Monday, 3 December 2007

Sermon in a symphony?

I want to address a common theme of atheistic thinking about God as shown in recent comments, that only measurable experimental evidence would persuade of His existence. It's my conviction that such a demand is a feature of a western scientific materialist mindset, and that as an approach to the question of God it is fundamentally flawed. Coming from an arts not science background, I find image, metaphor and analogy helpful ways to think, opening up fresh perspectives. Picking up on the tail end of comments from the 'All channels engaged?' post below, I'm pondering the metaphor of a symphony or other great work of art. Listening to great music, one is intuitively aware of intelligent, inspired creative activity underlying the experience, and the work itself. It's a big picture kind of response, a response of the whole person. But it's not the only way of contemplating music; changing the focus, you could study in detail the quantity, range and patterns of notes, and their effect at various levels: on the ear drum, on the brain, on the emotions. In other words, the musical experience can be broken down, reduced and explained in many ways. But most reasonable folk would accept that no amount of such analysis alters the experienced reality of a great work of art, stimulating the senses, stirring the emotions - and plainly the product of genius. And note, that power and mystique is not something 'extra' to the analysable musical notes and effects; it's right there in it. It's a case of different ways of appreciating the phenomena. I see a parallel with nature and God. The biblical perspective is clear, that nature manifests the presence and glory of God, Romans 1:19,20. In the western scientific community in particular, this perspective has in large part been lost. And it strikes me that looking for 'the difference God makes' as an additional factor in the processes, through measurable controlled experiment, is like a musical analyst searching for 'evidence of genius' by analysing the notes of a symphony. It doesn't work like that. You need to widen the camera angle and open up the avenues of appreciation. Problem is, prevailing scientific ideology can make that difficult to do. Which takes us to the heart of the problem: the problem of the heart. Jesus said spiritual 'new birth' is needed to enable us to see spiritual realities - like a chrysalis opening its wings to absorb and enjoy the light and warmth of the sun. A beautiful process - for which faith is a vital ingredient.

147 comments:

Lee said...

Hi Bruce,

Very quickly, off to work in a minute.

that only measurable experimental evidence would persuade of His existence. It's my conviction that such a demand is a feature of a western scientific materialist mindset, and that as an approach to the question of God it is fundamentally flawed..

Wrong… said I was sceptical and evidence is the BEST way to convince me. You could try to do with argument, but it would take a long time, since you would have to explain the observations in the universe and how they fit in with the bible story.

Also, what I “demand” is nothing more than what the bible claims it offers (and all Christians claim it offers).

Evidence for God.

If this book was consistent and offered what it promises (prophesies that later turn out true, miracles that were actually seen and recorded by independent observers) than I would have my evidence.

So, to repeat, I ask for nothing more than what the bible already promises.

What I do is also what the bible suggests I should do… doubt, just like Thomas (and remember this person “knew” Jesus and still needed evidence)

A fuller response will come later if I have time.

Off now

Lee

Anonymous said...

Bruce, this is such a strawman. It is not science that is stoping people looking at god, it is lack of evidence!
You are talking about highly subjective experiences here. If you lie in a bath of water at 10 oC for 10 minutes then jump in water at 25oC, you would say it was warm. Lie in a bat at 45oC for 10 min, then do the same, you will say it is cool. The truth is that it is 25oC, but your subjective experience decieves you. This illustrates why we do not consider this as evidence at all.

You say not to do so is flawed, well, here is a very important challenge - back up the statement.
It seems to say that is to pre-suppose that influencable subjectivity reveals a truth.
This approach also reduces the idea of god to personal taste: "my god is a loving god", "my god is a wrathful god" "my god is a guiding god", "my god wants me to work it out", My god hates gays", "my god is a creator god", "my god facilitates evolution", "my god punshes liars" etc - all created in the image of the believer.

We could say the same thing about spaghetti monsters - mine is an indifferent one. Others may have different ideas - it does not make it true, the fact I could feel that way about his divine noodlyness does not make him real.

You also claim that creation declares god's glory. In the time it takes you to read this, how many people do you think have died from parasites eating their living flesh, or viruses turning their tissues into soup. How many young gazelle have had their throats ripped out by a lion as the rest of the pride eat it alive? Do you think all cute little bunny rabbits live past their first year? That doesn't sound very glorious to me.

All "creation" really does is display the savagery of nature. Mind you, that's not incompatible with OT god

Billy

PS, just because it's in the bible doesn't make it true. If you start off with this assumption you will never question reality

Jonathan said...

Bruce-

"a feature of a western scientific materialist mindset, and that as an approach to the question of God it is fundamentally flawed".

What exactly is a scientific materialist, and where do you find one? :) Furthermore, at the risk of sounding cynical I very much doubt that you would think the approach "fundamentally flawed" if it actually produced evidence FOR the existence of God.

I see the point you're trying to make, and you put it across well, but ultimately I disagree (there's a shock, huh :))

"Listening to great music, one is intuitively aware of intelligent, inspired creative activity underlying the experience, and the work itself".

Well obviously, given that we know it has been composed, we know who the composer is. Attempting to stretch the analogy to God is tenuous, given that so much of what we though God was directly involved with in the past has turned out not to be so.

"But most reasonable folk would accept that no amount of such analysis alters the experienced reality of a great work of art, stimulating the senses, stirring the emotions - and plainly the product of genius".

According to whose perspective? Ironically, this relates directly to my post on Subjectivity. The "experienced reality" of a great work of art will inevitably vary from person to person. For music- perhaps some listeners prefer the strings, some the woodwinds, whereas others still appreciate the overall fusion of the composition. But the point is that everyone will appreciate it differently.

Subjective impressions vary wildly, so they seem very unhelpful for building up any kind of impression of what God is like, especially when you change the subject being assessed to something as immense and varied as nature.

"Jesus said spiritual 'new birth' is needed to enable us to see spiritual realities - like a chrysalis opening its wings to absorb and enjoy the light and warmth of the sun. A beautiful process - for which faith is a vital ingredient".

What spiritual realities? The reality of God? Like I said, everyone sees things differently.

Jonathan said...

And while I think of it Bruce, you haven't yet said much about my points about subjectivity on my blog.

And you also have yet to answer Lee's question about what would cause you to no longer believe in God.

Bruce said...

Cheers guys, I'll get back to you tomorrow. I've got to thank you at least for being such avid and responsive readers! And J, don't worry I haven't forgotten those qs. I'm trying to tackle a point at a time in a bit of depth, and I'll be back on your blog too!
Goodnight.

Anonymous said...

---------
Leec wrote:
Also, what I “demand” is nothing more than what the bible claims it offers (and all Christians claim it offers).

Evidence for God.
---------
When you say evidence for God, I trust you mean "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

The first thing that should be noted is that evidence is only conclusive according to the arbitrary line that you have set. You may have placed this line at witnessing the regrowth of a limb.

Secondly,supplying proof that is beyond everyone's arbitrary line is NOT what the bible offers. So don't keep hassling Christians to give you it. It's not there, because that is NOT the purpose of the bible.

Thirdly, the God of the bible shows he is immensely pleased by displays of FAITH. Why is that? What value does faith have in the relationship between a god and his created beings?

--------
Man to wife: do you love me?
Wife: yes, I married you, didn't I?
Man: I demand you prove your love to me!
Wife: That's not very loving. I have a headache.
--------

If the bible speaks the truth about God, the amazing thing is not that he exists, rather it is his personality, his glory, that is amazing. Could there be some connection between faith and the realisation of gloriousness that you may have overlooked?

It's something that Christians see because (to greater or lesser extents) they are living it every day.

Lee said...

Hi Bruce,

OK, I was in a rush this morning as always, so only read quickly your post, and so only touched on the one issue.

As promised, a more detailed response.

However I have to say you have not added much to your original comment in the 'All channels engaged?' thread, and so my original response to your analogy is still valid and, I feel, unanswered.

I do not wish to repeat my views here, no need – I will assume you have read them and anyone who is interested could read the last few comments on the older thread.

Feel free though Bruce to respond to those comments here, on this thread, so that the topic is grouped together in the one place.

I want to address a common theme of atheistic thinking about God as shown in recent comments, that only measurable experimental evidence would persuade of His existence.

Already touched upon with my first reply.

Can you explain why a rational approach is unreasonable BTW?

It's my conviction that such a demand is a feature of a western scientific materialist mindset, and that as an approach to the question of God it is fundamentally flawed.

Western? Is there an Eastern scientific approach that is different? And what is a “materialist mindset” in your opinion?

Oh… and importantly, you claim the approach is “fundamentally flawed” – why is that then – back it up?

Just because the scientific method has not found God does not mean the method is flawed, it could mean God does not exist.

Have you ever considered this option?

And while we are on the subject, are you able to say and think “Let’s assume God does NOT exist” and then read the bible?
I can of course and the bible makes sense, but more importantly I can do the reverse.

I truly have read the bible with the assumption that an all-powerful, all-loving God DOES exist, just like the good Christian states – however, the problem is that the bible just doesn’t make sense to me if I do this.

This also goes against your first “accusation”, that only “measurable experimental evidence would persuade [me] of His existence” – the problem is that the bible does not convince me. It could and should be able to persuade me if it truly was “the word of God”. The bible should be the evidence (at least this is what Christians say and believe)
A scientist does not blame the measurements when their theory is proven false – you could learn from that.

Coming from an arts not science background,
I won’t hold it against you… Just don’t talk to me about modern art – what is that all about?

However, even with your “art background” you should understand what an interaction between God and man could or should look like?

Why do you claim that any such interaction cannot be measured if it is worthwhile? And if you still feel it cannot be measured, then why do you think your religion has any place in science? (Or have you changed your mind on that point?)

Oh… I see, you want to move the direction of debate a little with your music analogy.

It fails since the music itself can be tested… (as I pointed out on the other thread – care to discuss?)

I find image, metaphor and analogy helpful ways to think, opening up fresh perspectives.

Yes I agree, but if the image, metaphor or analogy fails – then it should be rejected or at least clearly stated where the analogy fails when using it.

You have not done this
.
But most reasonable folk would accept that no amount of such analysis alters the experienced reality of a great work of art, stimulating the senses, stirring the emotions

“reasonable folk”? So if I disagree it is because I am “unreasonable”?

Very poor form old boy… but lets move on.

If you look up at the night sky, are you amazed and in awe at what you see?

I am – have been since probably from the very first time I looked up and saw stars.

Does later analysis alter and lessen my experience? No, the more I learn, the more in wonder I am. More analysis, more knowledge increases my experience.

The same could be said about music… breaking it down… the wonderful physics involved in the resonant waves… the compression of the air carrying the sound vibrating tiny bones in my ears for my brain to “hear”. How the acoustics of the hall changes the sound, or if it is outdoor, how the sound changes on the wind.

It’s great… it is the person who wants to live in ignorance that is missing out in my view.

- and plainly the product of genius.

Newton’s laws, General Relativity, Quantum mechanics… genius.

Biology, Chemistry, Physics – true genius – mankind should be proud.

You don’t put man on the moon with music – sorry. No matter how long you listen.

So am I “unreasonable”?

The biblical perspective is clear, that nature manifests the presence and glory of God, Romans 1:19-20.

Is it?

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:


Clear you say?

Lets just repeat this back then…
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen”

Invisible – seen? Is it just me or this is nonsense? Bible speak eh?

“being understood by the things that are made”?

Question: Why did an all powerful God need to create a universe so large and old, requiring many stars to go supernova to create the heavy elements found in, say, a simple rock on the ground in my garden?

Conclusion?: I see no evidence in this verse for an all-powerful God…

Billion’s of years to create me a lump of rock on the ground does not seem to make any sense for an all-powerful God – so tell me, understanding how this rock is formed, how does it help me understand the invisible God?

Any more verses you know that make any less sense?

Of course, I will be reading this passage wrong I am sure – I never had a childhood that explained such verses to me. No teacher or priest to explain how it should be read.

So please help me out Bruce on the interpretation.

And it strikes me that looking for 'the difference God makes' as an additional factor in the processes, through measurable controlled experiment, is like a musical analyst searching for 'evidence of genius' by analysing the notes of a symphony.

Erm… this doesn’t sound right. False Dichotomy? False Analogy?

Why is “looking for 'the difference God makes' as an additional factor in the processes, through measurable controlled experiment,” invalid?

You have not said… merely compared it to something that cannot be measured and that is subjective.
Any “additional factor” on the other hand should be measurable.

Prayer could be tested. If no difference is found in a well control experiment, it could be concluded that God makes no difference in prayer and that prayer is useless – Do you agree that prayer is at least testable? If not, why not – don’t you believe in the power of prayer?

Remember, I do not need to understand the process, but the “difference” God makes should be noticeable. Why do you feel it isn’t?

'evidence of genius' could be subjective and open to personal opinions.

Some say David Beckham is a genius, I beg to differ. How about Steven Gerrard? My dad says Pele – how can any of this be tested?

I think Einstein was a genius, you can test his equations and ideas even today. Still subjective even so... Einstein was wrong on Quantum Mechanics so was he an idiot?

How do I test Mozart? Again it is subjective and no place in science as you know.

As you trying to place God in such a position BTW? God’s interactions cannot be measured? Then how do you know you have had any interaction at all with God?

I suggest it could all be in your mind – can you prove to me otherwise?

Drugs have a wonderful effect on some people don’t you know?

It doesn't work like that.

You’re telling me.

Problem is, prevailing scientific ideology can make that difficult to do.

Do you mean science is no good in areas where there is nothing to be measured?

However you have not answered, even to yourself it would appear, why anyone should believe in a God whose interactions cannot be independently verified.

Add to that the problem that the bible clearly states we should be able to do just that. Test He interactions…

I’m confused how you can claim to be a Christian, that the bible is the “word of God” and then claim that God’s interactions cannot be measured?

This sounds more like something a deist would say – God created the universe but does not interact with it in anyway and so cannot be tested?

But you are a Christian and the bible clearly states God’s interactions with the world can be seen – in a major way.

So please, repeating myself again, explain why it is wrong to expect God’s interactions in the world, if any, should be measurable, especial when your only source for “evidence” for God and your beliefs on faith, the bible, backs up such an expectation?

I have the bible on my side – why do you ignore it the claims within?
(Weird, an atheist using the bible against a Christian? Something must be wrong?)

Lee

Jonathan said...

Beat to Lee-

"When you say evidence for God, I trust you mean "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"".

At the risk of speaking for him- I don't think that's what Lee meant at all. Your post deals with a strawman idea of what atheists consider to be evidence.

We're not in a court! Proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be pretty damn useful I admit, but it's not essential. I'm open to the possibility that God exists, but so far the evidence doesn't measure up. What would get me really thinking is more compelling evidence, or a good line of argument.

"Could there be some connection between faith and the realisation of gloriousness that you may have overlooked?"

What this seems to be saying is that for you to be able to see God, and appreciate his glory, you have to have faith in him FIRST. Doesn't this seem backwards to you?

Anonymous said...

Hi Beat,

Evidence should be independently verifiable - not subjective.

You are also stating that god likes faith, well, I showed a lot of faith and look where it got me - I'm affraid that is not an argument. You are assuming qualities about god. The question is is there any evidence that a god exists? If you keep moving the goal posts, you will be ultimately satisfied with no evience as evidence.

Was Jesus appearing to the disiples not good evidence of the resurrection?

John 20:31 is worth considering: "but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

The bible is clearly making evidential claims. Do you also believe that the bible reveals "evidence" concerning the character of god too?

Billy

Anonymous said...

PS testing is not arbitrary. Do you think fairies might exist because we are not considering the correct evidence?

The problem is that their is no substance behind such subjective claims concerning "reality" that you have no reference to compare it with. This is why we ask (again) what distinguishes your arguments from that of a muslim? What solid evidence do you producen to convince yourself thay are wrong and you are right?

Billy

Bruce said...

I’m afraid I’m having to be pretty strict with my time blogging as it easily consumes a day and I’m looking for some temp work… incidentally, Lee, you asked before: the application with the theological questionnaire is for a post in radio ministry in Bradford - so who knows, may be moving closer to your neck of the woods Jonathan.
So, though I briefly read last night’s comments, I’ve only been able just now to write a few initial thoughts to the first 2.
To L: first, my line about a reasonable person’s response to music wasn’t meant to imply underhand you guys are unreasonable. I’ll try as much as you to stick to the points. I think we need to look at the r'ship between evidence and argument: it’s not a simple either or; what counts as evidence, how it’s viewed and handled, depends on philosophical position, reached by argument. Need to consider bible story more carefully. My background is in literature: what are the different kinds of literature in the bible? A topic in itself, but eg is Genesis written as scientific account? Modern science plainly wasn’t around then, but does that have to discount the kind of ‘big picture’ truth Genesis is conveying? Billy (and J): Initial thought on subjective experience: I think you’re polarising the debate on this one. My basic view is that subjectivity is part of the faith experience, but rooted in historical, objective, verifiable facts. Good Christian apologetics (defence) is insistent on this. From a glance, I recommend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_apologetics as a starting point. There doesn’t seem much point coming back with a lot more comment until I’ve had a chance to read the rest of the comments; from my point of view, this above all can slow debate, cos takes time to read comments! - so a look at this might be worthwhile meanwhile?… lots of links. I’ll leave with you. You pose lots of qs, so w/o time to answer today, I’m pointing to a site with the beginnings of lots of answers! Probably best for us to tackle one or two qs at a time; the objective/subjective evidence one, and science, are at the top of my pile just now. Of course, Beat and Jimmy are welcome to tackle comments too where they have time.

Bringing over from previous thread, the qs on the table as I'm aware of them: expectation of testable experimental evidence for God within the scientific method framework; need for a 'miracle' to believe in God; no 'independent verifiable witnesses' eg of Jesus’ miracles; Bible stories are plundered pagan stories; reliability of the Bible, apparent conflicts and contradictions; questions about ‘fulfilled prophecy'; view that belief in Christianity is true is wholly subjective - why believe it instead of other religions?; creation evolution design; morality and God, moral problems in the Bible; prayer; the resurrection; what wd it take for you not to believe in God? You can chip in any others.

Anonymous said...

Modern science plainly wasn’t around then, but does that have to discount the kind of ‘big picture’ truth Genesis is conveying?

Yes it does. If it was inspired by god, why doesn't it reflect the truth? You also have to justify why it is not meant to be taken literally. Christians cant agree on what it actually means, so why believe anything other than a literal interpretation. Paul, Jesus, Peter and God all talk about it literally. Man was not the cause of death, disease and suffering in the world either, so I dont see any truth in it - We have also pointed out that right and wrng only became apparent after doing what was "wrong".

My basic view is that subjectivity is part of the faith experience, but rooted in historical, objective, verifiable facts.

Such as? Did you read the history lesson on Jonathan's blog? If so, you will see such historical "facts" are probably not true.
However, I still have seen no evidence that subjectivity reveals any truths.

The apologetics link really has nothing much to say - whenever I have visited apologetic sites, it turns out most are inerrantist sites with the philosphy that the bible "MUST be absolutely true. However, we have provided plenty of evidence yhat the life of Jesus is at least partly made up.
The trouble with all apologetics sites that I have come across is that they start with the supposition that god exists, then they put their own personal flavour on him.
They often use the same old refuted claims - like aquinas' 5 "proofs", the cosmological and teloelogical arguments etc - all arguments from incredulity?
I wonder why they spend so much time and effort on this when you guys say that god does not reveal himself - seems there is a disagreement going on here.

Billy

Jonathan said...

Bruce-

"My basic view is that subjectivity is part of the faith experience, but rooted in historical, objective, verifiable facts".

Do you mean subjectivity is rooted, or that "the faith experience" is rooted? Can we have some examples of these historical, objective, verifiable facts?

Something tells me Billy & Lee will want to comment on your Genesis point, so I'll leave that alone!

Anonymous said...

The first thing that should be noted is that evidence is only conclusive according to the arbitrary line that you have set.

Are you talking evidence in general?
2+2 always = 4, if it doesn't, it is not true.
Been thinking a bit about presuppositions in general. If you claim you can only see evidence for god if your presuppositions allow you to, you still have no evidence that he exists - just subjectivity. This is why we claim faith to be irrational.

Something tells me Billy & Lee will want to comment on your Genesis point, so I'll leave that alone!


Praize Quetzelcoatal for his prophetic words


Billy
Billy

Anonymous said...

"2+2 always = 4, if it doesn't, it is not true."

We shouldn't confuse the laws of nature with the laws of thought. 2+2 cannot be anything other than 4, but suspension of the laws of nature, (which is what happens when a true miracle occurs) is not in the same realm. We know that 2+2 is always 4, because that sum operates within an equation where we have set the laws: the laws of arithmetic. But what we know about the laws of nature always has the potential to be superceded by a greater revelation, a greater knowledge. Is it possible that there exists a plane of existence where not only do the laws of nature not apply in the way we previously understood them, but also the laws of thought, of cause and effect? What scientific method could prove that, since all science is based exclusively on the laws by which we are governed?

Also... yes, I would consider Jesus' resurrection from the dead to be sufficient evidence for trusting in Christianity, but I've had to trust the secondary evidence of that because I wasn't there. It's interesting to note that in the account of Jesus ascension, the disciples worshipped but some doubted. It's still possible to have doubts even when presented with what seems like overwhelming evidence when what you are being asked to believe is so unbelievable.

What I'm talking about is the fact that you guys have set the bar at a level which you've decided is enough to make you believe. My suggestion (elsewhere) is that you're not actually in a position to dictate what evidence you should receive.

Also the purpose of miracles is rarely to make non-believers believe, so asking for one on those grounds is unlikely to get you anywhere: Christians and atheists are in agreement there!

