of the essay I posted a couple of pages back deals with this.

..you want to be a law unto yourself---autonomous. The trouble is that only God can be that (because of his being, well, the ground of all being) and so, by extension, it does seem that you want to be God.

No, I don't want to be a lawmaker because there is no standard with which to bind us - it isn't there. That's an objective fact, not what I want.

you still don't have a convincing reason why God doesn't exist. It seems to me that you're running from Him, trying to escape from the "Hound of Heaven" who is hunting you down with His love.

Well, of course not, no more than you have grounds to say he does exist. All we can do is make conjectures that seem to fit in with the world around us.

Interesting you bring up the last point. My church just got a new youth pastor, and somebody told him I'm an atheist and so he was asking me why I believe there is no God but am still sitting in a church youth group. A lot of questions are statements incognito, so I can probably translate this as, "You shouldn't be here." He went on to say something like, "It seems like you're waiting for God to smack you in the face and show you he's real." I've given this statement a lot of thought, and I'm not going to write it off. The fingers of Christianity have to be deeply rooted in my psyche - I've been going to church since I was in the womb. I mean, the people of North Korea aren't even capable of questioning their dictator - they have no vocabulary for it. I'd like to believe I'm not that indoctrinated, but I'm not egotistical enough to believe I'm some superhuman who can rise above outside influence, especially when it's been forced down my throat since before I could walk. So maybe God is going to smack me in the face (of course, I don't believe that he is), but I'm not going to believe until that happens.

A real problem that people tend to find with Christianity as MD has discovered is trying to live it as a religion. I'll say this plain and simple: IT DOES NOT WORK. And you will find so many people who do this. They come to church, sing a few songs, listen to a message, and even on occasion do a few good deeds in the community (such as donating to African aid). But just as several of us have pointed out, if you try to be a Christian, you will fail. You simply can't do it on your own. You will feel miserable. You will feel insufficient. And you will feel if you continue to live that way, you will feel like a failure. So, MD, what you have experienced with Christianity as you have described is exactly what one should expect. It met with utter failure.

And this is where Christianity separates from every other religion. True Christianity is not a religion: a set of rules as a lifestyle that one must follow. To be a Christian according to Romans 10:9-10, all we must do is believe in your heart and declare with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord. The thing is, so many of us want Jesus to be just our Savior. We want to be free from this 'hell' that people talk about, but that's not what this verse says. It says Jesus needs to be our Lord. In America, we have no nobility, we have no dictator, we, the people, rule. So we don't truly understand what this really means. Back in the Medieval and Roman days, there was a political lord that oversaw everything. The lord said the word and whatever it was, good or ill, was done. Questioning the lord was often punishable by death (especially in Rome's case). The lord was everything. That is the context the audience of Romans knew. We must declare that Jesus is our personal Lord. Simple translation in our modern day: he is our boss and the job is 24/7.

I know that sounds rough, intense, and undesirable. But Jesus is not the diabolical, tyrannical Lord that many think of when thinking of a ruler. He is a good Lord that does work everything for good, even if we don't see it. Yes, as a Christian there are certain things that are 'greatly frowned upon' that people would enjoy beforehand. But this is where the real differences between a Christian and someone who is not is seen. When we become a Christian, the Bible teaches that Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to dwell in us. We've described this sin nature in previous posts and pages so I don't need to go into that. What happens when we become a Christian is that very nature is changed. The sin nature is gone and the nature that Adam and Eve had before they sinned takes over. But that is just the nature. Christian still sin and at times quite frequently. So how does God handle that?

Becoming a Christian, as Paul describes, is like Roman adoption into God's family. Unlike in America, Romans took adoption a lot more seriously. An adoption in Rome could not be revoked and the parents could not turn away an adopted son, while they could with their own blood children. This concept is part of how Christians know that 'once a Christian, always a Christian'. Nothing a Christian can do will change that. Because it's not something we can earn. It is an identity. You don't choose one day to be a Christian, then another day choose not to be. You are one or you aren't.