"
What this seems to be saying is that for you to be able to see God, and appreciate his glory, you have to have faith in him FIRST. Doesn't this seem backwards to you?
"

It depends on how you respond to the secondary evidence about him. The bible offers that evidence, which you are at liberty to believe or not...but this evidence is not of the category that is able to convince anyone outright. These are the suppositions that need to be tested and the only "scientific" way to test them (according to the bible) is to act in faith. It may seem counter-intuitive, but the bible does teach that spiritual reality is quite at odds with worldly reality, so in a way a lot of what it teaches is "backward" in that sense.

Let us look at the core suppositions of Christianity.

1. God exists.
2. The bible paints a true picture of God.
3. God is willing to be in relationship with us.
4. Jesus has made that relationship possible if we respond in a certain appropriate way.

If this was the case:would you be prepared to respond in that way? How would you respond to that God? If it were true, would you marvel at the doctrine of grace? Or would you look back at the times when you were so casual about him and say "je ne regrette rien"?

This type of scientific test is what it's really about. Are you prepared to say sorry, and mean it? Or do you think it will be impossible to do that without somehow sacrificing the nature of the experiment? Or perhaps acting in faith compromises who you are as a person? (But then, why should that matter? What value has being "true to yourself" if there is no self worth being true to?)

How does a scientist measure repentance anyway?

Is it not fair to say that the atheist has nothing to lose and everything to gain by risking faith in Jesus?

Lee said...

Hi Beat,

Can only be short now…

When you say evidence for God, I trust you mean "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

In the court of law this maybe true – but remember it is never one piece of evidence that convicts.

I will be happy for just “reasonable doubt” – it would be a start, the Christian hasn’t even supplied that yet.

I assume you accept then that God's interactions can be tested?

More later.

Lee

Lee said...

Hi Jonathan,

At the risk of speaking for him- I don't think that's what Lee meant at all.

Thanks... you are right and so you can speak for me - I think you know my views rather well now.

Must go

Lee

Jonathan said...

Beat-

"Is it possible that there exists a plane of existence where not only do the laws of nature not apply in the way we previously understood them, but also the laws of thought, of cause and effect? What scientific method could prove that, since all science is based exclusively on the laws by which we are governed?"

Sure, it's entirely possible that a separate plane of existence exists that science could never detect. IF, that is, this plane NEVER interacted with ours. If any part of it did, ie GOD, we would be able to see that interaction, and measure and experiment wth its effects here.

You can't have it both ways. Either God is beyond science, outside the Universe, in which case how can he interact? Or he CAN interact in our Universe, in which case the interactions should be testable.

"It depends on how you respond to the secondary evidence about him. The bible offers that evidence, which you are at liberty to believe or not...but this evidence is not of the category that is able to convince anyone outright".

Damn straight. By any chance have you read the essay on the origins of the Bible that I linked to on my blog? Very interesting reading, and it raises a LOT of questions about the authority and accuracy of the Bible that so far nobody has addressed.

"Is it not fair to say that the atheist has nothing to lose and everything to gain by risking faith in Jesus?"

Or Allah. Or Jehovah. Or Vishnu. Or Buddha. Or Zeus. Or Baal. Or Enlil. Or Ra. Or Quetzalcoatl, PRAISE BE TO HIM.

This is just a variation on Pascal's Wager. In any case- Beat- what marks out your religion as being the true faith, as opposed to any of the others prevalent in the world? Why should we believe in Jesus, and not in the others?

Lee said...

Hi Beat,

Thanks for the response.

When you say evidence for God, I trust you mean "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

Incorrect – so be careful not to build a straw man out of me.

I know it is difficult when responses are delayed by a day or more and we wish to continue the debate forward.

For me to start to believe in the existence of God, I merely need “hints” of evidence for His existence (from several sources). Nothing conclusive in themselves (or even collective on initial analysis, not if I am just to start believing in the possibility of God)

What I should not have is an absence of evidence for the miracles already claimed in the bible when there should be many. (One or two in this instance would be classified as many since zero is what the Christians have now).

Neither would I expect an inconsistent description in a holy book for God on many separate issues.

The first thing that should be noted is that evidence is only conclusive according to the arbitrary line that you have set.

Please explain… I really do not know what you mean. I will guess though for sake of discussion.

“arbitrary line that you have set”?

When Rutherford “fired” nuclei at a “sheet“ of Gold, he really did not expect some of them to come back. Yet following the evidence led him to a conclusion which he did NOT have BEFORE the experiment.

This is very common in science experiments, so I do not know of any “arbitrary line”.

Do you know how radiation was first discovered? By accident when Becquerel placed in a draw some photographic plates and some rocks, which just so happened to contain radioactive material – so again, what arbitrary line was used on this discovery? The scientists just followed the evidence and importantly, never ignore it.

You may have placed this line at witnessing the regrowth of a limb.

No… this is just one of many ‘miracles’ we do not see. The list of possible miracles is very long.

The number of miracles we see is zero.

Why is that?

Secondly, supplying proof that is beyond everyone's arbitrary line is NOT what the bible offers.

The bible describes events that would be considered miracles, the bible even states this of course. What I ask for is independent evidence to back it up. It is here were the bible falls – it is reasonable to expect evidence to be present in the historical record, but none is found. Another case where the “absence of evidence” is telling.

So don't keep hassling Christians to give you it. It's not there, because that is NOT the purpose of the bible.

Wrong… or do you have a different bible to me?

The bible clearly states events that are suppose to be recognised as miracles, or at least “true events” that would be deemed as miracles (Take your pick).

I am merely asking for evidence for them from an independent source.

I say “it’s not there” because it didn’t happen. Yet the Christian still believes without evidence. Or do you disagree with the bible and its miracle claims?

Thirdly, the God of the bible shows he is immensely pleased by displays of FAITH. Why is that?

Is it due to the lack of evidence for His existence? The requirement for faith is therefore convenient.
What value does faith have in the relationship between a god and his created beings?

“love” is subjective by the way and there are probably biological reasons for it. (Women certainly do not like to hear a rational response, since with a rational response our views could change – not very good for the childrearing department so the woman rightly leaves.)

If the bible speaks the truth about God,
A big IF – unsupported by evidence.

the amazing thing is not that he exists

Actually, it would be amazing… I think the universe is pretty amazing and you want something even greater than that…

rather it is his personality

So is God an all-loving or vengeful God? Your only evidence seems to be the bible – shall we look for references together?

Could there be some connection between faith and the realisation of gloriousness that you may have overlooked?

I have no faith – can you tell me where to buy some or how to get it?
However, first tell me why I need it – you seem to be telling me to believe in God I need faith in the existence of God first… this does not seem rational.

How do you test your faith by the way?

Cheers

Lee

Lee said...

Hi Billy and Jonathan,

Just to state what I hope you already know… I am reading your posts and agree with all that you have said so far.

All are excellent.

(So too are the responses from Beat and Bruce – but you know this since I am responding in detail to all your points – I hope.)

It might just look like I am replying to the theists at the moment – and this is because they are causing so many “points” for me to reply to - I’m not ignoring you guys. I’ll chip in when I feel I can or need to (which is rare now)

I think together we are overwhelming the Bruce and Beat here… (I am certainly hitting them with a large volume of rubbish to read) and so maybe Bruce or Jonathan could focus a thread on one or two of the key points at some time in the future?

I’ll let you decide what they are… and when to post/blog it - I have no idea any more.

All praise Quetzalcoatl

Lee

Lee said...

Hi Bruce,

Lee, you asked before: the application with the theological questionnaire is for a post in radio ministry in Bradford - so who knows, may be moving closer to your neck of the woods Jonathan.

Good luck, but Bradford is a horrible place. I use to live in Leeds – much better - though both are in Yorkshire - bad. However I have seen many a fine concert at the Bradford Queens Hall (including one in the basement?)

my line about a reasonable person’s response to music wasn’t meant to imply underhand you guys are unreasonable

Sorry – I was in a “picky” mood… and was looking closely at your method of argument. I’m trying to learn more about the structure of an argument, but please don’t get paranoid. I’m rubbish at it.

I think we need to look at the r'ship between evidence and argument: it’s not a simple either or;

what counts as evidence

I suppose anything that can be repeated and independently measured – but what it is evidence for is a different matter.

how it’s viewed and handled

Not sure what you mean here… could you expand – it does not make sense to me. Evidence is evidence isn’t it?

A theory will say what will falsify it - if you have evidence to falsify a theory – then the theory in the current form is rejected.

I suppose you might have a measurement and not realise what it means… an example of this is the team at Bell Lab who won a noble prize in Physics for “discovering” the cosmic background radiation – the thing is, they just thought they had an “annoying hiss” and even thought is was bird-muck at one point. (True story) It took the scientist who was in the process of building a telescope to measure the background radiation to tell them what they have in fact discovered what he was looking for. Is this what you mean by “viewed”? – understanding what the evidence means?

depends on philosophical position, reached by argument.

No so sure about this… the “philosophy” is the scientific method which is based purely on what can be measured – no argument or debate when you have the results. (Did you look up the “The Great Debate” – philosophy and ideas came into that debate, but it was the evidence from Hubble (the man, not the telescope) that decided the debate. It highlights rather well how science works… )

A topic in itself, but eg is Genesis written as scientific account?

Do you really want to open that “box”?

I have been down the path a few times and I would welcome it again.

So what is your view on Genesis book as a whole and the first 2 chapters in particular?

I have summarised 3 views I have commonly seen in debates from the theist perspective, I could be wrong, so please tell me in your own words if you disagree with all of them.

1. The Genesis creation story (and the bible) is 100% correct. 6 days, no evolution and a nice young Earth and universe.
Normally a position by the creationist which I do not think you are from your words

2. The Genesis creation story agrees with science, merely the words used are those that could be understood by the people of the day. That is, the order and events described have no contradiction with science. There are no errors in the Genesis creation story - If contradictions occur, it is science that is wrong.

3. The Genesis creation story is total myth, a story to try and convey the complexities of the “creation” and the method used by God. If the myth disagrees with science it is the myth that is over a simplified and/or is wrong. Science is more likely correct and is where the understanding for the creation should be taken. Science tells us the how, religion tells us the why. The book was still “inspired by God” and so is “spiritually” correct.


4. The Genesis creation story is just that – a story, written by people who did not have much understanding of the world and universe around them. It is a man-made “invention” and probably borrowed from more than one source. It shows no evidence for any input from an all-knowing God and so the natural conclusion is that it was purely written by man alone. Where Genesis is specific on the steps/order of creation it is wrong, or at best vague. It shows ignorance on both the biological and physical details.

5. < insert comment here >


Can you guess which one I think it is?

Bruce wrote:
You can chip in any others.

I have raised so many, I cannot remember… the important one you have listed, but still have not answered is “what type of observation would start you to stop believing in God?” Is it such a hard question to answer?

I will also re-word a couple you have listed.

expectation of testable experimental evidence for the interactions between God and man and/orthe world within the scientific method framework

need for a 'miracle' to believe in God;

You have summarised this point a little too much for me.

Although a miracle in the modern day would be great evidence, I don’t necessary need it to start to believe in God – maybe God is tired or something. However since many ‘miracles’ have already been listed in the bible, a start would be any independent evidence for any of these said miracles. None has been found, and I would have expected it (I could go into the detail why if you like).

So this could be a valid case to state “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” for these miracles recorded in the bible. If the bible cannot prove the miracles, then what have you got left?

Phew… is that enough?

Lee

Lee said...

Hi Jonathan,

Something tells me Billy & Lee will want to comment on your Genesis point, so I'll leave that alone!

Oh yes… you know me well – already there (see above)

All Praise Quetzalcoatl for your wisdom.

…but watch the subject change before your very eyes when Genesis conflicts with scientific observations.

Get ready to “wave those hands in the air”

Lee

Anonymous said...

Hi Beat, again you presuppose god exists.
To say we have set a bar is a bit of a supposition of what we think. It is true we need reasonable evidence - I think Lee commented on the fact that none of you would believe that he can fly unless you saw it. So far no one has commented on that. It seems that christians always have to lower the bar to keep believing. Evolution lowered the bar for some, the quirinius problem lowered the bar for others and the archaeology of the exodus for others.
Some however blindly stick to believing that the bible is absolutely literal.

Concerning miracles, I dont see how you can say they were not intended to builkd faith - that is afterall what John is claiming at the end of his chapte - "all these things (teachings and miracles) are written that you may believe that Jesus was the Christ". John 10 also springs to mind. OT god proudly boasts about destroying his enemies in shows of miraculous power and says "then they will know I am God".
There appears to be some cherry picking going on here.

How would you respond to that God? If it were true

There's the central question though - what evidence is there that he exists? Are you asking us to just assume? Well Jonathan and my self once did - I cant say that I ever saw myself in a relationship with him. How does that fit with your comment?

I would also aoppreciate your answer concerning why you dont believe in faries.

We shouldn't confuse the laws of nature with the laws of thought

In a way, numbers only exist in thought. All things are possible, but not everything is true - I'm still waiting for evidence of this higher plane, and why what you consider evidence for it is actually evidence at all.

Billy

Anonymous said...

Leec wrote:

I will be happy for just “reasonable doubt” – it would be a start, the Christian hasn’t even supplied that yet.

I assume you accept then that God's interactions can be tested?

---------

God's interactions can be tested? How do you mean. Like if a pastor driving through the desert suddenly realises that in his rush, he has forgotten to fill up the tank, and he will be stranded in the desert. Then as he prays, he notices the fuel gauge slowly rising to the full mark? That is testable in that he has the fuel to drive to his destination, but not testable in the sense that I can't prove to you that it actually happened, nor can he.

God's miraculous intervention can be tested (put your fingers in the holes of my hands) but only at his discretion. A miracle cannot be engineered by a scientist. It is at the discretion of the one who has the power to change the natural order.

That is the point I'm making. Christians say miracles are evidence of God. But God does not ordinarily provide miracles for those who will not respond to those miracles appropriately. Using them to discern God's existence come under the innapropriate category. So why do atheists decry the lack of miracles? The answer is in your own heart about what you want the miracles to achieve. Do you sincerely want to believe it is true? Or do you just want to be the guy whose experiment finally proved God existed? Surely doing that puts God under the remit of scientific discovery, which is something God simply won't do. He is supernatural, therefore science cannot touch him. It can touch what he has touched, it can analyse what he has altered or created, but it cannot touch him. Supernatural means beyond the bounds of science!

Reasonable doubt. Good, at least we are not on a straw man any more. The bible does suggest evidence is support of a decision to believe in God, but it cannot offer conclusive proof. One of the reasons for this is that God wishes to leave us room for maneuver, room in which free will can still be exercised.

Let us reason about this.

There are plenty of very intelligent Christians, and plenty of very intelligent atheists who have had an army of reasons for believing what they believed.

That means that neither of these is a conclusive reason to believe. Indeed, if everyone believed it would still not be a conclusive reason to believe/disbelieve.

However it suggests that we should take seriously their reasons for their decision. We should be asking ourselves "why am I inclined to read books by author X rather than author Y?" "Why do I want (my belief system) to be true?"

I'll be honest. I want Christianity to be true. The reason is that it offers eternal life in heaven for me. And not just for me, but for everyone who believes in it. Another reason is that I see amazing things done for the cause of Christianity: on the smallest scale and the greatest scale. I see murderers locked up who are converted and by their Christian influence are able to turn a whole cell-block into a peaceful haven where violence is virtually non-existant. I see people previously characterised by selfishness suddenly surprise us all by some incredibly selfless, self-sacrificing act. I see people who have very little in common meeting together and sharing community where no community would otherwise exist: united by a desire to edify one another and give thanks for their lives. I see people who are freed from bondage whether it's fear, addiction, bad habits, you name it. They suddenly see their afflictions in a new light and it no longer has power over them.

None of these things are proof to the atheist. But they are still the reasons that make me inclined to believe Christianity. I look for the great successes of atheism. I look for the people whose lives were truly turned around by atheism, those who found the strength to beat alcoholism through atheism. Those who were called to great humanitarian acts because of atheism. To be honest, I don't see it much.

I don't want it to be true just so that I can say that I've been right all along (and get it right up ye!).

Liberation from religion may be an enabling experience, but only when the religion you have been liberated from is not actually liberating in itself. There are plenty who experience "Christianity" who say it burdens them and takes the joy from life. I have no such experience, and neither do the majority of Christians I know. I know that life is hard and creates burdens for us, but I don't think Christianity creates or adds to those burdens. If someone felt it added burdens, I would want to challenge their interpretation of scriptures.

So that's why I'm inclined to want Christianity to be true. I've seen that plenty of scholars believe it. I've seen its power to change lives and improve the world (and atheism's lack of power in this regard). I've heard of dramatic miracles from people I trust (but admit not recalling having seen one myself).

Supposing God is who he claimed he is in the bible. Supposing his judgements ARE right. Supposing heaven is a possibility for those who trust in Jesus. Would you want to repent your sin and participate in that communion offered? Or is that idea repellant to you?

I can't help wanting it to be true, but I think I'm reasonably detached to be able to evaluate what I've understood and experienced of Christianity.

Are you the same as me in that you want atheism to be true, or would you prefer it if I was somehow able to convince you otherwise?

Anonymous said...

Excellent post, Bruce

God does expect us to see him in the universe he has created.

God also expects us to believe his word.
There are things in the Bible I don't understand and other things I don't like, but I would not reject what I do understand and also find amazing and wonderful because of this.
I feel that a Christian's base camp for the exploration of the Bible is Golgotha.

The creation and the Bible are two material evidences of God,
perhaps it is a subjective choice to believe and accept these as evidence of God,
but is is also a subjective choice to reject them.

Bruce said...

Just to say, I'm working through the comments, but think it's better to wait till my response is more fully-formed before posting, to ensure the best further response from others. Meanwhile I see J has opened up a new post on his blog to keep you all talking! Cheers for now.

Lee said...

Bruce, you have replied - but none my comments have appeared?

Do I need to re-write them?

Hope now.

Lee

Lee said...

Hi Bruce,

On the subject of religion in science – some information you might find interesting to research more. It could add “weight” to your argument.

Last night a name came back to me, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Roman Catholic priest. Now he wasn't the first in the world – but he did theorise the Big Bang independently – and being a Roman Catholic the pope was quick to take it up as “evidence” for Genesis “In the beginning” statement. Physicists did not like to think of a “in the beginning”… it was maybe his faith in the bible that led him to look for this solution – who knows?

Anyway, do with the information as you will… I just thought you might not know the history of science that well - I’ve not researched this man much, but his name ALWAYS comes up in documentaries, books and lectures from those who wish to be “balanced” and not reject God 100%.

Wiki has an entry – not read it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

Just promise not to use it as evidence for the “need” of religion in science against anyone else but me… I would hate to think I have given you ammunition.

Enjoy

Lee

j said...

Coming into this nearly a week late ...

I was on an engineering course over the last few weeks, and was taught something I've never realised before despite 10+ years in software engineering work. The accepted definition of a 'system' now includes the notion that it has 'emergent' properties.

For example, a Formula 1 car has lots of different components, but none of the components themselves have 'speed'. This is an emergent property, which you want to maximise. At the same time dealing with lots of other emergent properties like drag and lift, which you might want to minimise, some of which will be in conflict with speed. The skill in engineering is maximising this property.

Similarly, music (to get onto one of the themes of this post) is an emergent property you can get when you put wood, strings, hammers etc. together along with a pianist. We can measure speed, and we can measure some things about music, but we can't fully measure or capture the emotional response we have to either. And at least for music, it's the emotional response that's most of the point of it.

I'm no brain scientist, but it seems to me that consciousness is likely to be an emergent property as well. Again, we have difficulty measuring this.

Is it a big leap to think that faith is an emergent property? You can't fully capture it, measure it, or break it down into its component parts. But it seems to emerge in a common pattern, from some common building blocks.

Is this a useful new line of approach?

Anonymous said...

J are you arguing for a physical basis for consciousness?
If so, I agree - drugs after all modulte consciousness and cognition.

Bruce, I hope you haven't lost all the other comments we are waiting for to appear

Bruce said...

Oh dear, now I'm worried some comments have been lost. As far as I'm aware I've published all the comments I've received. I'll check again later but if anyone's sent an unpublished comment then send (and copy!) again and I'll put it up.
Cheers.

Jonathan said...

I know I sent one, but I didn't save a copy, I'm afraid. Just assume it was brilliant, and react accordingly :-)

Anonymous said...

I am waiting for some, and I think Lee has a couple of biggies, and jonathan too.

Anonymous said...

You dont think we would have lefr beats post unchallenged now, do you?

Anonymous said...

Bruce wrote:
Oh dear, now I'm worried some comments have been lost. As far as I'm aware I've published all the comments I've received. I'll check again later but if anyone's sent an unpublished comment then send (and copy!) again and I'll put it up.

Grr… this is censorship at its worse.

We have all mentioned before that act of moderation (that is the delay in publishing) makes a discussion difficult – now posts have been lost because of it! At least on Jonathan’s blog if something failed posting you know it straight away and can re-send.

So Bruce, may I again suggest that you do not use moderation here… if someone writes something “really offence”, can’t you just delete it? (Try it) So what would then be the problem?

I actually have a “copy” of most of my posts since I normally draft them out in word first. (So you do not get away that easily.) However wisdom from others has probably been lost. This is a shame.

I will now start to re-proof read my drafts from the last week.

Lee

Lee said...

Hi Bruce,

Here are my posts to your blog from the last week… lets hope they do not get lost again.

It's a big one...

Lee
=====================================
Hi Beat,

Thanks for the response.

When you say evidence for God, I trust you mean "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

Incorrect – so be careful not to build a straw man out of me.