And this is where emotions and happiness comes into the equation. I will be flat out honest here. To quote Mark Lowry: "If you have to feel 'saved' to be saved, you aren't going to be saved most of the time." If you're relying on happiness to determine what you do and such, you're in for a rough ride. Happiness is a temporary emotion. It comes and goes and I must say is a very dangerous tool to use as a litmus test. This life is rough whether you are a Christian or not. In fact, Jesus said directly that we are going to have troubles in this life. We want Jesus to take us around the storms and troubles in life. David in Psalm 23 says "Yea though I walk THROUGH the valley of the shadow of death." Jesus doesn't just help us in storms like a coach. He takes us through them. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego did not escape the fiery furnace. They went through it. And when someone can go through those times and still express joy, which is something that goes well become a mere emotion, that is something.

It's not easy but here in America, we really do have it easy. The worst persecution is social humiliation and verbal insults. We don't struggle with the prospect of being killed just for saying the name of Jesus as a non-curse word or just by being in possession of Christian regalia, let alone a Bible. But that is going to come at some point to America. It may be in conjunction with the End Times, it may not. But it will come. And how could anyone survive if they are depending on their emotions to determine what they do?

And something else Jesus warned us about. There will be many who persecute the believers and those people will believe they are doing the right thing. I know people don't like comparisons to Hitler, but he really believed he was bettering the human race and believed only the Aryan Race (blond hair, blue eyes) was worthy of carrying on the human race. Many people do believe their way is the only way. And while some just keep their beliefs just to themselves as MD is claiming, there many out there that hold the same line of thinking that attempt to force others to believe the same. It's very dangerous.

MD, you have indicated that you acknowledge that some things are frowned upon in society that would be perfectly fine to the person doing said deeds. Here is my question. If you did disagree with how someone acted in those cases, would you just let that person go about his/her way, or would you try to stop that person if it would benefit someone else? If Mother-Music got the point where she would punch someone in the face and you saw that happen, whose happiness would be more important? Mother-Musics? or the persons? If you try to intervene, you would consider the person's happiness over MM's. If you do you nothing, you would consider MM's over the person's. I know you will say that society would say that punching someone is bad, because you already have done that. But even you must see that America's laws are actually based on Judeo-Christian principals. In your philosophy, completely independent of culture, society, or already established laws, how would you respond to this type of situation? Don't piggy-back on what's already been established. These questions are hopefully to help you see where that line of thinking goes.

Finding the truth is the only reason to argue, really.

Hello again, Andrew!

I don't mean to intrude on the discussion between you and Dr. Elwin Ransom, but I just mean to ask you two questions.

As a nihilist, why should knowledge or truth hold value to you in the first place? If your answer is "for the benefit of mankind", I would venture to ask why you feel the need to benefit anyone else for any reason. As a nihilist, why does anything hold value to you? Your life is just a speck in time, and all life shall be consumed by black holes, anyways. Any knowledge or happiness that you gain in this life is ultimately irrelevant.

Secondly, why exactly do you continue to debate on the existence or non-existence of God if you know that there is and (in all likelihood) will never will be any empirical evidence for His existence? It seems like you are not willing to believe in anything that is not provable, and it is rather clear that you will never get that golden-arrow of evidence you are looking for to prove the existence of God.

I am certainly not meaning to say not to be forever curious and search for answers, but it just seems that whenever we provide some answers back at you or some things to ponder, you just go back to the fact that the existence of god cannot be proven, etc.

I may just be echoing what Dr. Elwin Ransom is saying, but I'm not exactly sure you've answered these two questions directly.

Andrew,

What you are describing are the effects of what we Christians call the fall. Man was once good and perfect, but we fell into sin, so God cursed the world, yet at the same time promised to redeem it and to reconcile all things unto Himself. All of what you describe: STDs, serial killers, etc. are simply the effects of living in a world with sin and death. What we need is a savior.