I know it is difficult when responses can be delayed by a day or more and we wish to continue the debate.
For me to start to believe in the existence of God, I merely need “hints” of evidence for His existence from several sources. Nothing conclusive in themselves (or even collective on initial analysis)

What I should not have is an absence of evidence for the miracles already claimed in the bible when there should be many. (One or two in this instance would be classified as many since zero is what the Christians have). Neither would I expect an inconsistent description in a holy book for God on many separate issues.

The first thing that should be noted is that evidence is only conclusive according to the arbitrary line that you have set.

Please explain… I really do not know what you mean.

“arbitrary line that you have set”?

When Rutherford “fired” nuclei at a sheet of Gold, he really did not expect some of them to come back. Yet the following the evidence led to a conclusion which he did NOT have BEFORE the experiment.

This is very common in science experiments, the “unexpected” is found, something that was not expected - so I do not know of any “arbitrary line”.

Do you know how radiation was first discovered? By accident when Becquerel place in a draw some photographic plates and some rocks, which just so happened to contain radioactive material – so again, what arbitrary line was used on this discovery?

The scientists just followed the evidence.

You may have placed this line at witnessing the regrowth of a limb.

No… this is just one of many ‘miracles’ we do not see. The list of possible miracles is very long. The number of miracles we see is zero.

Why is that?

Secondly, supplying proof that is beyond everyone's arbitrary line is NOT what the bible offers.

The bible describes events that would be considered miracles, the bible states this of course. What I ask is for independent evidence to back it up. It is here were the bible falls – it is reasonable to expect evidence to be present in the historical record, but none is found. Another case where the “absence of evidence” factor is telling.

So don't keep hassling Christians to give you it. It's not there, because that is NOT the purpose of the bible.

Wrong… or do you have a different bible?
The bible clearly states events that are suppose to be recognised as miracles, or at least “true events” that would be deemed as miracles (Take your pick).

I am merely asking for evidence for them from an independent source.

I say “it’s not there” because it didn’t happen. Yet the Christian still believes without evidence.

Thirdly, the God of the bible shows he is immensely pleased by displays of FAITH. Why is that?

Is it due to the lack of evidence for His existence? Convenient?

What value does faith have in the relationship between a god and his created beings?

“love” is subjective by the way and there are probably biological reasons for it. (Women certainly do not like to hear a rational response, since with a rational response your views could change as “factors” change – not very good for the woman in childrearing department.)

If the bible speaks the truth about God,

A big IF – unsupported by evidence.

the amazing thing is not that he exists

Actually, it would be amazing… I think the universe is pretty amazing already and you want something even greater than that…

rather it is his personality

So is God an all-loving or vengeful God? Your only evidence is the bible it seems –shall we look for references together?

Could there be some connection between faith and the realisation of gloriousness that you may have overlooked?

I have no faith – can you tell me where to buy some or how to get it?

However, first tell me why I need it – you seem to be telling me to believe in God I need faith in the existence of God first…

How do you test your faith by the way?

======================================================
Billy and Jonathan,

Just to state what I hope you already know… I am reading your posts and agree with all that you have said so far.

All are excellent.
(So too are the responses from Beat and Bruce – but you know this since I am responding in detail to all your points.)

It might just look like I am replying to the theists at the moment – and this is because they are causing so many “points” for me to reply to - I’m not ignoring you guys. I’ll chip in when I feel I can or need to (which is rare now)

I think together we are overwhelming the Bruce and Beat here… (I am certainly hitting them with a large volume of rubbish to read) and so maybe Bruce or Jonathan could focus a thread on one or two of the key points at some time in the future?

I’ll let you decide what they are… and when to post/blog it - I have no idea any more.

All praise Quetzalcoatl

=====================================

Hi Bruce,

Lee, you asked before: the application with the theological questionnaire is for a post in radio ministry in Bradford - so who knows, may be moving closer to your neck of the woods Jonathan.

Good luck, but Bradford is a horrible place. I use to live in Leeds – much better.

Though I have seen many a fine concert at the Bradford Queens Hall (including some in the basement)

my line about a reasonable person’s response to music wasn’t meant to imply underhand you guys are unreasonable

Sorry – I was in a “picky” mood… and was looking closely at your method of argument. I’m trying to learn more about the structure of an argument, but please don’t get paranoid. I’m rubbish at it.

I think we need to look at the r'ship between evidence and argument: it’s not a simple either or;

what counts as evidence

I suppose anything that can be repeated and independently measured – but what it is evidence for is a different matter.

how it’s viewed and handled

Not sure what you mean here… could you expand – it does not make sense to me.

Evidence is evidence.

A theory will say what will falsify it - if you have evidence to falsify a theory – then the theory in the current form is rejected.

I suppose you might have a measurement and not realise what it means… an example of this is the team at Bell Lab who won a noble prize in Physics for “discovering” the cosmic background radiation – the thing is, they just thought they had an “annoying hiss” and even thought is was bird-muck at one point. It took the scientist who was in the process of building a telescope to measure the background radiation to actually tell Bell Lab what they have in fact discovered.

Is this what you mean by “viewed” – understanding what the evidence means?

depends on philosophical position, reached by argument.

No so sure about this… the “philosophy” here I am using is the scientific method which is based purely on what can be measured – no argument or debate when you have the results.

Did you look up the “The Great Debate” – philosophy and ideas came into that debate, but it was the evidence from Hubble (the man, not the telescope) that decided the debate. It highlights rather well how science works…

A topic in itself, but eg is Genesis written as scientific account?

Do you really want to open that “box”?

I have been down the path a few times and I would welcome it.

So what is your view on Genesis book as a whole and the first 2 chapters in particular?

I have summarised 3 views I have commonly seen in debates from the theist perspective, I could be wrong, so please tell me in your own words if you disagree with all of them.

1. The Genesis creation story (and the bible) is 100% correct. 6 days, no evolution and a nice young Earth and universe.
Normally a position by the creationist which I do not think you are from your words

2. The Genesis creation story agrees with science, however the words used are those that could be understood by the people of the day. That is, the order and events described have no contradiction with science. There are no errors in the Genesis creation story - If contradictions occur, it is science that is wrong.

3. The Genesis creation story is merely a myth, a story to try and convey the complexities of the “creation” and the method used by God. If the myth disagrees with science it is probably the myth that is over simplified and/or is wrong. Science is more likely correct and is where the understanding for the “how” of the creation should be taken.
Science tells us the how, religion tells us the why. The book was still “inspired by God” and so is “spiritually” correct.

4. The Genesis creation story is just that – a story written by people who did not have much understanding of the world around them. It is a man-made “invention”, and probably borrowed from more than one source. It shows no evidence for any input from an all knowing God and so the natural conclusion is that it was purely written by man alone. Where Genesis is specific on the steps/order of creation it is wrong, or at best vague. It shows ignorance on both the biological and physical details.

5. < insert comment here >

Can you guess which one I think it is?

Bruce wrote:
You can chip in any others.

I have raised so many, I cannot remember… the important one you listed, but still have not answered - what type of observation would start you to stop believing in God? Is it such a hard question?

I will also re-worded a couple you have listed.
expectation of testable experimental evidence for the interactions between God and man and/or the world within the scientific method framework

need for a 'miracle' to believe in God;

You have summarised this point a little too much for me.

Although a miracle in the modern day would be great evidence, I don’t necessary need it to start to believe in God – maybe God is tired or something. However since many ‘miracles’ have already been listed in the bible, a start would be any independent evidence for any of these said miracles.

None has been found, and I would have expected it (I could go into the detail if you like).

So this could be a valid case to state “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” for these miracles recorded in the bible. If the bible cannot prove the miracles, then what have you got left?

========================================================

Hi Jonathan,

Something tells me Billy & Lee will want to comment on your Genesis point, so I'll leave that alone!

Oh yes… you know me well,
All Praise Quetzalcoatl for your wisdom.

…but watch the subject change before your very eyes when Genesis conflicts with scientific observations.

Get ready to “wave those hands in the air”

“Ignore this section” it is just myth (i.e. it conflicts with science)
“Accept this section” it is fundamental to the Christian faith… (even if it still conflicts with science)

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately I dont keep copies of my posts - and I had conclusively proved that yahweh did not exist in my last one too.

I've got ones that went missing on one of the threads about evans's book too

Jonathan said...

My lost comment was in response to Beat's- but Lee seems to have covered all the points, so I'd just be covering old ground.

I do agree with Lee's point about moderation. You have the power (!) to delete any comments you find offensive- not that I think there have been any- so I just don't see the need for it. It's especially a pain given that comments now appear to have been lost. Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

Jonathan wrote:
Just assume it was brilliant, and react accordingly :-)

WOW... that was great. At last positive evidence for the non-existence of God.

We finally have the answer we have all been looking for.

I always wondered how Quantum Gravity was going to work... and to think, that is how you start simple life self-replicating life.

Don't suppose you could post it again so the rest of the bloggers can view it?

See ya

Lee

Jonathan said...

Now all the lost comments have reappeared. Bruce, are you playing some kind of joke on us? :(

Bruce said...

Ok folks. No joke was played, it appears comments got lost for a while. There's a simple problem here: at present I don't have time to read let alone reply to your comments at the rate you write them. Had a bit of a cold last few days which has slowed me down even further... I do sympathise with your objections, and I will consider, but for now I want to stick with moderation. The (slight) slowing effect it has gives me and any other non-atheist who might want to comment a bit more time and inclination to comment ourselves. I've done a new post as I aim for at least one a week; but will come back to this string. But I can only address one point at a time, so please try to stem the flood. Your readership though still appreciated!

j said...

billy: I wasn't trying to argue anything about consciousness per se. Rather just showing that we engineers (who aren't that different from scientists - I started in one place then moved to the other) generally are known for thinking about physical things. But we land up having to deal with more abstract emergent properties, which people don't realise.

Though now you ask the question, most emergent properties (if that's what consciousness is) do have a physical component. But I'd want to think further about some cases, (eg, certain policies or political viewpoints, or economics) that have consequences or effects that also can't be decomposed back to the component parts of the policies.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bruce,

Glad to see the posts have reappeared… a little weird that.

Moving on… the comments made are now really old but I will still comment on that.

I think Beat has left the debate (on Jonathan’s blog at least) so I will be “short” making comments on his points and since Billy and Jonathan have already commented I will try not to repeat (too much) on what has already been said. The questions are good ones, and should have a response.

==============================

Hi Beat (if you are reading this)

We shouldn't confuse the laws of nature with the laws of thought

You are free to think what you like of course, but how do you test your thoughts and ideas are correct?

but suspension of the laws of nature, (which is what happens when a true miracle occurs) is not in the same realm

Excellent – we agree on what a miracle is. I wish others could be so clear on their understandings and beliefs.

laws of nature always has the potential to be superceded by a greater revelation

Could you name any examples in science what you mean by this? I’m really want to make sure I understand what you mean by superseded.
(However, since you said you have left the debate, I will guess what you mean for the sake of argument – hope it is not a straw man)

We have a very good understanding of the “laws of nature” on the everyday scale. Science theories are “superseded” when of course new measurements invalidate the old theory. (However, since the old theory worked very well under the previous conditions, it still might not be thrown away – but used within the known limits)

An example of such a “law of nature” being “superseded” would be Newton laws of motion I guess. They work perfectly for the everyday world we live in and can humanly perceive (measure without advanced technically). But of course, they are not perfect and have been “superseded” by other laws such as General Relativity – but, and here is the important bit, GR did not show Newton’s laws are wrong in the everyday sense, just that they cannot explain the observed in the “extreme”.

Newton laws are still valid for the area they cover (you can still get man on the moon using Newtonian mechanics). GR also explains every observation that was original explained/described by Newton’s laws… in that sense, they do NOT replace Newton laws, merely improve on them.

An analogy could be the speeding laws for motorists. You could consider Newton’s laws as stating “You must not go faster than 70 mph”. This is law is true in England on their motorways… not so in Germany on the autobahn or the aeroplanes in the sky. (Will leave the analogy there, they are never very good and can sometimes confuse if you think too hard about it)

Just to say, the understanding of the universe with our theories increase on a granular level… getting better and better explaining the finer detail we observe.

This is why new theories come along… as the experiments improve and find some new detail that needs to be explained – the theories are revised.

I think it is a good process that allows for change, and means science is not “stuck” to a dogma of one theory or another.

Is it possible that there exists a plane of existence where not only do the laws of nature not apply in the way we previously understood them

What scientific method could prove that, since all science is based exclusively on the laws by which we are governed?


Jonathan answered this rather well – if you claim God interacts with us here in our domain of existence, then these interactions can be measured. You cannot have it both ways. Is God in or out of our universe? Does God interact with us so we can detect His presence or not? You cannot have it both ways.

Oh, and of course there could be a universe where the laws are different – we just don’t live there. If we did, then we could use the same scientific method to understand those physical laws. The method is fine thanks… if it can be observed and measure – science works.

yes, I would consider Jesus' resurrection from the dead to be sufficient evidence for trusting in Christianity, but I've had to trust the secondary evidence of that because I wasn't there.

So can I assume you also believe in Alien landings and ghosts as well? Both have “secondary evidence” to support their claims. What neither of them have though is real repeatable evidence – plain and simple.

What about miracle healers?

I heard of a chap called “John of God” (do a simple google search, I think he is even on youtube.)

Do you believe in him too?

If people living today, (in the modern age of schools, universities, books, television and the internet) can be tricked into believing this “miracle worker” – how easy to you think people could be tricked 2,000 years ago?

People fool themselves – they want to believe. They will even re-write history (in their minds or books) to “confirm” their beliefs.

My suggestion (elsewhere) is that you're not actually in a position to dictate what evidence you should receive.

Also the purpose of miracles is rarely to make non-believers believe, so asking for one on those grounds is unlikely to get you anywhere: Christians and atheists are in agreement there


We cannot “dictate” the evidence provided, but we would certainly know a miracle when/if we see one.

What we see is NO evidence for God’s interactions in the modern day. No breaking of the known physical laws and zero independent evidence for the miracles written in the bible (when it is reasonable to assume there should be some.)

And wrong… the “invention of a miracle” is for precisely for the reason of belief.

If Jesus was just a man with a few ideas about being good to people for a change then we would not have heard of him today… it is the miracles attributed to him, for the reason to “prove” he “truly was the son of god” that is the reason we have heard of him today.

Why do Christian’s believe in Jesus?… it is the belief in the miracles of course.

Don’t believe me… then what do you think are the words a Christian would say to a non-believer in order to convert them? (just think, you must have heard it at least once)

“Jesus, he died for your sins…”
Does it stop there? Everybody dies… how could he die for my sins? What’s so special about this chap? It’s all interesting but we need more… a miracle perhaps?
”…and after 3 days he rose from the dead”
BANG… the miracle required for the faithful.

I could go on… it is a long list… why else was it mentioned in the bible about earthquakes, 3 hours of darkness and dead saints rising up and making themselves known when Jesus was “nailed to the cross”? There was a reason… think about it. The need for the belief in miracles to believe something special was happening.

It depends on how you respond to the secondary evidence about him. The bible offers that evidence, which you are at liberty to believe or not...

I will repeat my Alien abduction example… do you believe in alien landings?

If this was the case: would you be prepared to respond in that way? How would you respond to that God? If it were true, would you marvel at the doctrine of grace? Or would you look back at the times when you were so casual about him and say "je ne regrette rien"?

Similar to what Bertrand Russel said, I would look God in the eye and say the reason why I didn’t believe was that there “was not enough evidence.” God could have supplied it and didn’t. Not my fault.

Is it not fair to say that the atheist has nothing to lose and everything to gain by risking faith in Jesus?

“Pascal’s wager” is still being used as a reason for belief?

Then how can a theist rational test that they have chosen the “right way” to follow God… would God be more frustrated at someone who blindly followed, or someone who questioned, reasoned and tested what was seen in the universe.

Someone who tried their best to understand the true workings of the universe?

The Christian has more to fear with “Pascal’s wager” than the atheist... they chose not to think about it though.

Cheers

Lee

Anonymous said...

Billy wrote:
I think Lee commented on the fact that none of you would believe that he can fly unless you saw it. So far no one has commented on that.

But I can fly… look, I just flap my arms and I can fly – why can’t you see?

Why doesn’t anyone believe me?

I’ll answer my own question then…

Does someone need to see my attempts of flight to reject my claims as nonsense?

The known physics for the density of the atmosphere, the gravitational pull from the Earth, the mass and muscle strength of humans, air resistance etc etc… ALL suggest my claim is a lie – an impossible claim.

So people would be right to reject my claim of flight – unless I could prove it.

If I want you to believe my claim I should prove it to YOU and not expect you, the observer, to explain all the reasons why I cannot do it… since I could always “change the rules, and move the goal post” – I don’t think I ever claimed I could fly when someone was actually watching who did NOT believe me… the sceptic observer removes my flight capabilities… only true believers can see my fly when I flap more arms – I’m sure I could find someone who will confirm my skill, a true believer. (The money of course may help this person to “see” my flight skills)

There are some good videos on youtube that show similar delusional claims.

My favourite is the martial arms “expert” who claims he has the power to “punch” people and throw them to the ground without even touching them… the man challenged ANYONE to a fight to prove it – the results are funny.

Check it out…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEDaCIDvj6I


Billy wrote on reading the bible:
There appears to be some cherry picking going on here.

How else can you read the bible and still believe?

Lee

Anonymous said...

"martial arms"? I type rubbish and think worse

Oh well...

Lee

Anonymous said...

Lee, you mean you cant fly?


I must say, I've lost a bit of enthusiasm for this thread since my posts went missing, but Lee is doing us proud.

J, (or anyone else) consciousness is clearly interesting, do you consider it to be anything other than physical? If not, why not.

PS, Beat In a sense, numbers only exist in thought

Anonymous said...

Is it not fair to say that the atheist has nothing to lose and everything to gain by risking faith in Jesus?

Well, no! What if Jesus is a lie and I struggle daily to keep faith, then I waste my life.

What if Allah is the true version of god, does the Chistian not have everything to lose? The athiest would lose nothing here either.

Also the purpose of miracles is rarely to make non-believers believe, so asking for one on those grounds is unlikely to get you anywhere:

My lost answer to this was bigger (I think). Firstly, as a christian, surly you believe it is up to god to make his own mind up. Secondly John 10:25 springs to mind.
"25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep."

Whether they believe or not is irrelevant, Jesus clearly says that miracles are evidence of his power.

What about John 9"1As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"
3"Neither this man nor his parents sinned," said Jesus, "but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life."

Or what about Thomas being shown the wounds of Jesus and believing, or the risen Jesus appearing to Saul?

Anonymous said...

Billy - if the struggle to keep faith daily basically involves behaving and thinking in a way that self-evidently makes one a better person (Gore Vidal, despite describing monotheism as the greatest disaster to befall mankind, still said that there are a lot of good people in religion) then isn't that a good thing? The Qur'an has a lot of self-evidently bad stuff in it (much, I concede, like the Bible)that should be discounted; if one emphasised the respect for the people of the Book dimension of it then it would be possible to come up with a reading where not all Christians (or Jews) are going to Hell. Reading critically is not the same thing as moral relativism.

Bruce - you seem somewhat outnumbered here, but I applaud you for your efforts.

Anonymous said...

Billy wrote:-
Lee, you mean you cant fly?

Merely a moments lack of faith… I’m right back on with my flight claims now.

My friend told me my moment lack of faith yesterday was merely due to the “complexities involve in the aeronautical implications that are required to over come the gravitational influences from Earth that are to be counter acted via vertical pressures of my arms”… I didn’t understand it either, but I’m right back in the game – my faith is strong again due to my lack of understanding of the problem.

Of course I can fly – don’t you believe me? Your faith is weak… you need to believe more.

Isn’t my faith in flight great?

I must say, I've lost a bit of enthusiasm for this thread since my posts went missing, but Lee is doing us proud.

I’ve with you on that… (Bruce – please take a hint from you public) but I’m on a roll… not sure how long it will last – it depends on pressure from home and work.

Lee

Jonathan said...

Cerebusboy-

"if the struggle to keep faith daily basically involves behaving and thinking in a way that self-evidently makes one a better person...isn't that a good thing?"

And what about all the anguish that people who struggle with and lose their faith go through? And does it "self-evidently" make you better to be constantly struggling?

"The Qur'an has a lot of self-evidently bad stuff in it (much, I concede, like the Bible)that should be discounted"

You're right, there is a lot of bad stuff. But on what basis do you discount it? That you don't like it? That it's not relevant? Isn't this the Word of God?

PS- feel free to stop by my blog "Musings of a Strange Mind" (link on the main page). Always trying to get more contributors!

Lee said...

cerebusboy wrote:
Bruce - you seem somewhat outnumbered here, but I applaud you for your efforts.

I do too... but it has been a while since we heard from you Bruce.

However, it seems worse than it is due to moderation... the 3 atheists here all jump on each point because they do not know whether it has been addressed yet by somebody else. This means you get 3 times the responses...

Hey ho...

Lee

Anonymous said...

Hi Cerebusboy,

I dont think you can just discount the bad bits of the bible and choose the good bits. The stoning of homosexuals for example is an expression of the moral values and stanards of god. Religion does make people do bad things, that is undeniable. Religion may make some people better too, but then they seem to follow a "god" that is unreconisable to the one of the bible.

You dont need religion to respect people either. Confuscious (c500 BCE) said "force not on others that which you would not choose for yourself".

Religion is a bad reason to be good.
It also has nothing to say about the truth behind that religion.

The world would be much better if it put aside all its religious hatred, and self importance and listened to dear old confuscious.

I am a much better person than some christians I know, so we dont need religion to be good. Steven Weinberg says that "with or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things, but for a good person to do evil things, that requires religion". I think there is a lot of truth in that.

if one emphasised the respect for the people of the Book dimension of it then it would be possible to come up with a reading where not all Christians (or Jews) are going to Hell.

Bot sure what you are getting at here, could you explain?

Reading critically is not the same thing as moral relativism.

That depends on the roots of your critical reading, which are relative. Killing homosexuals in some societies seems fine, but not in others, therefore, both are both equaly valid and equaly false - ie relative. When you use religion to justify it, then the in the believers mind at least, these values appear to be absolute. I think people take what they want or need out of the bible and ignore the rest. This is relative too.

Bruce said...

I disagree Lee; I think it'd be worse with moderation. And you generally give quite different (you might say complementary) responses; that's what I'd meant before, by saying it's like the gospel writers (though I guess they did influence each other; oops, can of worms...!)

Jonathan said...

Bruce-

well, given that each of the Gospels was written at different times, it's hardly surprising that they influenced each other!

And I think the strength of Billy, Lee and myself's complementary responses only speaks to our brilliance- even when we cannot see what the others have written, we craft comments that fit together perfectly. We're just that damn good.

Anonymous said...

Jonathan - People stuggle with all sorts of ideologies; that does not make them invalid. Most atheists I know would take offense if you suggested that they are not adhering to a high moral standard; someone can struggle just as much with trying to be an atheistic good person as they can with orthodox Christianity. As regards the Qu'ran it may claim to be the word of God but that doesn't mean that every command has to be interpretated literally or with a disregard for context; the passages that are used to justify warfair clearly relate to a time when Muslims were clearly oppressed and had to fight to survive, which is not the same thing as(say) wanting to destroy Israel. Monotheists who use intelligence and reason when interpretating scripture should not be accused of a failure to take the text seriously. Billy - the stoning of homosexuals rules occured in a context where the Jews had lost nearly everything due to what they perceived as lax moral standards; hence the understandable response of going too far in the opposite direction. I of course agree that the world would be a better place without religious hatred, but hatred is not an innate property of religion. I'm sure you're a good person, but you miss the point (which C.S. Lewis made) that, unlike God, we can't see into the souls of people and see how hard moral behaviour is for them. Personally, I have gone back to Church after four years as an atheist, at least partly on the pragmatic grounds that I was less evil when I was a Christian. I of course concede that this experience does not, in and of itself, imply the necessity of Christianity for everyone.My point on the Jews and Christians not going to Hell in the Qur'an centres on the fact that atheists of intelligence will read secular texts with subtlety and an eye for the bigger picture, but will cherry pick nasty Scriptural verses in order to indict monotheism. Critical reading is not necessarily motivated by moral relativism; it is the best tool available for understanding what the text actually says. As regard people taking what they want from the bible, all of scripture might be useful in different ways; I read that, althought Rabbis have to agree that all scripture is valid, they would privately urge you to skip the dull building the temple parts of the Torah. Scripture contains many different genres not all of which are as automatically suited to a moral application of others; it is plain common sense, and laudible, that people would seize upon those books and passages which have the greatest application to becoming more Godly and give less emphasis to others.

Until recently, I would have outstripped anyone here in the believing all Christians are lying hypocrites scale, but I've come to see things differently. And Jonathon - thanks for the offer but (having finally caved in and joined Facebook) I spend far too much time online as it is to contribute to your blog.

And I don't mind not being anonymous. I'm Ryan Dunne.

Anonymous said...

I disagree Lee; I think it'd be worse with moderation.

Fair enough... I just want the debate to go faster sometimes without the risk for loss posts.

oops, can of worms

Lets leave them in the can for now... it is too easy to attack the bible sometimes. I want to try and think about God and his interactions with mankind.

And I think the strength of Billy, Lee and myself's complementary responses only speaks to our brilliance

And modesty... but I like it. Keep it coming. I now want a badge that says "I'm brillent me"

The fact is, there should be only one truth - so it should be pretty easy to describe what it isn't...

Lee

Anonymous said...

Ryan,
My problem with the nasty bits of the bible is not that it incites hatred (although it clearly does), it is that it is contracitory to the idea of a god of love. The problem is that the law is supposedly perfect, will never change and homosexuality is called an abomination. It is neither loving or forgiving to kill them. Also, fear of punishment is not a good reason to be good. I find this contadicts a common christian view of what constitutes moral thought - and perhaps even moral philosophy in general, although I am much more of a relativist (with a small r). That's a big problem for me, the fact that christians cant agree.
Personally, I was a better person before I was a christian, and have become a better person again since being an atheist - I am also a great deal happier. Atheism has no ideology as such - all you need is a lack of belief in god - there are no moral codes.
It may be too personal, and I can understand if you would rather not discuss it, but why do you think you need god to be a better person. I know someone who has never believed, and she is a very warm, caring, uncomplicated and kind person. Why do you think you need god to become like that? If an atheist can do that, why cant you?

BTW I dont think all christians are morally bankrupt - allthough some I know are

Anonymous said...

PS Ryan, just be be clear, when I talk about strugglingwwith faith, I do of course mean struggling to believe it, not struggling to live a certain way

Bruce said...

I meant of course it'd be worth without moderation not with; happily my error was overlooked - I think you all knew what I meant! Nice to have you on board Cerebusboy; at present I seem to be rotating supporters!

Anonymous said...

Hi cerebusboy,

People struggle with all sorts of ideologies; that does not make them invalid.

The struggle people have in justifying them and explaining their inconsistencies could be a clue on how “invalid” or “valid” they really are. Think about that.

I do not “struggle” with my world view… (Is it my ignorance?) I know there is much I do not know and accept it. I do not have to explain a contradictory book with mixed opinions and ideology.

Of course, maybe I am wrong… maybe I should be struggling with my ideology – maybe in my ignorance I ignore the struggle. I guess the first problem is I do not know what my ideology, do I have one or need one? Help me out if you like.

Most atheists I know would take offence if you suggested that they are not adhering to a high moral standard;

If I said to someone that they “liked to play with sheep on a Saturday night” – they would have a right to be offended (if it was not true). So I do think your point is a valid one. If you insult someone (give false witness?) shouldn’t they have the right to take offence?

Why do you feel they are not “adhering to a high moral standard”?

So before we continue to far, what is this “high moral standard” that you talk of? Can you define it please, and explain how you came to this standard or set of rules?

someone can struggle just as much with trying to be an atheistic good person as they can with orthodox Christianity.

Do you actually know of any atheists who have this struggle? Or do you just think and hope they struggle? Could you give an example?

I don’t struggle being “good”… it comes “naturally” to me. (Just some people will disagree with me based on different “upbringing”) For example, I do not lose any sleep because I eat meat… some will say it is morally wrong, I say I have not got 3 stomachs like a cow so why eat grass?

Another example would be that in Western society we wear clothes… to go to work without clothes could be considered “morally wrong”. Yet, why is this? Plenty of tribes around the world do not have this “problem”. So where did this moral come from, who is to say it is right or wrong?

So no struggle for me, but whether it is this right morally – who is to judge? I will let society decide - over the centuries it seems to work… It is all rather subjective though - hard to measure morals.

Interesting stuff morals… but I do not see how any holy book makes it any easier to explain. Especial when the holy book itself changes its own opinions on morals and people cherry pick the morals they like from the book – how?

the stoning of homosexuals rules occured in a context where the Jews had lost nearly everything due to what they perceived as lax moral standards; hence the understandable response of going too far in the opposite direction.

And what would you expect from some “talking monkeys”? Evolution eh… who’d have it? If only they could have been told the right way to behave from some all powerful and all knowing being who knows what is right and wrong, then they would not have made this mistake in the first place. Right?

Interestingly… doesn’t the bible claim just that - that they knew such a person? However you have stated an example how this could clearly not have been the case.

Someone changed their mind…

I of course agree that the world would be a better place without religious hatred

Any ideas how we could rationally stop religious hatred then?

I never had religion so I honestly do not know and so it would be difficult to comment without building the straw man.

How do you rationally debate with someone who has a completely different religious point of view than your own?

but hatred is not an innate property of religion.

But comes out from it - when questions and ideas cannot be rationally debated or resolved.

If you cannot change someone’s mind with reason, debate or empirical evidence, but your “God” demands that you do… what are you to do?

Burn them? Stone them? Cut there head off? The religious through history have had their opinions on this haven’t they.

I don’t have this problem… no god is telling me what to do. However, if I was born at the wrong time in history or in the wrong country – the religious would know what to do with me.

I have always wondered a question:- if there was an all powerful and all lovingly God, why would He have allowed different religions with very different opinions.

Why didn’t God give enough measurable evidence for his existence, and more importantly the “right way” to follow him – why couldn’t God ensure this was possible rationally and clearly known to all?

Worth thinking about?

Stating that God “demands faith” would be a very poor answer to me… (I could give my reasons) but I wonder how any theist could answer this question? Probably blame me for not taking a certain type of subjective evidence no doubt?

Personally, I have gone back to Church after four years as an atheist, at least partly on the pragmatic grounds that I was less evil when I was a Christian.

Now this is interesting… how “evil” were you when you were not a Christian? (You also seem to state you were a Christian first, before becoming an atheist and returning to your original beliefs – is this correct?)

What were the “evil deeds” that you felt you could do as a “non-believer” but not as a Christian?

Do you need the idea of “Big Brother” watching you all the time to be good? Or the promise if you are good you will get to go to heaven?

Are these good reasons to be good? Isn’t it better to be good for the sake of being good and not force through fear (or the “carrot”)?

One last thing… what did you believe in when you say you were an atheist?

I’m an atheist, I do not believe in any god due to lack of evidence, but this is only telling you what I do not believe in.

I do believe in the scientific method. I believe in evolution and the Big Bang… all have been backed up with empirical evidence of course – I try not waste my beliefs on things that cannot be tested by experiment. What would be the point? (I wait for the charge about "love" though and how to measure it.)

I certainly would not believe in anything that dictates/requires I should ignore any evidence that disagrees with it – this would be a strange idea to keep hold of. Such an idea would sound “poisonous” to me and only interested in itself (if an idea had a self)

that atheists of intelligence will read secular texts with subtlety and an eye for the bigger picture, but will cherry pick nasty Scriptural verses in order to indict monotheism.

I prefer to say we “highlight” the nasty bits (or strange bits) because some Christians either ignore them or are not aware of them.

I do not have to explain or justify a religion that ignores the nasty bits… the Christian does.

A Christian has to explain how and why they chose only the “nice bits” from the bible and ignores the rest. On what basis?

I have the advantage of being able to say “That bit is rubbish – ignore. That bit sounds like a good idea… I’ll have some of that.”

How can the Christian justify such actions?

As regard people taking what they want from the bible, all of scripture might be useful in different ways;

Oh… I can agree to that – but I do not claim it was written by, or inspired by an all knowing, all powerful god.

I personally can reject parts as nonsense because that is what it is…

A Christian though, for me, has to explain how they can reject one part of the bible as nonsense, but still believe the whole bible is inspired by God? Isn’t it all or nothing? If not, why not?

Until recently, I would have outstripped anyone here in the believing all Christians are lying hypocrites scale, but I've come to see things differently.

Why… what have you learnt now to show that the whole message in the bible is the true word of God… or do you only claim “some of it” is… which bits and why? (A comment theme from me the why question)

And I don't mind not being anonymous. I'm Ryan Dunne.

Pleased to meet you… I am Lee and I am an atheist.

Thanks for you comments... they have made me think as you can tell.

See ya

Anonymous said...

Hi Bruce

at present I seem to be rotating supporters!

Is that something like tag-team wrestling then?

Lee

Anonymous said...

at present I seem to be rotating supporters!

Ah, tag team, maybe I should summon my mate Kendo Nagasaki

Anonymous said...

Argh, grrr crash, biff - oops that's Godzilla :-)

Bruce said...

I will of course return to these comments guys. Just trying to do a new post twice a week to appeal to a wider readership (possibly!). And you'll notice I've rebranded; J, I'm picking up on your frequent reference to brushwood thicket; guess it sounds more intriguing.

Anonymous said...

Billy

As regards the God of love, love is *one aspect* of God that operates in accordance with His other attributes; it does not, in and of itself, define Him. Taking one aspect and using to form an image of how we expect God to behave is periliously close to pantheism ( a problem I have with Islam and its use of the 99 names of God). As regards the law being supposedly perfect, scripture makes clear that all sorts of aspects of the OT law have been replaced by the new covenant in Christ. Asking why Christians don't believe in stoning homosexuals is analogous to indicting them for continuing, in spite of Leviticus, to eat shellfish. Fear of punishment might not be an ideal reason for avoiding immoral behaviour but it is a necessary one; it is a key stage in how children learn moral behaviour for example. Behaving well due fear of punishment could be for many a necessary transitional stage to being good for the sake of it, which I concede is nobler.As regards being a good person without God, the Church aspires to be a hospital for souls; what provision does atheism offer for people who are naturally bad? You said yourself that atheism doesn't imply a moral code; it seems to me self-evident that , if someone is a bad person and wants to get better, then some form of guidance is required. Joining the National Secular Society (which I never did, but I still get their newsletters)would help to fight religious influence on private behaviour but would do very little to aid becoming a better person. I applaud you and your friend for being inately good people;however you are probably familiar with the Christian argument that Christ far outstrips what we would regard as good behaviour and that faith offers the possiblity of regeneration to resemble Him (although it is of course unscriptural to suggest that sin can be eliminated in this lifetime). Can I ask you to elaborate on how you are a better person as an atheist then you were as a Christian? Do you think that your experience is common, or (if we did some sort of test) those who move from atheism to Christianity (and back again)were better when they had Faith?

Ryan Dunne

Anonymous said...

Lee

As regards struggling with ideologies I'll concede that if one finds that one's world-view is consistently shot full of holes then that would be a reason to abandon it but *any* political religious or philosophical ideology makes claims on disputed territory and, if one is pursuing it seriously and attempting to convince others of its merits, will involve a struggle of sorts.

I never said atheists don't (in some cases) adhere to a high moral standard; quite the opposite. I was conceding that many atheists are good people, of course I concede that there is no one overarching atheistic standard of moral behaviour that they all try to live up to.

As regards atheists struggling, you and Billy say being good comes naturally; if we accept that there are many atheists to whom being good doesn't come naturally (which, given the amount of atheists in the world and the wide spectrum of human behaviour, seems plausible) then that logically implies that many have to make an effort to be good, hence "struggle".

Nobody changed their minds. You suggested that God commanded the stoning of homosexuals and seemed to assume that this was meant to be prescriptive; I explained how this wasn't the case.

As regards hatred, you could argue that it is an inate property of humankind (religiious or not), and the Bible would certainly agree to man's inate wickedness. Stalinism and Nazism (yes, I know Hitler claimed to be "finishing the job" the Church started but Nazism is not an ideology that is consistent with Christianity) could be cited as examples of murderous atheistic regimes.

There is a difference between how *I* would theoretically debate with someone of a completely different religiious mindset (have had Muslim friends, but the topic never came up) which, since I'm not an expert and am under no moral imperitive to become one, would not convince you and how somewhat schooled in the topic would do so. If you're genuinely interested in the subject then investigating the foundational principles of organisations that seek unity amongst the monotheistic religions might be of benefit.

God allowed different religions due to Free Will which is key to a person's integrity, and is the same reason we can choose to murder. And these religions arise from man's search for a higher meaning which, history shows, exists in many (most?) humans.

When I was an atheist I believed that there was one life, "you're a long time dead", and that humans should do what makes them happy. I became a highly promiscous(Kelvingrove Park!Prostitutes!18year old girlfriends!), alcoholic (twenty four beers a day!) but this of course probably says a lot more about me than it does about atheism.

As regards "evil deeds" (a good Eminem song, by the way; available on "Encore") the fact that you assume that it was a case of me "allowing" myself to do bad things as an atheist prohibited as a Christian is a misunderstanding of the psychology involved in moral behaviour. Take alcoholism; when you get into it it becomes less a case of choosing to get drunk (I wish I could go back to those days) but having to drink to be able to function. This, although of course being a medical problem (I eventually got detoxed in hospital, but I've relapsed since)is still bounded by standards of right and wrong which exist everywhere. Christianity offers the chance of regeneration so that one's *automatic* behaviour and moral imagination are improved. I agree that it would be better to be good for the sake of being good but some people are moral cripples and reguire the crutches of fear of punishment; what does your ideology offer them? I ask because I'm curious; you will note that (above) I gave atheists the benefit of the doubt of granting that they adhere to a laudable moral code.


You assume that Christians are picking good parts of the Bible and ignoring parts they don't like; I used to believe this but have found that this is not the case. It didn't take a lot for me to find out (for example) about why the death penalty for homosexuals doesn't apply today and I would say anyone with a *truly* open mind (which surely you are or aspire to be) could find similar defenses for most of the difficult passages. But it is arrogant to expect *every* Christian to prioritise apologetics over becoming a Christlike person; "you consume an elephant, and excrete a gnat" as the Man says.

You pressupose that saying the Bible is "inspired" by God necessitates a fundamentalist reading of it; why? What logical basis is there for saying that because something is "inspired" by God that it can't, for example, be a potrayal of history instead of eternally binding teaching? No-one would seriously propose that the OT models of government (Judges then Kings, although I personally think the Jews made a mistake when they opted for the latter) must be the basis for contemporary society and that , if it's not, we risk God's judgement.

All of the Bible is valid, but in different ways.

I would stress that I am very far from being an expert but in *every* instance where I have railed against a part of the Bible or the nature of Christianity, I have found someone who was able to offer an answer. But, again, it is not reasonable to expect this of every Christian for the simple reason that it implies an insatiable search; what about the differing Bible translations? Shouldn't Christians be able to justify why (for example) they prefer the NIV to KJV? Shouldn't they learn Greek and Hebrew so they know which one is best? If they can't they're hypocrites! You get the idea. I used to waste a lot of time reading theology whilst being a prick and harming other Christians who, although they couldn't tell their Mass from their elbow (sorry), were far more Christlike than me.

Hope that's helpful.

Ryan Dunne

Anonymous said...

Ryan,

Thanks for the reply.

You have given me a lot to think about.

I will try and write a reply today.

Lee

Anonymous said...

Ryan,

love is *one aspect* of God that operates in accordance with His other attributes; it does not, in and of itself, define Him.

It is interesting to hear you say that. Most christians I come across disagree with that though. Do you then agree that he is a vengful, petty, infanticidal tyrant in places? I would be interested to hear how you reconcile the two opposing personalities.

Taking one aspect and using to form an image of how we expect God to behave is periliously close to pantheism

I dont see how it relates to pantheism, but that isthe image christians push.

As regards the law being supposedly perfect, scripture makes clear that all sorts of aspects of the OT law have been replaced by the new covenant in Christ.

psalm 19:7 "The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple."

Importantly, Jesus himself said the law will always remain (matt 5:18) "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

Therefore what was perfect then is perfect now.

Asking why Christians don't believe in stoning homosexuals is analogous to indicting them for continuing, in spite of Leviticus, to eat shellfish.

Good point, that has not been recinded either!

Fear of punishment might not be an ideal reason for avoiding immoral behaviour but it is a necessary one; it is a key stage in how children learn moral behaviour for example.

I both agree and disagree here. Apparently what seperated people who rescued Jews from the holocaust and those whe didn't was the fact the rescuers were brought up to think citically. In fact, the non rescuers were much more likely to be brought up in a dogmatic and authoritarian style.
However, a lot of christians I know say that sin is a choice - I dont think that's true. What do you think?
Another problem is where do you get those moral values from? Is it moral to force levitical laws on people - especially if you cant demonstrate that god exists and is a source of moral absolutes. This is where relativism pops up. Therefore, using punishment to reinforce moral thought "works" equally well for any moral view - it would be a good way to condition the "right thinking" about jews in 1930s Germany for example.
Is their thought still morally pure if they have been forced to conform? I would say no as they have been conditioned and do not choose it.

As regards being a good person without God, the Church aspires to be a hospital for souls; what provision does atheism offer for people who are naturally bad?

I have to disagree. Your idealised version may sound appealing, but at the other end of the spectrum, the westboro baptists would make the same claim - however, in their eyes, you have to hate gays to heal your soul. There is a whole spectrum, and it is all relative concerning what constitutes healing your soul and what god expects of you. There is no consistency.

We also have neurolinguistic programming and cognitive behavioural therapy. Faith in the right hands may cause some people to be better citizens, but it works for other faiths too - I have known hindus and Muslims who make the same claim. I dnt see it as anything more than a psychological tool. If you have an arbitrary set of values that you want to aspire to, then you are more likely to do so. It is much like an alchoholic wanting to give up their addiction. It requires no external influence - like I said earlier, most christians I know say sinning is a choice.

I applaud you and your friend for being inately good people;however you are probably familiar with the Christian argument that Christ far outstrips what we would regard as good behaviour and that faith offers the possiblity of regeneration to resemble Him

The big problem here is that you seem to assume that being like Jesus is right and good. I may agree with some christian principles, but that does not mean I accept that there is a divine moral law that is absolute. I also have a problem with Jesus's attitude to the poor in John 12:1-8 (particularly verse 8) I also dont subscribe to many OT laws - for exampe, I dont see anything wrong with homosexuality - at all! I dont think it is morally right to think this act is wrong. I know a homosexual couple (one an exchristian who became depressed because of your churchs' view and attempts to conform) who are in a loving and mutually supportive marriage. I would say the christian view that she was sinful,and the damage it caused as a result was morally wrong. What in your view makes homosexuality immoral and how does being one stop you from being a good person?

Can I ask you to elaborate on how you are a better person as an atheist then you were as a Christian?

I no longer think homosexuals have to change, I am more tolerant of other views, I take people as they come and dont feel the need to advise them to behave in certain ways. The frustrations of my struggles also used to spill over into other relationships and I was very outspoken about "sin" which some folk found hurtful, but I believed I was speaking the word of god.
I will need to reply to your other post tomorrow

Billy

Lee said...