You say that the problem is mortality---it's much deeper than that: it's our nature. What we need is a heart transplant. Andrew, you and I have something in common: we have both "gazed into the abyss" (to use Nietzsche's phrase). The difference, though, is that when you gazed,you saw nothing but darkness, whereas I saw what Chesterton called an "abyss of light." I saw God.

No, I don't want to be a lawmaker because there is no standard with which to bind us - it isn't there. That's an objective fact, not what I want.

It's not an objective fact, merely your perception that if there is no God, you are free to create a system of value for yourself. I have said nothing about others-- you want to be your own law.

Well, of course not, no more than you have grounds to say he does exist.

Don't I? Remember what I said, Andrew, that I gazed into the abyss, and then the strangest thing happened: the abyss gazed into me. God looked at me and pulled me down unto Himself because now I realize that there is no ground of being apart from Him and His love. As the Gospel writer said:

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

The reason, Andrew, why you cannot see or comprehend God, is because you are in darkness and refuse to step into the light. The abyss, to you, is darkness because you are darkness. You have no choice but to be swallowed---you will either be swallowed by the despair ("angst" for the technical term) or you will step into the light and let that light break you, unmake you, and recreate you. God is there and He is not silent---will you accept or reject Him?

Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee. ~Augustine of Hippo

TBG

As a nihilist, why should knowledge or truth hold value to you in the first place? If your answer is "for the benefit of mankind", I would venture to ask why you feel the need to benefit anyone else for any reason. As a nihilist, why does anything hold value to you? Your life is just a speck in time, and all life shall be consumed by black holes, anyways. Any knowledge or happiness that you gain in this life is ultimately irrelevant.

I think you missed a bit of what I said. If we could find a way to make our lives last forever, life would have purpose. Everything would. I'm not saying everything would be perfect, but I do believe morals would abound and life would be more enjoyable (not to say that it isn't enjoyable now). Everybody would be more intelligent eventually. Prison and execution would be actual threats. Take Jeffrey Dahmer, a pretty gruesome serial killer by today's standards. He figured, nothing I do matters anyways, and even if I get caught what are they going to do, put me in jail for 50 years? Irrelevant fun fact: Interestingly enough he accepted Christ and was baptized while in prison, just a year or two before being murdered himself by another prisoner. Now, if humans eventually found a way to become immortal, they would have purpose, and they would find purpose in everything those who came before them had done. Of course, there's still no purpose for all who came before for they themselves to enjoy. This would bother some people, like me, but thrill others, like teachers. If you ask me the only problematic situation would be when man eventually asked, who should we give the immortality to and who will we allow to die. As for your black hole point, considering 60 years ago we couldn't even get to space and now we're close to putting a base on Mars, I think we'll be able to colonize on another planet long before our sun turns into a black hole in 10 million years. Also, enjoying something and valuing it personally does not give it objective value, none of us have the power to do that.

Secondly, why exactly do you continue to debate on the existence or non-existence of God if you know that there is and (in all likelihood) will never will be any empirical evidence for His existence? It seems like you are not willing to believe in anything that is not provable, and it is rather clear that you will never get that golden-arrow of evidence you are looking for to prove the existence of God.

I agree that it probably is not going to be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt in my lifetime. It may though, Stephen Hawkings believes so. And it may not, then I'll be like every other atheist and agnostic and deist and theist and pantheist and anti-theist and solipsist who has ever lived with faith and died without proof.

@TBG, I think all of the ideas behind your points are absolutely true, and of course I like how you brought Nietzsche into it. How you take your points really does rely on how you feel about the existence, or at least involvement, of a God.

It's not an objective fact, merely your perception that if there is no God, you are free to create a system of value for yourself. I have said nothing about others-- you want to be your own law.

Not exactly. If there is no God, there is no obligation to do or not do anything. There will always be the more psychological asking why, but there are always psycho and logical answers for that.

The reason, Andrew, why you cannot see or comprehend God, is because you are in darkness and refuse to step into the light. The abyss, to you, is darkness because you are darkness.

You forget, though - or perhaps I haven't said it on here - that I did spend years as a Christian, with a childlike faith in God. I was a child. I accepted Christ when I was 4 years old, began to question when I was 11 or 12, wobbled around for a bit and finally decided I didn't believe when I was 13. That's more years in the "light" than I've been in the "dark," and that's years without any doubt at all. But to quote Paul, "When I was a child, I thought like a child and reasoned like a child, but when I became a man I put away childish things." This is what we've talked recently about in the philosophy club at my college - we seem to be in a limbo in this point in history, discovering whether we need God or not. We've been able to write off fairies, zombies, vampires and the like as things we needed in the past to explain the unexplainable. The only stronghold left is God. So either I (as an atheist) am ahead of the curve, or I'm completely wrong. Really only time or death can tell.

If we could find a way to make our lives last forever, life would have purpose.

No it wouldn't: you would just go from finite meaninglessness to infinite meaninglessness.

"When I was a child, I thought like a child and reasoned like a child, but when I became a man I put away childish things."

And I'd suggest that you man up and realize that you need something outside your own "solitary poor nasty brutish and short" existence. You have to own up to the fact that you aren't a self-sufficient source of your own value and that you are, in reality, running from God.

You forget, though - or perhaps I haven't said it on here - that I did spend years as a Christian, with a childlike faith in God.

That simply proves that what you had was not really faith at all. A faith that cannot stand up to scrutiny is no faith at all. Those who refuse to examine or reassess their beliefs merely show that they don't really believe them. The philosopher and hermaneuticist Paul Ricouer suggests that if one wants to truly understand one's set of beliefs, whether about a text or not, that one must put them through testing in order to gain a better understanding of them and see them afresh. In other words, the purpose of doubt is not to see whether a set of beliefs is trustworthy, but why.

The only stronghold left is God. So either I (as an atheist) am ahead of the curve, or I'm completely wrong. Really only time or death can tell.

Again, I'd suggest to you (as well as to Graymouser) that you watch the interview with Tim Keller that I posted above. I'd also suggest looking at some of the writings of Kierkegaard, a man who wrestled with many of the same questions that you wrestle with, and yet came to very different conclusions.

TBG

Just wanted to pop in and say thank-you to Mother-Music for answering my question several pages back; your answer really helped me. Thanks a lot!

The amount of discussion that can happen in here in just a day and a half is insane!

Responses to FoodForThought

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.

What I meant to demonstrate with the example of the bees is that "self-preservation" does not always mean the individual organism; it can also apply to a whole species. Most humans have no problem with killing other animals for food, but in general, humans and don't like to see other humans die. (There are fringe groups in both the atheist and religious schools of thinking who have had agendas to kill other humans, but these will always exist since not every human is sane.)

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 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.

Benefits:
1) The man feels better about himself.
2) By helping the child evade death from thirst, the child could potentially grow up to be a scientist/inventor/etc. There's a quote from somebody, I forget who, that said, "I am not as impressed by the great minds like Einstein as I am disappointed at how so many similar minds must have been wasted dying in slums."

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.

I don't agree with you that everything is a chain-reaction of the data that was in matter. But I do agree that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So if there was a moment where the universe began, it must have been caused by something outside of physics (god). Atheists tend to split into two trains of thought when presented with this problem:

1) The universe never had a beginning, it just keeps expanding and contracting forever. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce for more information.
2) Humans cannot know everything, and right now we just don't know how the universe began. Accepting our lack of knowledge is better than making up answers (which is what religion had done to explain many natural phenomena such as rainbows, lightning, and the mysterious ways that the planets move across Earth's sky).

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.

You have clarified more what you meant about the religions of the universe, but I would still say that I have free will if my god is physics. Quantum mechanics allows it.

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.

All right, thanks for clarifying.