Hi Ryan (Cerebusboy)

I truly appreciate your in-depth response, gives me something to think about.
Looks like we agree on some things, and not on others (many). This is good for an open discussion.

Your reply had so many good points that we could open a thousand and one new debates. Not sure if any of us have the time for that. However, since you raised the points, I will at least try and give a response to them. We certainly cannot follow them all in the detail they warrant.

As regards struggling with ideologies I'll concede that if one finds that one's world-view is consistently shot full of holes then that would be a reason to abandon it

Yep…

but *any* political religious or philosophical ideology makes claims on disputed territory and, if one is pursuing it seriously and attempting to convince others of its merits, will involve a struggle of sorts.

I don’t make claims here on any such territory…

My discussions to date have not been on any ideology as such (I don’t even know what mine are to be honest – never looked “within” so to speak). The existence of God and the validity for the bible claims to “know” God have been my only points so far - the root cause, I suppose, for the ideology of Christianity.

This is not to say I am avoiding such questioning – just never been down that path on any discussion thread before.

If someone is claiming that their ideology is “right” because “God said so” – then I first need to have evidence for God… the source of their “righteousness”. (The Christian claims God interacts with man – and this can be tested. Bruce knows the story by now)

If no god can be seen (or proven) then their ideology is based on false assumptions. It still might work (at a particular level) but for the wrong reasons. This is important to me. It sounds like you follow Christianity for the “results” if brings to you… this is fine, but it does not mean it is correct at the core.

If however, some one says “my ideology is right because it works” – well, then we have something different to discuss – away from religion. On what basis can it be said to be right, and how could this “right” be measured against another ideology. This I think is the “struggle” on “disputed territory” that you are talking about. I think I can agree with this (and so I will stay clear of the “disputed territory” if I can here)

As regards atheists struggling, you and Billy say being good comes naturally;

Well, I don’t have to think about being good… what I do is what I do.

if we accept that there are many atheists to whom being good doesn't come naturally (which, given the amount of atheists in the world and the wide spectrum of human behaviour, seems plausible) then that logically implies that many have to make an effort to be good, hence "struggle".

No so sure on the logic here.

If they are atheists, their behaviour will come naturally… I doubt there will be any “struggle” for them… this does not mean they are not “mad axe brandishing murderers who like to play with puppies”. What determines that is another thing.

Maybe the people who “struggle” are those who have been told about a false ideal that has no foundations which they are failing to keep up with? This could be a struggle. (BTW - How does someone not “desire” what their neighbour has? I don’t know, but “thought crime” is in the 10 commandments isn’t it?)

Who determines what is good anyway? You say God, but you have no evidence for his existence. You might then just say you are good because you want presents from Father Christmas this year. (“You better be good for goodness sake” – He has a list you know)

Nobody changed their minds.

Didn’t they? So stoning people to death who do not believe in your God is still a valid option and morally correct today? I better be careful…

Of course someone changed their mind… or have I got my history wrong?

As regards hatred, you could argue that it is an inate property of humankind (religiious or not),

I think Billy made the quote about getting “good people to do evil things takes religion”.

Think about it.

I do not deny evil people exist. I do not deny man can do wicked things… but you have to admit that one way to get “good people” to do evil things is with religion.

Care to discuss?

and the Bible would certainly agree to man's inate wickedness.

I think many books written by man talk about mans innate wickedness. The bible could be one of them.

Stalinism and Nazism (yes, I know Hitler claimed to be "finishing the job" the Church started but Nazism is not an ideology that is consistent with Christianity) could be cited as examples of murderous atheistic regimes.

Do you really want to go there? I don’t recommend it just yet. I will not defend either Stalinism or Nazism (why should I?) – I will let the specific references go for now. (Maybe someone else can pick it up if they like – it is a well worn path by many)

Being an atheist is merely telling you want I am not… I am NOT a believer in any gods. It does not say what I am though…

It matters not to me who you can find a list of names of people that were/are atheists that killed people. Did ANY of them kill in the name of their non-belief in God?

When was the last time you heard the cry?:

“Take that you non-believer in Quantum Electrodynamics… May the flames take you back to the quantum fluctuation that you came from!!! May your entropy increase back to where you belong”

Nope… not a cry I have read much in the history books. Maybe I missed it, could you point some out to me please? When someone killed in the name of their non-belief in god?

Now if you asked me if I could provide a list of names in history that DID kill in the name of their Gods, in the belief that they were doing what God wanted them to do… oh yes – no problem. It is a very, very long list… and growing.

Does this mean they were actually doing what God wanted? No… Does this mean I have evidence there is no God? Not really (it is a clue for something though).

So once you feel you can justify the Spanish (Roman Catholic) Inquisition as an example of good moral Christian behaviour… then we can start to discuss Stalinism and Nazism.
(Oh, BTW – can you explain why the Roman Catholic Church chose to do nothing while Hitler was “doing his thing” to the Jews? Sometimes the blood just does not wash away that easily.)

So you have raised a very good question – again, happy to discuss this point further if you like.

There is a difference between how *I* would theoretically debate with someone of a completely different religious mindset

You might have missed my point, sorry I was clear. I’ll try again…

What I was trying to say was, if we have two or more religions, which are not rational in their conclusions, all say they are the only “true religion” following the “one true god” – then how can the “right one” be determined by any experiment or observation. How do you show, to the other religious person that you are following the “right” religion and they are wrong?

(Add to this the fact that your holy book might state that “non-believers” are evil and should be killed… we might have a rather heated debate.)

I was just wondering how it could be done. I am just wondering how a believer tests their beliefs are right?

My current “belief” is that no one can rationally determine which religion is right and this causes a lot of problems and friction in the world.

My rational approach to life does not seem to have this problem.

Am I wrong on my beliefs here? I’m happy to change them if you can tell me why I should.

God allowed different religions due to Free Will

Sorry… you have to provide evidence for God before you can use him as a reason or cause for anything.

Also, this “Free will” always seems like a strange “get out of jail” card for me. It causes many problems I think for the religious. This would be a debate in itself.

So many questions…

When I was an atheist I believed that there was one life, "you're a long time dead", and that humans should do what makes them happy. I became a highly promiscous(Kelvingrove Park!Prostitutes!18year old girlfriends!), alcoholic (twenty four beers a day!) but this of course probably says a lot more about me than it does about atheism.

Thank you for openness in this discussion. I do not want to comment on your past personal life… so I will walk around it the best I can (if you do not mind?)

It also worries me a little to continue the discussion if the only reason you have “to live a good life” is Christianity. However, we are all adults here… you are free to read on, and free to ignore me. I assume since you wrote your comments you are happy to discuss your religion and beliefs. I doubt also anything I write will change your views… this is just a debate between friends (across the internet)

So whatever your “reasons to live” ideology is/was – it should not come about from your non-belief in something. If should come from what you DO believe in.

Whether it is right or wrong is another topic.

As regards "evil deeds" (a good Eminem song, by the way; available on "Encore")

I more for “dirty deeds” and these are done always done “dirt cheap” by AC/DC… more my thing.

the fact that you assume that it was a case of me "allowing" myself to do bad things as an atheist prohibited as a Christian is a misunderstanding of the psychology involved in moral behaviour.

That hurt my head… sorry.

Even as a Christian you are “allowed” to do bad things (“Free will” I am told)… a Christian just can justify their actions in different ways – this is good, this is bad. (See above about the Spanish Inquisition.)

Christianity offers the chance of regeneration so that one's *automatic* behaviour and moral imagination are improved.

You have just been given some rules to follow… which you choose to follow. I doubt it is automatic for many and who says that they are right… how do you measure that?

It also doesn’t mean, at the core, the reasons are right… merely that we might agree that the outcome/results are good.

How is this different from the “laws of the land” stopping you from killing people and stealing or the medical advice that you should not smoke or drink?

One you have “free well” to follow or not (you go to prison or get drunk or lung cancer depending on your crime)

The other, we are told, results in “heaven or hell”

Maybe some people just need a bigger carrot or stick than others?

This is not to say one is right or wrong at this stage – the end result on the person’s behaviour could be the same.

Of course, for some people even the “stick” of hell (or prison) is not enough for them not to commit a crime.

This could open the question “Is religion required by some to be good?”

Maybe, maybe not…

It certainly does not stop all crimes since there are a lot of people in prison who are “true believers” in God (I am sure there are also atheists in there but bean counting the numbers does not change the question).

I agree that it would be better to be good for the sake of being good but some people are moral cripples and require the crutches of fear of punishment;

The carrot and stick approach again?

what does your ideology offer them? I ask because I'm curious;

The truth… as close as we can get to it at least.

It is not based on the superstition that my crops might fail if I do not sacrifice my first born son to unproven god.

The truth is not for everyone though… the carrot offered might be small (sad) but the bonus is the stick can only be for this lifetime and not for eternity. (Think about that one from an all loving God. Also, this eternity of damnation is something the “good” NT brought into the ideology - I think)

Personally, I much rather follow the truth than a lie. What about you?

Not for everyone… The “moral cripples”, as you put it, may need a much bigger stick.

you will note that (above) I gave atheists the benefit of the doubt of granting that they adhere to a laudable moral code.

“benefit of the doubt”?.... I will leave this comment for now.

You assume that Christians are picking good parts of the Bible and ignoring parts they don't like;

Am I wrong on this? Do Christians follow the OT at all when it says to stone non-believers? Don’t think so.

What about the NT with regards to slavery? Or Jesus teaching/command about giving EVERYTHING up to follow him (This includes your family and children – I wonder what happened to them? It does sound like a cult)

It didn't take a lot for me to find out (for example) about why the death penalty for homosexuals doesn't apply today

I’m sure we would all like to hear it… I know Billy has a thing about homosexuality (in an intellectual sense at least).

I would say anyone with a *truly* open mind (which surely you are or aspire to be) could find similar defenses for most of the difficult passages.

I like to think I am as open minded as they come… whatever floats your boat so they say.

However, I am not so sure how some passages, that clearly state that “God commands” an evil deed, can be “defended” so easily. However “open-minded” I am.

The “killing of babies” is another favourite topic on recent threads that has not been defended very well in my book by any Christian believer.
(I am assume Billy will be happy to discuss this further if you wish – if not already, these delays in posting make it difficult to know what the other person has already written)

But it is arrogant to expect *every* Christian to prioritise apologetics over becoming a Christlike person;

I am only examining the foundations of Christianity… i.e. God and the Bible.

If the “idea” of Christian makes *you* a better person, then great… I am really happy for you.

However, if I said “The belief in Father Christmas helps some children be good” does this make Father Christmas real? No… and as I said, it is the root/basis of Christianity (religion) that I am primarily examining. Not the psychology advantages or disadvantages – though this could be an interesting topic.

If you want to widen the debate – I’m more than happy to try and follow along. But if the foundations are shown to be rotten – I would not want to build my house on it.

You pressupose that saying the Bible is "inspired" by God necessitates a fundamentalist reading of it; why?

This seems like the only way the bible was supposed to have been read, according to its writers (and what is written within it).

So I am only reading the bible as I am instructed to read it from the source itself. If this is wrong, please tell me how I should read it. As a “good guide” written by people “in the know”?

What logical basis is there for saying that because something is "inspired" by God that it can't, for example, be a potrayal of history instead of eternally binding teaching?

If you want to use the bible as a history book… fine. I’ve no problem with that. (Not sure how well it would do under close examination by a historian though)

It is the bible itself, I thought, that that says it contains “eternally binding teaching”.

Do I need to find a bible quote here?

It is not impossible to get your morals from a history book, but I didn’t know that was the claim of most Christians?

All of the Bible is valid, but in different ways.

Is it… care to tell me the “different ways” I am to read particular books?

How about Genesis… (Chapter 1 and 2? Adam and Eve, Original Sin, Noah, Tower of Babel… to name just a few)
The Exodus… Moses, the plagues… killing the first born sons?
The laws, stoning non-believers, rapists marrying the victims…?
The miracles of Jesus? I like the story of Legion, when Jesus kills a whole herd of someone’s pigs… destroying some poor farmers livelihood – this is make believe I’m sure, but then what about the other miracles of Jesus – which are true and which are stories? It is very hard for me to tell.
How about the crucifixion of Jesus… 3 hours darkness, earthquakes etc etc. All true, or just make believe? Since no non-believer saw them, I assume again make believe – but why write them as truth?

The bible seems very clear that all are true, yet you (or your church) are able to select which ones are true and which are just stories and not real?

I would stress that I am very far from being an expert but in *every* instance where I have railed against a part of the Bible or the nature of Christianity, I have found someone who was able to offer an answer.

I do not mind if you phone a friend to help you with your answers. (I suspect though they will soon tell you to stop talking to us here… I hope I am wrong, but if they do ask them why?) Hey, why not invite your friend to the blog? The more the merrier in my book.

Also, I am far from an expert on the bible as well – I never believed in it, so it has never been that important to me. I just read for fun.

Of course, on my own personal beliefs I am an expert – they are mine after all. This doesn’t make them right – so please tell me where and why I am wrong on anything I have said.

But, again, it is not reasonable to expect this of every Christian for the simple reason that it implies an insatiable search; what about the differing Bible translations? Shouldn't Christians be able to justify why (for example) they prefer the NIV to KJV? Shouldn't they learn Greek and Hebrew so they know which one is best? If they can't they're hypocrites! You get the idea.

Sorry… was that an argument FOR or AGAINST Christianity? Or are you putting words into my mouth?

I used to waste a lot of time reading theology whilst being a prick and harming other Christians who, although they couldn't tell their Mass from their elbow (sorry), were far more Christlike than me.

Erm… interesting last comment. Am I being a “prick” for discussing the bible also? Worst still, am I causing “harm” by writing what I do?

If harm is being caused, is the “blame” at the person promoting the lie or the one who speaks the “truth” (or at least wishes to discuss as much truth as possible)

Interesting stuff… everyone of your comments. Hence such a long reply from me.

I hope my next post is shorter for everyone.

Hope that's helpful.

Very… hope my reply makes sense and does not offend.

Lee

Anonymous said...

Lee made many good points and I dont have much to add.

I would not describe atheism as a struggle. In fact it gives me freedom, and I dont struggle not to believe, and life makes more sense without god. I feel that Ryan believes because he sees it as a way to improve his behaviour, but would it be true to say that you wanted to improve your behaviour anyway? I dont see how this testifies to their being a higher being though.
Hitler - was not acutually an Atheist, and it is not really clear what Stalin believed. Hitler was certainly able to whip up support from the churches.
This shows som Nazi christian artifacts
http://nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

This brings up another isue- moral relativism - if you grow up in a culture where hating jews is considered moral, you will believe that is good ethical behaviour - your view of christianity (and I emphasise your view) is no different. It is social conditioning. Other christians do it differently as I mentioned previously - this is not consistent with a single source of moral values (god).

The bible is full of examples of people going to war on the say so of god (see joshua for example) Faith does make people think it is justifiable to fly planes in to buildings or kill abortion doctors. The people who dont would probably be good people regardless, but I think this is way off the original topic.

God allowed different religions due to Free Will

I dont see how you can support that claim. It is inconsistent with a god who loves people and wants to save them. Does a person living in tibet choose to never hear the gospel massage. Also, God does not like other gods being worshiped before him - he is a jealous god and killed the prophets of Baal, and ordered the extermination of the cananites, he punished the isrealites for worshipinf a golden calf and exiled the nation in babylon for whoring after other gods. This is not respecting free will.

Cheers

Billy

Anonymous said...

Billy

Christians may emphasise the loving aspect of God as it seems to them the most relevant ( and a Christian would find it hard to summarise the Christian message in terms other than love and justice) but that doesn't mean they are ignoring His other aspects. As regards God being petty etc in places I think this is a one-dimensional reading of scripture; God, out of necessity for the survival of the Jews, compelled them to do things that are unfortunate and hardly ideal behaviour. If, as I do, you regard pacifism as a fatal ignorance of reality then these passages become more forgivable.

The passage you quote has Jesus saying that the law will remain until it is fufilled; it *was* fufilled in Christ, which resulted in a new covenant. Therefore your claim that was perfect then should be perfect now is a misunderstanding.

The fact that non-rescuers of the Jews were thought up to think critically is ancectodal and hardly refutes the merits of the fear of judgement as a cause of moral behaviour model; also if one is in the grip of a false ideology (e.g. Nazism) then thinking critically is the way out, but this does not indict the nature of ideology itself. As regards sin being a choice or not, we have the ability to make right or wrong decisions but my own experience is complicated by severe mental illness.

In relation to westboro baptists, it is of course wrong to judge the merits of Christianity by those who so blatently misunderstand its basic teachings. I of course concede that other faiths offer the ability to behave well, but would maintain that with Christians it's *not* just a matter of attempting to adhere to external guidlines on their own as they have the Holy Spirit to help them.

On Jesus attitude to the poor, the passage you cite hardly negates His teaching in other areas where he emphasised that the poor should be fed. And it also an example where Christ's words - that there will always be poverty - self-evidently accord with history.

It's good you don't subscribe to many OT laws; as a Christian I don't adhere to any ;-).

The homosexual issue is a whole can of worms which, if we are to explore seriously, will take a lot of time and posts. I used to be gay myself; if I had to define myself in secular terms I would probably describe myself as bisexual (which is worse because, not only do the Christians dislike you, but the gays don't have much time for guys who still like sex with women either!). The Church I'm a member of - The Scottish Episcopal Church - is actually gay friendly (you probably know about all the controversy in the Anglican church which orginated in the American's ordaining as a Bishop the openly gay Gene Robinson a few years back). However the rector at what I would regard as my home church (although I'm not sure they'd reciprocate the sentiment ;-) ), St.Silas, gave me an email link to the anti-homosex theologian Robert Gagnon who presented arguments that I have not yet been able to refute. I concede that if you don't take the Bible seriously it can be difficult to see the harm in homosexuality; there are, however, as you are aware secular arguments on the topic. I'd still like to have a male partner.

You are a better person now because proclaiming about sin used to annoy other people; you could make that case about any conviction or belief that is controversial. Supporting the War on Terror or denouncing abortion are opinions that hardly necessarily originate in monotheist convictions but they are just as likely to annoy or harras others.I'm not sure that avoiding the implications of one's convictions in the interests of getting on with others is necessarily a virtue. But of course it is better to be a good person than a zealous one.

Ryan

Anonymous said...

Lee

I'm not *just* a Christian because it's an ideology that has a benefit on my life. I believe it to be true. Better people than me have offered reasons for the existence of God; I'd guess much of this has been discussed before so I won't go over old ground. You say good behaviour comes naturally to atheists. So what should someone who is not a naturally good person but who doesn't believe in God do? Just spend their life acting like a prick?

There are centuries of Christian apologetics and arguments for God which makes the Santa Clause-God conflation something of a strawman.If an uneducated atheist found themselves struggling in a debate with a postdoctural theologian you would not regard that as indicating flaws in atheism itself; it seems only fair to grant Christians the same liberty and seek out genuine robust apologetics.

As regards "nobody changed their mind"; the stoning homosexuals law was always a local and provincial precept - therefore it is not fair to say God changed His mind as it was never intended to be universal and binding.

As regards the comment that it takes religion to make good people do evil things; what about patriotism?

You conflate saying that nobody has killed in the name of atheism with saying nobody has killed because of science, which is hardly fair. People have killed because of their ideologies which have included atheistic ones; you focus on what people kill "in the name of" ignoring the fact that the actual reasons people kill may not tally with what they proclaim; what about the all too human tendency to rationalise?

Given that even the Pope has apologised for past actions of the RC Church I will not attempt to justify the unjustifiable. The Inquisition was a failure in individual Christians, not proof of defects in Christianity itself. People everywhere misunderstand or fail to live up to ideals.

People can rationally asses the claims of particular religions and the nature of God and use that for the basis of choosing which one is right. But I agree that there is still a leap of faith required. I'm not sure that someone could prove one philosophical school of thought over another in a way that would satisfy you either.

Re: following a truth or a lie, atheism merely states than one doesn't believe in God; this hardly offers the sufficiency of accurate perception that truth implies. No where in scripture is belief in slavery mandated as a core element of the faith; Paul was operating in a specific context that required prioritising spreading the Gospel over attempting to overthrow the slavery system. Christians don't follow OT rules because of the New Covenant; this is adherance to basic theology, not hypocrisy.This is also why the stoning the homosexuals rule doesn't apply today.

The fact that I said there are different ways to read different parts of scripture is not the same thing as saying it is all fictional. I would say that most Christians read scripture with more justified subtlety and awareness of context than you give them credit for. It is true that the Bible contains eternally binding teaching but it also contains history; you have yet to provide a compelling reason why because God commanded a specific action *in a particular time and context* that it is logical to read it as necessarily meant to be binding for all time. Something being true does not logically imply a fundamentalist reading of it. Why should a document claiming to be from God not make the same demands of interpretation on its readers that we would expect of any challenging secular work of fiction?

Actually, I have precisely one Christian friend and that friendship, originating as it did in the transient pre-decay joys of alcoholism (i.e. the pub), used to lead me to think that it existed in spite of Christianity, not because of it. I am fortunate that I was never kicked out of Church (they certainly had good reasons). But I don't think that the Christians would advise me not to converse with atheists; quite the opposite. There are, however, only so many hours in the day and I am starting exam revision next week so will probably have to curtail these discussions. This is neither an admission of failure nor evidence that I don't take your arguments seriously.

I never meant to put words in your mouth or imply that you were a prick; I apologise that you came to that interpretation. I was merely recounting my own thought processes and experiences as I thought they were relevant.

Best,

Ryan

Anonymous said...

Billy

I haven't always struggled with being good, I wasted most of my life just being a prick. I agree that my struggle,in and of itself, says very little about the existence of not of a higher being.

Clicked the Nazi Christian link and failed to see what it proves beyond that Nazism cynically manipulated Christian doctrine. It seems to me logical that if the Church was popular in Germany and that Nazism wanted to achieve power then they would attempt to prove that their ideology is consistent with Christianity.Such propaganda is not an indictment of Christianity itself.

Your recount of the dangers of social conditioning emphasises, to me, the need for overarching and objective truth.Why do differing cultural expressions negate the idea of an objective
God? God creates the multiplicity of races and allowed the many different cultures and they can all equally reflect Him in different ways. It is a reflection of human dignity that people are allowed to form particular Churches that reflect individiual tastes and beliefs, as long as these do not contradict the core elements of the Christian faith.

You cite OT example of God destroying other false gods but (again) this should be understood in the specific context of maintaining the purity and survival of the Jews. Free Will necessitates that God will allow many different religions; you argued from the God of love principle so why not from the God allows Free Will one?

Again, it is problematic to take isolated OT instances of history as the basis of one's expectations of God instead of the complete revelation of Scripture and Christ the incarnate Word.

Best,

Ryan

Anonymous said...

This comments are getting longer... serious stuff eh?

Lee

Anonymous said...

Ryan

Thank you for your comments
I've found them helpful
and your candor refreshing

Anonymous said...

Hi Ryan

Christians may emphasise the loving aspect of God as it seems to them the most relevant ( and a Christian would find it hard to summarise the Christian message in terms other than love and justice) but that doesn't mean they are ignoring His other aspects.

I have to disagree, this is a bit of a sweeping statement You will also find plenty of websites concentrating on the other side of his behaviour. We still have the issue of whether god is just. That is not mutually accepted

As regards God being petty etc in places I think this is a one-dimensional reading of scripture; God, out of necessity for the survival of the Jews, compelled them to do things that are unfortunate and hardly ideal behaviour. If, as I do, you regard pacifism as a fatal ignorance of reality then these passages become more forgivable.

The question then becomes, can a perfect being then command imperfect acts. God could also have dealt with the others directly

The passage you quote has Jesus saying that the law will remain until it is fufilled; it *was* fufilled in Christ, which resulted in a new covenant. Therefore your claim that was perfect then should be perfect now is a misunderstanding.

No, it says that the law will always remain so. Paul also points out that if you want to “do it on your own” you are still subject to the law , and it is the standards of the law that will be used to judge. The law is still valid as an indication of the moral standards of god, standards that don’t even live up to those of 1 Corinthians 13:4-7.

The fact that non-rescuers of the Jews were thought up to think critically is ancectodal and hardly refutes the merits of the fear of judgement as a cause of moral behaviour model;

No, it is the result of research. If I remember correctly, the name to look up is Olier. I am also talking about moral thought. Fear can be a good motivator, but I can remove free will and an understanding of why something is or is not moral. You can not justify that rape is wrong by saying it is because if I rape someone I get punished. If you can talk about the damage it does to the victim, you can then justify why it is wrong

also if one is in the grip of a false ideology (e.g. Nazism) then thinking critically is the way out, but this does not indict the nature of ideology itself.

Can you justify Nazism is a false ideology? (its tougher than you think, and rests on your own relative moral values). Again if you think critically about it, you can justify why it can be wrong – if you swap one relative paradigm for another.


As regards sin being a choice or not, we have the ability to make right or wrong decisions but my own experience is complicated by severe mental illness.

Yes, I don’t think it is as simple as many evangelical claim – some in your church certainly claim that (I am an ex st silaser). There is good evidence that genetics and upbringing pre-dispose us to certain behaviours. To reduce it to a simple question of choice is grossly arrogant and insulting. In many ways you are what you are concerning certain issues, and think it is immoral to make someone feel sinful for something that is not a choice. Do you feel you could choose not to be homosexual? I certainly could not choose to be homosexual – sexual orientation for me is not a choice, and I am disgusted at the treatment the church dishes out to homosexuals – even considering the person to be performing a morally corrupt and abominable act is immoral to me.

In relation to westboro baptists, it is of course wrong to judge the merits of Christianity by those who so blatently misunderstand its basic teachings.

I am not making that claim, I am using it as an example of how people can justify anything through faith – they are just as convinced of their image of god as you are of yours – personally, if I was god, I would be pissed and make sure the truth was clearly understandable – but that’s a different issue concerning interpreting the bible. It is also hard to misinterpret “ who is not for us is against us” (matt 11:23)

I of course concede that other faiths offer the ability to behave well, but would maintain that with Christians it's *not* just a matter of attempting to adhere to external guidlines on their own as they have the Holy Spirit to help them.

Can you demonstrate that?

On Jesus attitude to the poor, the passage you cite hardly negates His teaching in other areas where he emphasised that the poor should be fed.

Well, it does contradict them (matt 25:31-46- interestingly, these verses talk of deed rather than faith to make yourself right with god).

And it also an example where Christ's words - that there will always be poverty - self-evidently accord with history.

That’s not the point, he did not help them and was contradicting his own teaching

It's good you don't subscribe to many OT laws; as a Christian I don't adhere to any ;-).

Shame, some look like they might be quite profitable : -)

The Church I'm a member of - The Scottish Episcopal Church - is actually gay friendly (you probably know about all the controversy in the Anglican church which orginated in the American's ordaining as a Bishop the openly gay Gene Robinson a few years back).

Not sure about that, there is the possibility of a schism caused by the ordination of an openly gay bishop……

However the rector at what I would regard as my home church (although I'm not sure they'd reciprocate the sentiment ;-) ), St.Silas, gave me an email link to the anti-homosex theologian Robert Gagnon who presented arguments that I have not yet been able to refute. I concede that if you don't take the Bible seriously it can be difficult to see the harm in homosexuality; there are, however, as you are aware secular arguments on the topic. I'd still like to have a male partner.

I have actually seen David McCarthy (Ryan’s minister) saying that homosexuality is wrong on tv. I would not call that gay friendly – even if he claims to hate the sin but love the sinner. I saw Ken Ham speak on homosexuality in Glasgow recently (apparently Darwin is to blame) He was basically preaching intolerance and the congregation of Dowanhill church (one of David Robertson’s churches for the benefit of Jonathan and Lee) were shouting their agreement.
I personally don’t see any harm caused by homosexuality. From what I can see, the most hurt is caused by the attitudes of others towards homosexuals.

I have a question that no Christian has been able to answer satisfactorily (including David Robertson- but he’s totally mental anyway). Without reference to the bible, I presume that you can say why rape is wrong, can you do the same with homosexuality?


You are a better person now because proclaiming about sin used to annoy other people; you could make that case about any conviction or belief that is controversial. Supporting the War on Terror or denouncing abortion are opinions that hardly necessarily originate in monotheist convictions but they are just as likely to annoy or harras others.I'm not sure that avoiding the implications of one's convictions in the interests of getting on with others is necessarily a virtue. But of course it is better to be a good person than a zealous one.

I wasn’t avoiding anything when I stopped. I stopped because I was losing my faith. I was trying to be a god pleaser – not a people pleaser (Galatians 1:10 – another deeds based verse). However, looking back, proclaiming basic biblical “truths” caused a lot of hut to both Christians and atheist alike. I’m just lucky I know some forgiving atheists.

Clicked the Nazi Christian link and failed to see what it proves beyond that Nazism cynically manipulated Christian doctrine.

it shows how easy it is to do something if you think god says so (also, where was god?). There was a study where Jewish children were either read the book of Joshua as it is, or changed so that the names and places were made Chinese. For example, Joshua became General Lin. When asked if the genocide was justified, the children read the Chinese version said no. The ones read the original said it was. The over whelming justification was because God said to do it.
http://orthoprax.blogspot.com/2006/11/
joshua-vs-general-lin.html#comments



Your recount of the dangers of social conditioning emphasises, to me, the need for overarching and objective truth.

Something does not become true because there is a “need”. Muslims after all claim they follow an objective truth (as do the westboro Baptists). The problem with arguing for objective truths is that everyone has their own opinion of them. This makes moral values relative and a matter or taste – in fact, parts of the bible hint at relativism and situational ethics – Jesus breaking the Sabbath and whether or not to eat pork for example .

It is a reflection of human dignity that people are allowed to form particular Churches that reflect individiual tastes and beliefs, as long as these do not contradict the core elements of the Christian faith.

That’s not really borne out by history, you even denounce the inquisitions yourself – Philip can tell you about Constantine and a war over the divinity of Jesus)

You cite OT example of God destroying other false gods but (again) this should be understood in the specific context of maintaining the purity and survival of the Jews.

He is still a jealous god in the NT (1 cor 6:9-11) and we are told he does not change

Free Will necessitates that God will allow many different religions; you argued from the God of love principle so why not from the God allows Free Will one?

you haven’t addressed my comments on free will, you have merely tried to shift the emphasis

Because it’s late, I wont address much of your comments to Lee, but will briefly say

As regards "nobody changed their mind"; the stoning homosexuals law was always a local and provincial precept.

I disagree, it was the declaration of your god! Even in the NT, homosexuals are denounced – it is still considered unclean (1 cor 6:9-11)

No where in scripture is belief in slavery mandated as a core element of the faith

That’s not the point, nowhere in the bible does it say slavery is wrong. There are even different laws for slaves and their masters: if an owner knocks out a slaves eye, he must set the slave free (Ex. 21:26). If he did it to another Israelite, the law requires the loss of his eye too (Ex. 21:22-24). Why does the owner not lose an eye too? How is a half blind ex-slave going to make a living? Not exactly equality is it?
Paul had his chance to denounce slavery, but actually chose to send a slave back to his master – he could have demanded that he be set free (asking for good treatment is not a dismissal of slavery (philemon)


I am starting exam revision next week so will probably have to curtail these discussions.

Good luck with them and everything else

Billy

Anonymous said...

Hello again Ryan,

We do like to write a lot don’t we all? It’s good to get into a discussion that is not just “one liner’s”. Shame you say that you don’t have the time to be in the debate long, but you have added a lot. Thanks.

I believe it to be true.

Why? You must have a reason, and how do you test this belief is correct?

Better people than me have offered reasons for the existence of God; I'd guess much of this has been discussed before so I won't go over old ground.

I could show you some ideas that have the Earth as the centre of the solar system and the planets orbiting the Earth… it works pretty good (gives better predictions for the locations of planets in the night sky than the Copernicus’ model) but however good the logic or reasoning … it is still plain wrong.

You say good behaviour comes naturally to atheists.

No…I said behaviour comes naturally. Our definition on what is good or bad could be different though.

I even used an example that an atheist could be a “mad axe brandishing murderer who likes to play with puppies” – in my book, this is not a good person. Maybe to the Vikings 1,000 years ago this was a sign of a good person (maybe not the puppies though and Vikings certainly were not atheists)

So what should someone who is not a naturally good person but who doesn't believe in God do? Just spend their life acting like a prick?

What should a “not naturally good person” do who DOES believe in God? The belief in God does not guarantee good behaviour. In fact, (as Billy and I have pointed out) the belief in God has made some believers do some very evil things. What is your opinion on Christians who kill doctors that have/do perform abortions? Whether I think abortions is right or wrong, as an atheist, I see no reason to kill the doctor.

There are centuries of Christian apologetics and arguments for God which makes the Santa Clause-God conflation something of a strawman.

The belief in Father Christmas is without evidence (agree?). Belief in God is without evidence. Straw man? OK- Show me the evidence that God interacts with mankind and you not only break my argument – I will also believe in your God. It is that simple for me.

If an uneducated atheist found themselves struggling in a debate with a postdoctural theologian you would not regard that as indicating flaws in atheism itself; it seems only fair to grant Christians the same liberty and seek out genuine robust apologetics.

Not sure what you mean here… I certainly have not had any education in atheism - no such school or subject – and I personally would not care if I was debating with a professor of theology. Their argument for the Christian God has and will always fail (or at least be empty to me) if they cannot provide any evidence for the interactions of God. They can talk until they are blue in the face, but without evidence they have nothing be an idea… there are also better ideas out there.

As for “genuine robust apologetics”… just give me a definition of your God and I will try and logically attack them all if you like. The problem I have in debates like this is the Christian never seems to give a definition of their God. This forces me, the atheist, to make assumptions to continue the debate. The theist then cries foul – “That is not my God… you are just making a strawman”. Can you give me your definition of the Christian God for purpose of debate? (So I am not forced to use the bible definition of an All-powerful and all-loving God… )

As regards "nobody changed their mind"; the stoning homosexuals law was always a local and provincial precept - therefore it is not fair to say God changed His mind as it was never intended to be universal and binding.

So it was never God’s law then? Fair enough… so why is it in the bible stating it was just that? (Or is my memory wrong on this… do I need to check the bible again?)

As regards the comment that it takes religion to make good people do evil things; what about patriotism?

Excellent example. You could be right; I have to widen my definition to include both religion and patriotism. How about the belief in something that cannot rationally be disproved so can make people do evil things? (Does this then include religion and patriotism?) I need to work on the definition for sure, but you are not denying (by giving another example) that religion can cause good people to do bad things. (An example already given is people killing doctors who perform abortions.)

You conflate saying that nobody has killed in the name of atheism with saying nobody has killed because of science, which is hardly fair.

Sorry, but who said the universe was fair anyway?

OK… bad example on my part, since you took it to mean I was saying nobody killed in the name of science (which is true as far as I know BTW)

So do you know of any examples then when somebody has killed in the name of a rational belief? People just do not have such strong disagreements when the idea can be tested and proven – this is my point.

People have killed because of their ideologies which have included atheistic ones;

You have included “atheistic ones”, then please provide some examples…. Please provide an example of an atheist ideology in which the actual non-belief in God was/is the reason for killing. This is what I am asking for. If you cannot provide any, then retract the statement and leave it as “People have killed because of their ideologies” which I can agree with.

I’ve never seen any evidence that people have killed solely because of their non-belief in God – show me wrong. (Though even if you did, it doesn’t prove the existence of god or that your belief in Christianity is correct)

It is a fact that people have killed and they have a belief in God (the bible is full of it) – I think you would agree that I should NOT however draw the conclusion that therefore “all people who believe in God kill.”

I am sure there could be other reasons… the belief in God might enable certain people feel they have the “right” or “duty” to kill (Repeat example of killing doctors, and add also a historical reference to the crusades when the pope stated it was OK to kill non-believers and this would actually get the person into heaven quicker if he did.)

So it seems you are happy to state that “if a Christian kills, it is not because of his belief” (A false claim as our examples have shown) yet you have not said “if an atheist kills, it is not because of his non-belief in god.” (and your argument implies you feel the opposite – it this correct?)

One rule for one, another rule for another?

Let us remind ourselves though why we are having this little discussion. You seemed to equate Nazi=atheist=evil murdering person. Have I misunderstood your argument? I hope I have, but then please explain what you meant when you wrote:
:
Stalinism and Nazism … could be cited as examples of murderous atheistic regimes.

Was atheism that cause of any killing, or even the root of their ideology?

Given that even the Pope has apologised for past actions of the RC Church I will not attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

I missed the apology… and BTW, where was God when all this was happening? Just watching his chosen people die in their millions because there was nothing good on TV? An all loving God? I don’t think so.

The Inquisition was a failure in individual Christians, not proof of defects in Christianity itself.

No… it was the church itself the promoted the killing and torture. Not merely individuals, and again – where was God?

Christianity does not seem that good when examined closely, of course though, peoples morals have changed… people started to interpret the bible and improve their morality – how did they do that without instruction from their holy book?

People everywhere misunderstand or fail to live up to ideals.

If you read the bible it is impossible to do anything but fail to live up to the ideals.
Born into sin, live in sin, and die in sin… such a happy tale.

you have yet to provide a compelling reason why because God commanded a specific action *in a particular time and context* that it is logical to read it as necessarily meant to be binding for all time.

I just want to know how I am suppose to know which bits I am to take literally, and which bits I should ignore as old ancient mythical stories… that’s all. Oh… and how you decided would be nice to know.

When a bible writer clearly states that God was doing (in today’s moral standards) an evil act, how should I interpret it? God didn’t know any better or the bible writers did not have a clue what they were talking about?

Actually, I have precisely one Christian friend

Invite them to the debate… the more the merrier as I said.

But I don't think that the Christians would advise me not to converse with atheists; quite the opposite.

Good… though I have been in debates when the opposite happens. The Christian leaves the debate because the questions raised were troubling them. I was in a debate when the theist actually wrote that their Christian friends advised them not to talk to us any more since it was causing doubt in their faith. Never heard from them soon after that. Shame… it was an interesting debate. (I also think the bible has something to say about talking to people who have a different view on God… erm, kill us I think it said. Nice loving example of God again maybe?)

There are, however, only so many hours in the day and I am starting exam revision next week so will probably have to curtail these discussions.

Good luck with the exams… may I ask when the subject is?

This is neither an admission of failure nor evidence that I don't take your arguments seriously.

No problem… exams are more important. When you are done though, feel free to come back – I suspect we will be around. I think I am addicted to these debates now… I should stop I know – but I like it!

And thank you for your time again. Your thoughts are arguments are welcome – you certainly have me thinking about topics I don’t normally discuss.

I never meant to put words in your mouth or imply that you were a prick; I apologise that you came to that interpretation.

I was merely trying to understand what you said… I didn’t really think you were calling me a prick (but you can if you like, I’ve had worse) – but here I like to merely attack the argument not the person.

. I was merely recounting my own thought processes and experiences as I thought they were relevant.

It just sounded like you were attacking Christianity and the bible… which didn’t make sense coming from a theist. You confused me. It sounded more like something I was suppose to say…

All the best

Lee

Anonymous said...

Ryan wrote to Billy:
Such propaganda is not an indictment of Christianity itself.

Who said it was? Yet you (and other Christians) seem quick to say that it is evidence that atheist's are evil and kill in the name of atheism.

God creates the multiplicity of races and allowed the many different cultures and they can all equally reflect Him in different ways.

You have provided no evidence what so ever for your god… so you cannot claim anything in his name.

Why don’t you be honest and just say it was invisible blue unicorn –you have just as much evidence.

Oh… question for you.

When, according to the bible, mankind got along and worked together to achieve great things why did God interact and muck things up?

I’m thinking of the Tower of Babel of course. God create this “multiplicity of races” so mankind see differences in people, cannot understand the others language or culture… creates the environment that would allow and cause patriotism and racism.

If God exists, and the bible is true… He is not really that nice a person is he.

So why worship Him? (and why does God need our worship, what does he do with it?)

Free Will necessitates that God will allow many different religions

Why does God DEMAND worship then? And why does God worry about people worshiping other gods surly God would know they didn’t exist?) Why does God kill if you do not follow him?

So many questions.

Lee

Bruce said...

Oh boy.

Anonymous said...

Bruce wrote:
Oh boy.

?

Is is a good or a bad thing?

Lee

Anonymous said...

Hi Lee,
I have often wondered about the tower of babel and how it isgod's fault no one knows what the meaning of certain hebrew words really is - I think we saw good examples of that in the debate with Mark Tauton on Ezekiel's intentions concerning his failed prophecies.

Of course Christians teflon coat their religion and claim it is mans fault for sinning. Acording to one interpretation, the tower was an observatory - that means that god is anti- learning - a principle Copernicus, Bacon and Galilleo had to deal with - cue list of theistic scientists........

I think we should gang up on Bruce on Facebook with our super hero powers.

I will turn him into an amorous Hippo - Viva Quetz :-)

Bruce said...

Hard to say Lee; to date I've only been able to read this thread to the comment left on 4 Dec 15.43. I'll do my best to catch up, but if we can all be as concise as possible it helps (not to cramp your style). (I have started writing responses too to what I have read, but cd take a while...). Meanwhile you'll see I've been back on 'Musings' blog.
PS Nice to see you back Jimmy. Do drop by whenever you like; even when your comments are controversial, they are concise and often poetic so very readable.

Anonymous said...

Jimmy

My pleasure. Glad you liked them.

Ryan

Anonymous said...

Bruce wrote:
I'll do my best to catch up, but if we can all be as concise as possible it helps (not to cramp your style).

Sorry Bruce… I try and be concise, but your posters make so many good comments – I feel I have to reply to ALL of them (You should look at the rubbish I write at JC’s site - you get it easy). If I was “cleverer” I probably could be more concise… until that day you get the ramblings of a madman… it’s the best I can do.

Billy wrote:
I think we should gang up on Bruce on Facebook with our super hero powers.

I feel old… I have no idea what the heck is going on at the facebook site. People have thrown sheep at me, bitten me with their zombies and given me beers – it’s a strange world – it’s let being back at uni… cool.

As for superpowers… I’ve tried and failed – you guys are just too strong.

Lee

Anonymous said...

Bruce wrote:
I've only been able to read this thread to the comment left on 4 Dec 15.43

I wish I could say it gets better...

Bruce said...

I appreciate there's been a good debate going with Ryan so don't worry I don't mind long comments per se; look forward to catching up with it.

Anonymous said...

Billy

It may be a sweeping statement but I regard it as a fair one based on my experiences with Christians. Any widescale proclamation, such as required in theology, will involve generalisation.

A perfect being can certainly command imperfect acts as all humans except Christ are imperfect.

Matthew 5:18; this verse occurs in the context of Jesus *fufilling* the law (17)- this logically suggests a change in how God relates to men which includes the NT explicating (not supplanting) the OT. It is logical to come to different conclusions from a text when we read it in light of another authorative source; this is what has happened here. You could also note the addition of the "till all is fufilled"; if Christ just wanted to say that the OT law remains permanant and binding then He would not have added this which shifts the meaning. I will address your other points but I accept that you probably have a better knowledge of scripture than me; it may be worthwhile raising your objections with a member of the clergy.