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

You aren't coming across as hostile. We disagree on things, but I don't consider you my "enemy" or anything like that.

Responses to Dr. Elwin Ransom

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.

That's a good point. I just wish that God had made his all-important book a little easier to understand.

And to whom is each verse's material directed? Christians, every single time. Go back and check.

I think you're bluffing. -goes back to check-
The first verse I posted was one of Paul's letters to a church that is already established. ✓
The second verse I posted was Jesus talking to Jewish leaders. ✘
The third verse I posted was Jesus talking to some people who arrived in boats from Tiberias. ✘
The fourth verse I posted was Jesus talking to Jews who wanted Jesus to show them that he was the Messiah. ✘
The fifth verse I posted is Jesus addressing Lazarus's sister. (I'll give you that one.) ✓

That's only two out of five. The other three were cases of Jesus talking to Jews and Gentiles for the first time.

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?

Hmmm, so when Christians rise from the dead, they're going to keep their old bodies? Jesus was only dead for 3 days and received a king's burial, so I doubt he had gotten much chance to decompose. Are some of the people in heaven going to be skeletons? People with severe physical defects would also be at a big disadvantage. Or is God going to give us new bodies? We all going to look like supermodels!

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!

I interpreted it this way because rising again with physical bodies makes no sense whatsoever.

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.

It may be possible to avoid individual sins, but according to Christianity, we cannot avoid sin as a whole. Because we have original sin, it is inevitable that we will commit a crime against God at some point.

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

Cruel according to the old Christian belief that God is good, kind, and loving.

I think you're forgetting that whole Adam-and-Eve-rejected-God part.

If God didn't want Adam and Eve to reject him, then he wouldn't have put the Forbidden Fruit in the middle of the garden or created the serpent in the first place. If Eve was stupid enough to be convinced by a mere serpent that she should disobey God, then God didn't create Eve very well.

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 agree, it's easier just to not think about it when you're already on track to go to heaven. When you're on track to go to hell, though, it's definitely something to question.

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.

I have wondered this as well, since other Christians say God has revealed himself to them, and they have felt God inside them from ages as young as 3. I had Christianity force-fed to me in all my years of childhood, and was a dedicated Christian up until I was about 13, but never felt the presence of God.

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.

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.

According to original sin, humans are evil deep down inside. Also, the serpent is using every trick in the book to try and decieve the human race. The cards are stacked against us pretty heavily.

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."

God's the omnipotent, all-knowing creator! He should have known that his creation would turn against him - after all, he created every aspect of it. Surely he would have recognized such a critical flaw.

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

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).

Ok, I'll refer to them as people.

I think it's also important to know what God's ultimate goal is. God wants a bunch of beings that bear his image (people) to willingly praise him for eternity. (Side note: for an omnipotent being, this sounds like it would get really boring, really fast.) In order to accomplish this goal, God must create a bunch of people that reject him, and he must sacrifice part of himself and most of the people in order to get some of the people to accept him. I don't mind if God wants to sacrifice part of himself, but with the inevitability of many of the people being sacrificed merely for God's personal benefit is a bit troubling.

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.

I believe you are referring to this exact verse - "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)"

First of all, I would consider it debatable that God can be clearly seen in creation. Secondly, I would say that even if there is signs of a creator in nature, this only proves that there is a god, not that the specific Christian God exists.

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.

I watched the video. If what Koukl says is true, there are several loopholes in the "getting to heaven" game that defeat the point.

God wants people who willingly accept him to go to heaven. If babies get into heaven who have never had the opportunity to think critically, much less decide whether they accept God or not, that would not fulfill God's original vision. (Additionally, babies and fetuses would be 90% of heaven's population.)

And if people who live good lives and have never heard of God go to heaven, wouldn't you do them a great disservice if you evangelized to them?

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.

I thought the scripture was clear that Jesus is the way to truth and life. This makes it sound like good works are more important than faith.

Good grief, posting in here is time consuming.