Saying that fear of punishment can lead people to do good things in no way implies that bad acts are only bad because they incur punishment.

*My* objections to Nazism are moral which can't be proved; I suspect, however, that the scientific method could offer enough to discredit the ideology of Nazism - by refuting (via IQ tests?) its claims on the self-evident and overwhelming superiority of one racial group to another. It also has many sexist assumptions; I dimly recall substantial sociological evidence that exists to refute such beliefs (e.g. the wide spectrum of female/male roles over different cultures as evidence against simplistic biological determinism).

As regards choice: human behaviour has a moral dimension. The fact that I suffered mental illness (including psychosis) does not alter the fact that my behaviour had negative impact on others and so can be called immoral. Society operates by having a basic set of guidelines that everyone is expected to live up to or suffer the consequences; why shouldn't the Church, which claims to offer the ideal Man as role model, not be similarly rigorous? There are some people who may be predisposed to murder; whilst this fact must be given significance it in no way alters the fact that murder is wrong. Breaking the link between actions and consequences is not always edifying, although I am of course glad of forgiveness.

I'm not homosexual. I could probably more accurately be described as bisexual although I used to be a big fan of Gore Vidal who emphasised that gay and straight are merely unhelpful, inaccurate labels; he pointed to the Kinsey six point scale of degrees between gay and straight. Vidal also said that most people are bisexual which, speaking from experience, is flat out wrong; nearly everyone - gays, straight women,straight wen - distrust and dislike the idea of male bisexuality. Conversely all straight men of my experience would love a bisexual girlfriend. As regards choice: no true Church would condemn anyone for the homosexual *inclination* only the behaviour. This is certainly true of St.Silas. I know for a fact that they are similarly critical of heterosexual acts that fall contrary to what they regard as God's law. Having gay sex is clearly a choice; people are being judged on behaviour, which is fair. To answer your question: despite tons of gay sex I've only ever had girlfriends, not boyfriends,and all my recent sexual experiences have been of the hetero variety. I'm presently celibate on the basis it seemed a prerequisite for taking St.Silas seriously.So I suppose you could say that I *have* chosen not to be homosexual.

David McCarthy is not a homophobe.I have spent much of my life in the cirrhotic hateful side of working class Glasweigan culture and know what homophobia (and sectarianism, and racism)actually is; if the term homophobia is to have genuine meaning as an analogy to racism then it seems to be me that it needs to be based on essentialism i.e. *inclination*, not behaviour. I would also state that, in my not inconsiderable experience of both environments, there is far more love in St.Silas than there is in Glasgow's gay scene.

There are arguments why homosexuality is wrong (e.g. rates of mental illness in same sex couples compared to the norm), but I don't necessarily agree with them. For obvious reasons I am not the best person to supply them, but they do exist. Most of the anti-homosexuality books I'm aware of are theological; this is a reflection of my own interests and situation rather than an admission that there are no convincing secular arguments on the topic.I (or indeed you) could always research the topic if it's important.In the meantime, some humour:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42606

Saying who is not with us is against does is an admission of the high stakes involved in Christianity and in no way precludes the possiblity of making others come into the fold through love, nor does it compel negative actions towards others. It does not contradict loving one's neighbour as oneself - I'm not saying you said it did, but you presented a controversial passage for a reason and I gave my take on it, as seems fair.

I concede that I can't demonstrate the Holy Spirit.

Your comments over Constantine and religious wars seem to pressupose that such actions were God's will; they weren't, although their existence testifies to the existence of Free Will. I also fail to see how they negate my point about the multiplicity of forms of worship being how God would like to have things.

I agree that saying something is ok because God says so is a common and pernicious justification for heinous acts. This says more about the psychology of bad people and the need for rationalisation than it does about God.

God is still a jealous God in the NT: true, but jealousy is not necessarily negative; we would expect a husband who truly loved his wife to be jealous if she fell in love with somebody else.

Jesus being God could defy the sabbath; this does not imply situational ethics. If all morality is a matter of taste then there is no such thing as good and evil and my, or your, denunciation of (say) the Holocaust carries no more weight than any other opinion. Which is why I believe that objective Good and Evil exist.

Jesus did not contradict His teaching on the poor. Where did he say that people shouldn't pay tribute to Him in the manner you find objectionable? He did not advise people to stop trying to aid the poor in the future.As an analogy,the existence of the Sistine Chapel, giving glory to God, does not negate the Church's commitment to aiding the poor.

It is true that homosexuals are considered unclean in the NT, this does not logically imply that the OT death penalty law should still apply to them.

I have explained why Paul didn't denounce slavery. You will need to elaborate on why you feel I didn't address your Free Will points; this was not deliberate on my part.

Out of interest, how do you keep up with these debates? I go to the site and "Leave your comment" box but have to keep scrolling down to see what you've said in order to respond to it( I have probably dealt with some of your points out of order). How do you manage to put the points you're responding to in bold?

Apologies for the repetitive vocabulary.I'm missing Match of the Day for this!

Ryan

Anonymous said...

Lee-

I believe because I found the arguments for Christianity compelling. You could do Alpha if you want to know more ;-).

The scientific theories can be obviously and scientifically disproved which obviously isn't true of God.

My opinion on doctors that kill abortionist: great! more power to them! I jest. My opinion of them is obviously negative.

What sort of evidence are you looking for that God interacts with mankind?

I see no problem with you using the Bible definition of the Christian God; this is of course what believers would do although I would urge you not to isolated texts without regard to context.

Laws are not necessary eternal.

As regards people killing in the name of non-belief, I recall the statement that "without God, anything is permissable" (paraphrased). The problem is that atheism, in and of itself, is not a complete overarching value system comparable to Christianity, it is a preliminary statement - setting one in oposition to God - but it says what one *isn't* not what one *is*. You would not expect yourself to necessary share a value system with someone just because you were both atheists. Obviously no-one would kill in the name of a preliminary step in the formation of their philosophy.So the standard is not fair.Christianity implies where atheism allows. I have never said that a Christian kills it is not because of his belief; my point is that this belief might be a misunderstanding of Christianity and therefore should not be used as evidence to denounce it. Focus on scripture: do you really regard killing people as consistent with Christianity? You seem to suggest that I was equated Nazism with atheists which isn't true. You cited cases were religion could be interpreted as the source of murder. I responded by citing regimes whose ideologies had their roots in atheism; I regard the whole game as something of a waste of time. A (large? majority?) portion of humanity is religious. History is bloody. Therefore a lot of religious people killed . Again, I am attempting to defend Christianity not other people's misguided interpretation of it.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m004rpInquisition_Jan04.htm

Touches on the Vatican apologies. The one on the holocaust received substantial press coverage at the time. The Holocaust occured because of Free Will which is a centrepiece of human integrity. With freedom comes the potential for great good and great evil, both on the individual scale and the world at large.

The Church promoted killings etc, I agree. The Church is comprised of imperfect human beings and, again, this is not an indictment of Christianity itself. You will need to elaborate on why Christianity is not good when examined closely since, so far, you have been most criticising historical behaviour of Christians instead of the faith itself.

The Bible *is* a happy tale as it offers the possiblity of freedom from the *eternal* effects of sin. And aren't most harsh but necessary truths unhappy?

You are labouring under a take literally/ignore false dichotomy when it comes to interpreting scripture. The fact that "today's moral standards" indict particular moral standards is not necessarily compelling; morality is not something like science that exists as a continous upward curve throught the centuries.

There are lots of Bible passages about reaching out to unbelievers but not too many I recall about killing them. Sure you're not thinking of the Koran ;-)?

I'm studying English Literature, second year. Just part time due to aforemention mental health problems. I've done some theology in the past.

Ryan

Anonymous said...

Lee-

I don't know a lot about the Tower of Babel thing but I would imagine that you could find some Christian who would answer your question.

I don't know where you get the idea that God kills you if you don't follow him from. He commands us to worship Him because it is what we were created for; He, being a loving Father, wants to bring us to the truth. You probably know the famous saying "you created us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you"

Ryan

Anonymous said...

Someone mentioned facebook. Tommorow will be my last day indulging in these discussions (sob!), however all and sundry are more than welcome to add me as a friend on the site. There are 58 guys called Ryan Dunne; I'm the one with "Networks: Glasgow" in the results. My page has lots of Star Wars and Batman features; it's not all mad/boring God stuff!

And so to bed.

;-) Ryan

Bruce said...

Hey Ryan, been a bit slow to this but I have to thank you for all your hard work in writing these comments responding to Billy and Lee's points especially (and to B and J for their time raising them!). If I had the money, I'd be very tempted to employ you! My degree was in English so I wish you all the best in your exams, and hope very much you'll be able to continue commenting on my blog. You'll know about the carol service tonight at St Silas at 8pm if you can join; Billy of course you're welcome too (yes I do still believe in miracles!). Take care.

Bruce said...

I meant B and L of course, not B and J here, though Jonathan's comments have of course been welcome too! (give me a job as a diplomat)

Anonymous said...

Hi Ryan,

A perfect being can certainly command imperfect acts as all humans except Christ are imperfect.

I disagree, commanding an imperfect act makes that being imperfect. If god can command someone to break his laws for example, he is effectively either saying that the law is not perfect, or above his own law, therefore he is not just.

Matthew 5:18; this verse occurs in the context of Jesus *fufilling* the law (17)- this logically suggests a change in how God relates to men which includes the NT explicating (not supplanting) the OT. It is logical to come to different conclusions from a text when we read it in light of another authorative source; this is what has happened here. You could also note the addition of the "till all is fufilled"; if Christ just wanted to say that the OT law remains permanant and binding then He would not have added this which shifts the meaning. I will address your other points but I accept that you probably have a better knowledge of scripture than me; it may be worthwhile raising your objections with a member of the clergy.

One problem is that members of the clergy disagree, which make me question the truth of anything. We have to take into account “until heaven and earth disapper….” This has not happened. The point, that I got sidetracked from, is that the OT laws are the moral standards of your god, they are supposedly perfect, and jesus actually contradicts them, he does not fulfil them. There are also no OT verses that I am aware of that foretell this change in interacting. As far as I am aware, the time when god will accept the gentiles is to be under the sacrificial system (eg (Isaiah 56:6-8).


Saying that fear of punishment can lead people to do good things in no way implies that bad acts are only bad because they incur punishment.

I didn’t say that. Acts you consider good could invoke punishment elsewhere. What I am saying is that to be able to understand why something is wrong is better than behaving through fear. Justify to yourself why murder is wrong, then consider which is more moral – tho not murder because you know why it is wrong, or t o not murder because you fear punishmen.

*My* objections to Nazism are moral which can't be proved;

My objections are also moral, however, I can only justify it to people with a similar moral outlook. I t is a relative thing and not absolute. We have to accept some relative values, and it is not objectively provable – that is the point.

I suspect, however, that the scientific method could offer enough to discredit the ideology of Nazism - by refuting (via IQ tests?) its claims on the self-evident and overwhelming superiority of one racial group to another.
I think some here may disagree on the scientific method here (surprisingly, I may be one of them). My understanding of Nazism is that it is a bit more complicated than that, and its principles are largely pseudoscientific. Nietzsche for example abused natural selection. Again, any assumptions you make on superiority are also relative.

It also has many sexist assumptions;

And the bible isn’t?

I dimly recall substantial sociological evidence that exists to refute such beliefs (e.g. the wide spectrum of female/male roles over different cultures as evidence against simplistic biological determinism).

You have to dissect out biological determination from social conditioning.

As regards choice: human behaviour has a moral dimension. The fact that I suffered mental illness (including psychosis) does not alter the fact that my behaviour had negative impact on others and so can be called immoral.

Only in your relative paradigm. If my morality told me to look after myself, then I may not consider you immoral. Again, there is no objective truth, but I know what you are trying to say: you fail to live up to standards that you accept – most of us do. Interestingly, Darwin said “A moral being is one who is capable of reflecting on his past actions and their motives - of approving of some and disapproving of others. " It rings true for most relative paradigms. .

Society operates by having a basic set of guidelines that everyone is expected to live up to or suffer the consequences; why shouldn't the Church, which claims to offer the ideal Man as role model, not be similarly rigorous?


I don’t agree that he was the perfect example though – the fact that I am an atheist means that I must reject the greatest commandment. I think the second greatest (with some subtle tweaking) is reasonable though – as did 3rd millennium BCE Sumerians and 5th Century BCE Confuscionists. I will always disagree that homosexuality is wrong too. I saw the devastation that trying to conform caused to a former member of your church. She was depressed for 2 years, and many of her Christian friends abandoned her. She finally accepted that was what she was, and got married earlier this year (to another woman) and is so much happier. I asked her brother what he thought of this, and he said “when I look at her now, and how depressed she was a few years ago, I’m really happy for her”. Her church going parents took a lot longer to come round, and that caused a lot of hurt – so, I don’t think teaching that it is wrong is at all moral. Do you think you have a choice? If not, why should you change? Is it moral to make you suffer in the struggle? Why should you even accept that it is wrong? Can you say why it is, or are you just going to accpt something that you just have to accept and make yourself very unhappy (If you struggled with killing people, that would be different). Maybe you should concentrate on why you do thinks that disappoint you. Interestingly I saw a brief bit of John Barrowman on TV this morning. He was saying he believed that he was created gay by god, so he embraces it. Interesting that you have so many different views. Why cant god communicate efficiently? I do think it is sad that this is making you unhappy.

There are some people who may be predisposed to murder; whilst this fact must be given significance it in no way alters the fact that murder is wrong. Breaking the link between actions and consequences is not always edifying, although I am of course glad of forgiveness.

I think murder is different, that huts people, homosexuality doesn’t. I think you have to be careful with forgiveness too. It leaves the victim open to re-abuse.

Conversely all straight men of my experience would love a bisexual girlfriend.

Let me introduce myself as one who desn’t

As regards choice: no true Church would condemn anyone for the homosexual *inclination* only the behaviour.

This is a logical fallacy, so a church who disagrees with you is not a real church then? You must be confident that you are right – just like them! Remember, jesus says that thinking lustfully = adultery (matt 5:28)

This is certainly true of St.Silas. I know for a fact that they are similarly critical of heterosexual acts that fall contrary to what they regard as God's law. Having gay sex is clearly a choice; people are being judged on behaviour, which is fair. To answer your question: despite tons of gay sex I've only ever had girlfriends, not boyfriends,and all my recent sexual experiences have been of the hetero variety. I'm presently celibate on the basis it seemed a prerequisite for taking St.Silas seriously.So I suppose you could say that I *have* chosen not to be homosexual.

But do you still have those feelings? Personally, I don’t see the need for celibacy, there is nothing wrong with consensual sex. It is abuse and broken trust that does the damage, not the act of sex

David McCarthy is not a homophobe.I have spent much of my life in the cirrhotic hateful side of working class Glasweigan culture and know what homophobia (and sectarianism, and racism)actually is; if the term homophobia is to have genuine meaning as an analogy to racism then it seems to be me that it needs to be based on essentialism i.e. *inclination*, not behaviour. I would also state that, in my not inconsiderable experience of both environments, there is far more love in St.Silas than there is in Glasgow's gay scene.

As much as I respect David, anyone who says the homosexual act is sinful and not a valid way of life is subscribing to a homophobic doctrine. St Silas may be gay friendly, and I’m glad you feel comfortable there – it wasn’t my friend’s sister’s experience of that church though. It wasn’t my experience of the dowanhill wee free’s either (again religious fuelled intolerance.

There are arguments why homosexuality is wrong (e.g. rates of mental illness in same sex couples compared to the norm),

that is not an argument, and is anectdotal. There is a guy on Richard Dawkins’s web site (steve99) who will give you plenty of valid arguments as to why there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Victims of sexual abuse are more likely to develop mental illnesses – is being a victim wrong?

but I don't necessarily agree with them.

good!

For obvious reasons I am not the best person to supply them, but they do exist. Most of the anti-homosexuality books I'm aware of are theological; this is a reflection of my own interests and situation rather than an admission that there are no convincing secular arguments on the topic.I (or indeed you) could always research the topic if it's important.

What if you are wrong about god? Are you not then causing uourself unnecessary trouble? The trouble with theology is that there are many different views, and no way to test them – my explanation for that is because it is not based on any truth. If this is a big issue to you, I would encourage you to investigate it honestly. The problem with saying it is wrong because god says so means you can’t challenge it, but what if there is no god?

In the meantime, some humour:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/42606

I’ve been caught out by the onion a few times : -) it often exploits Poe’s law

Your comments over Constantine and religious wars seem to pressupose that such actions were God's will; they weren't, although their existence testifies to the existence of Free Will. I also fail to see how they negate my point about the multiplicity of forms of worship being how God would like to have things.

My point is to presuppose nothing, but to point out that mankind had influenced theology. If the other lot had won, Jesus would not have been considered to be divine. Interestingly, other Christians will say that god helped Constantine – he did!

I agree that saying something is ok because God says so is a common and pernicious justification for heinous acts. This says more about the psychology of bad people and the need for rationalisation than it does about God.

The trouble is, there are examples of heinous acts in the bible – commanded by god – the order to kill the inhabitants of Ai for example (Joshua 8:1-29).

God is still a jealous God in the NT: true, but jealousy is not necessarily negative; we would expect a husband who truly loved his wife to be jealous if she fell in love with somebody else.

And he might commit a crime of passion

Jesus being God could defy the sabbath; this does not imply situational ethics. If all morality is a matter of taste then there is no such thing as good and evil and my, or your, denunciation of (say) the Holocaust carries no more weight than any other opinion. Which is why I believe that objective Good and Evil exist.

I agree, it is a matter of taste. I don’t see how that argues for objective good and evil though. Interestingly, I recall Beat attitude thinks this is an example of situational ethics – how do you decide?

Jesus did not contradict His teaching on the poor. Where did he say that people shouldn't pay tribute to Him in the manner you find objectionable? He did not advise people to stop trying to aid the poor in the future.As an analogy,the existence of the Sistine Chapel, giving glory to God, does not negate the Church's commitment to aiding the poor.

He said that god requires that you feed the poor, yet denied the poor food by putting himself first. This is not an example of putting others first, in fact, it was an expression of materialism

It is true that homosexuals are considered unclean in the NT, this does not logically imply that the OT death penalty law should still apply to them.

The law is absolute and perfect.

I have explained why Paul didn't denounce slavery. You will need to elaborate on why you feel I didn't address your Free Will points; this was not deliberate on my part.

Can you back up those reasons? It would have been so easy to say slavery is wrong, but that would contradict the OT. Here is a brief copy from a post to Bruce on Jonathan’s blog concerning the bible and it’s endorsement of slavery:

” I think I missed the bit where it says slavery is wrong. By omission, it is approving the status quo. There are even laws concernig buying of slaves (no isrealites Lev. 25:44-46) and treating slaves differntly to their masters (Ex. 21:26 vs Ex. 21:22-24). You can even beat them (Ex. 21:22-24 - interesting contradiction of Eph6:5-9).
Do you really think this is all anti slavery?
Read this (and its under the heading the FAIR treatment of slaves:
Ex21 2 “If you buy a Hebrew slave, he may serve for no more than six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. 3 If he was single when he became your slave, he shall leave single. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife must be freed with him.

4 “If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave and they had sons or daughters, then only the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. 5 But the slave may declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I don’t want to go free.’ 6 If he does this, his master must present him before God.[a] Then his master must take him to the door or doorpost and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will serve his master for life.

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. 8 If she does not satisfy her owner, he must allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. 9 But if the slave’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave but as a daughter."
So , you can sell your daughter as a slave. If you are a slave, you can go free, but you cant take your wife of children with you. If you want to keep them, you have to get nailed to a door and remain a slave. Do you really think that is fair and denounces slavery?


You like christian apologists, ever heard of this one: St Augustine? He said "The first cause of slavery, then, is sin - that a man should be put in bonds by another; and this happens only by the judgement of God, in whose eyes it is no crime"


Out of interest, how do you keep up with these debates? I go to the site and "Leave your comment" box but have to keep scrolling down to see what you've said in order to respond to it( I have probably dealt with some of your points out of order). How do you manage to put the points you're responding to in bold?

Do it in word if it is long. For bold, put the letter b (lower case) between < and > with no spaces. To end the bold, put /b between the < and > (no spaces). For italics, use i.

Hope you don’t take the questions personally, I an just trying to make you think. Thanks for being so open.

Bruce, looks like you aren’t going to see a miracle. I have also promised that I will never set foot in St Silas again after all the crap.

Billy

Anonymous said...

Hi Ryan,

You mentioned you have spent your “last day” on this thread… I hope this merely means you will not have the time to reply due to your exams and you will still have the time to read my reply. If not… I’ve just wasted a lot of time… oh well.

In the hope you will be reading this, here is my reply anyway.

The best debates are ones where people are open about their beliefs and why they have them. (Gives something to talk about) Hope you are enjoying the debate also.

I believe because I found the arguments for Christianity compelling.

Sorry… I haven’t. I just cannot get my head round it – hence my honest questions and search for evidence. If someone could just logically make sense of the bible and explain it to me would be a great start.

I follow the evidence – first. Wishful thinking is for the dreamers.

Evolution and the “Big Bang” theory seems pretty good explanations to the universe around us. Explains a lot about what we see. Incomplete theories they are, with many questions left to answer but, and here is the important bit, nobody have been able to prove them wrong in the areas where there is no contention. E.g. Find a fossil out of place, and evolution falls.

You could do Alpha if you want to know more ;-).

Excellent… just show me the independent (non-religious) evidence for the miracles stated in the bible. Lots of historians writing at the time of Jesus, how many write about these miracles? One suspect writer, and more than a dozen who never heard of him and so their pages are blank on the subject – Odd that for something “out of this world – godly miracle type even”.

However, the bible could be complete rubbish, and God could still exist. So, give me a description of God that can be tested.

The scientific theories can be obviously and scientifically disproved which obviously isn't true of God.

Scientific theories state what will falsify them… this is the beauty science. There is not argument, no need to kill anyone. Just find the evidence that the theory stated will falsify it. That’s it… Easy.

You statement that “obviously isn't true of God” is actually part of the problem.

If you cannot provide a rational method of falsification then how can you test your idea for god? This means if I disagree about the existence of your God and think “my god” is better – there is only one way to resolve it. Celebrity death match!

You also forgot something else about scientific theories… that have also been proven true! Not only to they answer what has already been observed, the best theories also offer predictions that were not previously known. Find these observations, and you have “proven” the theory is “true” (until proven otherwise).

This is “obviously isn't true of God”… think about it.

What proof do you have that God listens to your prayers, for example, that are not merely subjective?

My opinion on doctors that kill abortionist: great! more power to them! I jest. My opinion of them is obviously negative.

I was not suggesting “doctors kill abortionist’s” but that Christians have, because of their belief in God and the bible, have killed doctors who have performed abortions.

Of course I am glad you think of this is the “negative” – it is evil, but it is their dogmatic belief that led them too it. I think you can agree to that?

What sort of evidence are you looking for that God interacts with mankind?

You tell me – you are the believer? You surely found evidence for God?

The easiest and most obvious is the power of prayer. However, this has failed all scientific tests to date… so do you have other evidence or what a re-test?

I see no problem with you using the Bible definition of the Christian God; this is of course what believers would do although I would urge you not to isolated texts without regard to context.

To test the God hypothesis, we need a definition. This I take from the bible. It is not done by isolating pieces of text out of context. The opposite in fact… I’m also happy to take any Christians view of their theistic God and test it – since it will certainly prove something.

Of course, other people use the bible as evidence for God… then of course, I need to test the bible. Here again, I will be happy if you could supply any verse or chapter of theology importance that can be tested.

If you cannot supply any, then how to you ensure you are following your God correctly? How do you know you are following the right god at all?

Laws are not necessary eternal.

You mean God’s laws? Can you supply the chapter and verses which state this from your bible and which laws still apply today and which do not?

As regards people killing in the name of non-belief, I recall the statement that "without God, anything is permissable" (paraphrased).

I wonder which Christian or believer in God stated that?

Not important.

I assume you use this statement with regards to morals specifically (since it is clearly false with regards to miracles – you need a god for that.)

Tell me then, ignoring the use of modern technologies that clearly were not available throughout history, what morally evil act has been committed by a “non-believer” that has NOT been committed by a believer?

Death, rape, war, violence etc etc are crimes that have been done by both sides. (The bible is full of it from the believer camp)

So your argument seems empty… it could almost be re-written as “with or without God, anything is permissible”

Show me I am wrong.

Also, here is a question right back at ya…

Can you tell me of a morally “good” act has not been done by a non-believer but has by a believer?
(Praying for someone’s health does not count unless you can first prove it makes a difference, and if it makes not difference, then does it not make more sense for the atheist doctor to heal the best they can rather than wishful prayers?)

Remember also, any selfless act done by the non-believer is just that – selfless and done without expectations of reward. A Christian, it could argue, was doing ever out of fear or maybe hope for a ticket to heaven. Remember about being good for goodness sake?

The problem is that atheism, in and of itself, is not a complete overarching value system comparable to Christianity, it is a preliminary statement - setting one in oposition to God - but it says what one *isn't* not what one *is*. You would not expect yourself to necessary share a value system with someone just because you were both atheists.

Yep… just like I said. Atheism only tells you what I am not.

Obviously no-one would kill in the name of a preliminary step in the formation of their philosophy. So the standard is not fair. Christianity implies where atheism allows.

Why isn’t it fair? This was, after all, your attack on atheist’s morals. Having a non-belief in God does not make you morally evil. This is my point.

Belief in God can make you think you are “morally good”, yet in the eyes of non-believers (not in your sect) is a truly evil act.

Suicide bombers are the typical example normally given at this point which, as a Christian, I am sure you will agree to evil and twisted due to blind belief. You also have agreed that killing doctors who perform abortions is also evil. Both are examples where the belief in God has created problems – the main cause.

Just because you think these people have “misunderstood” the true teaching is not the point. You have, somehow, decided that such an act is morally evil with your Christian worldview… not so for others. How did you decide one thing, and other Christians another?

I have never said that a Christian kills it is not because of his belief; my point is that this belief might be a misunderstanding of Christianity and therefore should not be used as evidence to denounce it.

Again, I am attempting to defend Christianity not other people's misguided interpretation of it


I do not use it here as evidence for the non-existence of God if that is what you mean, but merely that your (i.e. Christian) “holier than thou” stance should be reviewed. Christianity clearly does NOT make everyone a better person – you have agreed to this already.

How do you know that they have a “misunderstanding of Christianity” anyway – some will certainly disagree with you, after all, some are prepared to kill for their beliefs.

I just want you to justify (or retract) your earlier statement

Stalinism and Nazism … could be cited as examples of murderous atheistic regimes.

You have made the statement, I pointed out that no one has killed because of their non-belief, yet the reverse is true about faith. I’m merely pointing out that the evils of the world are not caused by atheists. In fact, many evil acts are performed by believers because of their beliefs.
(I think we agree to this – you merely think such people have a misunderstanding of Christianity. Well, please go tell these Christians they are do not know the bible correctly – please, before they kill anymore doctors.)

My point from this is wherever people get their morals… it is NOT from the bible.

Maybe we will need to take a step back and this.

You will need to elaborate on why Christianity is not good when examined closely since, so far, you have been most criticising historical behaviour of Christians instead of the faith itself.

As you pointed out, it all depends on your “flavour” of Christianity and personal take on it. Anything I point out as “bad” or “evil” you will merely state “Well, that is not my religion you are talking about…”

However, it is a fact that “Christianity” (You know the one with the bible) has caused evil in the modern world, how about:

The killing of doctors who perform abortions (You agreed).
The Roman Catholic Church teaching on the non-use of condoms that is causing an increasing in the spread of AIDS in Africa and the third world.
Religious beliefs are stopping stem cell research and who knows how much good could come from that.

These are just a few physical examples resulting from faith. How about some mental scars?

The belief that we are all sinful,
your non-Christians friends are going to burn in hell.
How about victims of rape who in catholic countries were not allowed an abortion so have to carry and raise a reminder of that rape for the rest of their lives?
You are discussing the teachings of homosexually with Billy at the moment so I will leave that one there. It certainly doesn’t allow certain people to be themselves without being told they are evil by some.

The Bible *is* a happy tale as it offers the possiblity of freedom from the *eternal* effects of sin.


A happy tale?

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.
James 5:14-15

Yep… that’s happy – although for a true believer, it could mean that don’t take their children to see a doctor and just wish for prayer alone. Is this good or an evil verse then?

Oh… but where would you be without the OT?

"I have wiped out many nations, devastating their fortress walls and towers. Their cities are now deserted; their streets are in silent ruin. There are no survivors to even tell what happened. I thought, 'Surely they will have reverence for me now! Surely they will listen to my warnings, so I won't need to strike again.' But no; however much I punish them, they continue their evil practices from dawn till dusk and dusk till dawn." So now the LORD says: "Be patient; the time is coming soon when I will stand up and accuse these evil nations. For it is my decision to gather together the kingdoms of the earth and pour out my fiercest anger and fury on them. All the earth will be devoured by the fire of my jealousy. "On that day I will purify the lips of all people, so that everyone will be able to worship the LORD together. My scattered people who live beyond the rivers of Ethiopia will come to present their offerings.
(Zephaniah 3:6-10 NLT)


You are labouring under a take literally/ignore false dichotomy when it comes to interpreting scripture. The fact that "today's moral standards" indict particular moral standards is not necessarily compelling; morality is not something like science that exists as a continous upward curve throught the centuries.

I always need to be told how to interpret the bible – always getting it wrong.

That fact that I, and many other non-believers, have good morals is evidence enough to know that we do not need the bible for our source of morals.

In fact, since much of the teachings of the bible have been replaced (without any guidance from the bible itself) is rather telling on the usefulness of the bible on the subject of morals. Follow the bible too closely (incorrectly according you’re your personal faith claim) the bible can make good people to bad things.

It has nothing to do with my personal interpretations on a particular chapter or verse.

There are lots of Bible passages about reaching out to unbelievers but not too many I recall about killing them. Sure you're not thinking of the Koran ;-)?

I don't know where you get the idea that God kills you if you don't follow him from.


Never read the Koran, but I have read the bible… the OT is pure evil someone should turn it into a movie sometime – scare the crap out of the kids – and God is the major player in this, I wonder who could play God?

Give the OT a read sometime. If you like, I will post some chapters for your reading pleasure? (Of course, you will like to think they are taken out of context… if they actually happened they are evil – that would be for you to prove.)

Any, here is just a couple… I’m sure I could find more if you like.

that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock.
Deuteronomy 13:13-15

When such a person hears the words of this oath, he invokes a blessing on himself and therefore thinks, "I will be safe, even though I persist in going my own way." This will bring disaster on the watered land as well as the dry. The LORD will never be willing to forgive him; his wrath and zeal will burn against that man. All the curses written in this book will fall upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven. The LORD will single him out from all the tribes of Israel for disaster, according to all the curses of the covenant written in this Book of the Law.
Deuteronomy 29:19-21

I'm studying English Literature, second year

Well, good luck… I remember the days of Uni life.

Do not waste your time here posting when you should be revising, but do try and come back once you have finished you exams.

Lee

=======================

Bruce wrote:
Hey Ryan, been a bit slow to this but I have to thank you for all your hard work in writing these comments responding to Billy and Lee's points especially (and to B and J for their time raising them!).

Yep… I’m glad we had Ryan around to bounce ideas off. Hope his exams go nice and easy and he comes back to the debate.

And thank you for the thank you… it was a pleasure. Just wish it didn’t take up so much of my time. I’m a slow writer…

Lee

Anonymous said...

Ryan,
I forgot to ask, the stuff you mention about homosexuals having a greater chance of mental illness, firstly, can you cite the study so I can check it for myself, and secondly, if it were true, do you not think that it could be the fact that society discriminates against homosexuals that causes the depression etc? This was a factor with my friend's sister.

Cheers

Billy

Bruce said...

By the way, I hope you guys are getting enough sleep. And let me know if you need more paper.

Anonymous said...

You could do Alpha if you want to know more ;-).

Excellent… just show me the independent (non-religious) evidence for the miracles stated in the bible. Lots of historians writing at the time of Jesus, how many write about these miracles? One suspect writer, and more than a dozen who never heard of him and so their pages are blank on the subject – Odd that for something “out of this world – godly miracle type even”.


Unfortunately, the Rev Nicky Gumble uses the likes of Josephus - who was not a contempory of Jesus, and whose manuscriptw - enven by Christian admission were probably tampered with. Some even think the whole of the testimonium flavium was fabricated.

I've been on about 5 alpha courses, looking back, I cant recommend them as a good reason to believe, I think I can guess what you will make of the poor reasoning, but at least they give you food.

At the time, I thought they were good, but I believed and just accepted things uncritically


If you cannot provide a rational method of falsification then how can you test your idea for god?

Not only that, but the burden of proof lies with the claimant. At one level, I dont see the need to disprove something there is no evidence for. However, I do like a good debate

Celebrity death match!

As Harry Hill says "FIGHT!" :-)

Bruce said...

'Good tidings of great joy and on earth peace, good will towards men' to you all too!

Anonymous said...

Bruce, are you desperately trying to reach 100 comments? :-)

Bruce said...

Weh-hey! Now who likes dalmatians?

Jonathan said...

MY posts have exceeded 100 comments so many times that I don't care any more. So there! :-)

Bruce said...

Cruella words indeed. 101th comment from someone who doesn't even profess to like dalmatians :)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

What was the deleted post?

Bruce said...

I can't say exactly - that's why I deleted it - but it contained some unsavoury references. Not intentionally offensive but, particularly as folk from church may read, not publishable. I've asked the poster to amend and resend and I'm sure he will as it had good stuff in too.

Jonathan said...

Now I'm intrigued! Unsavoury references? Who could it be? Time to doff my Sherlock Holmes cap, methinks!

Anonymous said...

Now I'm intrigued! Unsavoury references? Who could it be? Time to doff my Sherlock Holmes cap, methinks!

Well it was not me... and not you Jonathan... Bruce surely would not write something just to delete it?

Erm...

Should we ask Billy or Jimmy?

Lee

Bruce said...

There I go arousing needless curiosity by a turn of phrase; next time I'll just say there was a problem with it, or better still, not publish it in the first place! As I say, I'm sure we'll hear back from the poster in due course.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bruce,

Don't worry... we atheists just question everything - we cannot help it.

We also like a good mystery…

Lee

Anonymous said...

Wasn't me

Bruce said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bruce said...

Ryan's post had to be amended so here it is (that last deleted post was just this one but I'd forgotten to intro it as from R):

Lee and Billy

I read your comments but I will have to stick to my decision to refrain from blog comments until after exams. Though I would make some minor points:

I really don't think my choice to alter my sexuality for God is that sad. I accept that being abandoned by Christian friends is harsh, but one thing I have found in Church is the difficulty in telling genuine friends apart from friendly co-religionists; Christians are called to love their neighbour as themselves but
that's not the same thing as being actual friends with everyone. There aren't enough hours in the day, and clearly people should be free to make friends with who they choose without justification. If someone in the secular world displayed the love and interest in me that Christians are called to do then I would understandably regard them as a friend. I think part of my sexuality issues includes boundary problems/need for love etc which has caused problems in this regard. Certainly, I used to regard St.Silas types as hypocrites for not being friends with me (re: lavishing me with attention) in spite of the fact that (in many cases) they had far more unselfish love for me than I did for them.For the vast majority of my time at St.Silas I was an undisputed champion terrible person.As regards guilt: the emotions I experience in relation to the harm I did to people who (I now see) tried to love me is one of the few proofs I have of a conscience, and I would not exchange that for a life without awareness. I would speculate that however negative your experience of St.Silas I have been there emotionally; at one point they changed the pub they went to after Church after I spent weeks tagging along and getting blitzed and being abusive.Arrogant sinfulness and vodka is an ugly combination. Tangentially, I like the fact that said pub, The Hogshead, has been renamed the Primary, suggesting as it does Glasgow's charming culture of alcoholic children.And anyone who thinks Church is overly full of the joyless and legalistic should check out an AA meeting sometime.Oy gevalt.

I think I physically broke a glass window in a church door at some point. But I was still never denied Holy Communion (despite time in the Orange Order, I have a high view of the sacraments, which is why I went from Church of Scotland to St.Silas and St.Mary's Cathedral).Does the fact that I still come back to the place not indicate something beyond delusion? I know enough psychology to discount the most common other explanations, and I would hope by now you would at least concede that I am willing to examine what I believe in. I ascribe high motives to the Church for accepting me: I mean, what's in it for them? The most significant possible shatterpoint in my life at the time was not religion versus sexuality but, being mad, religion versus psychiatry. In reality, my seeking psychiatric treatment was encouraged (ok,commanded) by St.Silas staff (I'm 28 now, and have had mental problems since sixteen or so); at the time I - of course! - took offense at this (what right do Christians have to call *me* crazy!) but this is more proof of how ethical (spiritual?) sickness poisons one's view of everything. It might be cool to have a Star Wars themed gay wedding (the grooms could cross lightsabres[not a euphemism]before they exchange rings and kiss!) but although it could make me happy temporarily it would do very little for my moral regeneration, and I am idealistic enough, having exhausted the limits of oodles of sounds and furies, to believe that happiness and ethics should be in union.One of my justification for casual sex was that it was spontaneous and honest (in relationships this is not always so: obviously sex can be used as a weapon, a bargaining tool)and so more analogous to wit than the boring, wasteful conversations I had in Church. I was a fan of Wilde, as gays are wont to be and of course loved Larkin's sentiment in High Windows http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/high-windows/. My favourite authors remain atheistic or at least implicitly opposed to common Christian assumptions (e.g. Gore Vidal. And I think everyone should read Edmund White's "The Farewell Symphony"; I think that he would be applauded as one of the world's best authors if not for the homosexual focus of his fiction). Scripture, by its nature, is (to say the least)a lot broader and challenging and can seem cruel and cumbersome; the next step is to view it as anti-art and anti-life and that (therefore!) God as presented in the Bible is not real and if He was real He wouldn't be worthy of worship. I think a lot of people regard it as bright and canny to view themselves as the sum of people's opinions of themselves and then extrapolate that attitude to God.But God is not the sum of the misinterpretations of Him that you have accrued over the years, and the Bible is not the dull and cruel elaboration of how God plans to spoil all your fun that you may recall from Sunday School. I still, to my discredit, feel like a nutter when talking about Jesus but, similarly, He is far above anyone else in fiction or life if you are brave enough to have your perceptions radicalised.And even if someone else (Confuscious?Buddha?) came close there is not the chance of becoming like them beyond attempting to follow their teachings which,if history tells us anything,never works.

I emphasise the personal dimension because, although no-one can fault your intellectual learning and commitment,I sense a lot of anger towards the church that it could be fruitful to examine and work through. I of course grant that such anger, if it exists, might be entirely justified. And I am only giving my opinion, not speaking ex cathedra, so if you think I'm talking crap don't regard it as further proof of the essential lack of sense of Christians.

I'll be back to debate in detail at some point and will continue to read the blog. I'm a fan of the Star Wars prequels so am used to arguing an unpopular opinion. My other main intellectual discipline is (ahem) Batman. How cool is this? (new trailer for the Dark Knight):

http://atasteforthetheatrical.com
/deathtrap/default.htm

MTFBWY!
Ryan

18 December 2007 14:43
Delete

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the edit Bruce. You can now add editor to your ringmaster and apologist hats! The Batman link didn't work so I'm giving it again. If it still doesn't work I'd urge you to copy the link and paste it into a search engine. It's really cool.

http://atasteforthetheatrical.com
/deathtrap/default.htm

Ryan

Anonymous said...

Ryan,

I disagree that christians are more loving, some of the most bitter hate-filled people I know are christian.I am gad you are happier, but that does not convince me there is a god. You are surrounded by supportive peope, that can change you. I presume you are also getting some non religious therapy too.
Like I said, it is not the sex that has hurt people, it is how it has been used.

I spent about 6 months hating going to church, but still went, so the fact you still go does not argue against a delusion.
My anger (it's almost indifference now) was entierly justified, but that has nothing to do with how I can look at the evidence for god - an example that christians dont seem to like would be an amputee growing a new limb. Angry or not, the amputee still grows a new limb and I would acknowlegde it.
Anger would not prevent me seeing that the ontological, teleological, moral and cosmological arguments are fallacious. Such claims used to offend me, but it does not affect my critical thinking. The difference in the past was that I believed without any evidence (or experience). What I now realise is that I had no evidence or experience.

Anyway, all the best

Billy

Anonymous said...

Billy

As mentioned before, I can't really continue an in-depth discussion but I'm curious about the anger. Do you mean you were angry because you went to Church but didn't believe it? Or did you believe it and then become angry when you discovered arguments against religion that convinced you? Or are you angry at how the Church treated you or others?

Anonymous said...

Also, I'm not sure that you'd regard it as scientific but I (as you suggest) *have* been extensively involved in psychological therapies (councelling, psychotherapy, been referred for CBT but the waiting list is long) and have found that Christianity was *at least as effective* as them in terms of diminishing destructive thoughts and emotions. I of course disagree, however, with those who advance the idea of biblical councilling at the expense of psychiatric medication.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ryan,

I sense a lot of anger towards the church that it could be fruitful to examine and work through.

Not from me… never been religious – so the church not done anything directly to me (apart from shape the history of the world in which I live.)

I'll be back to debate in detail at some point and will continue to read the blog.

Look forward to it.

I'm a fan of the Star Wars prequels so am used to arguing an unpopular opinion.

There is a reason why this position is unpopular you know? Another time…

My other main intellectual discipline is (ahem) Batman. How cool is this?

I liked the last movie… a good actor that chap.

Now go back and study! Go do your revision!!! We will still be here debating rubbish so long as Bruce is posting.

Lee

Anonymous said...

Hi Ryan,
I replied to your question about anger, but Bruce is not happy publishing it. If you want, you can contact him directly, although my personal feeling on the matter is that this issue should not be screened from people.

Anonymous said...

Billy wrote:
although my personal feeling on the matter is that this issue should not be screened from people.


If there was not personal attacks or swearing... I do not see a problem.

Bruce, I'm over 18 years of age... can we read it please?

Lee

Bruce said...

Billy has strong feelings against someone who was in the congregation based on his personal interaction with that person. Beyond that, in view of possible St Silas readership, I'm not prepared to comment.

Anonymous said...

I should point out that is why I will not set foot in that chuch again, but there was other anger caused by faith and god's absence and feeling ignored by him. Atheism makes sense of the latter

Anonymous said...

Ryan

I was happy to read that - as you put it, you were never kicked out of church.
I was - kicked out of a Baptist church I was a member of.
It came completely out of the blue,I was told one day that I had been removed from the members roll for not attending enough meetings,at the time I was living like a monk.
And there was no follow up either no one came to see me or asked me how I was, and I felt devastated.

To me what happened was they could not get out of accepting me as a member, but jumped at the first excuse to get rid of me because I'm a Traveller.

Anonymous said...

Jimmy

I agree that's terrible. I - and I think most Christians - would concede that there are a lot of bad Churches out there. I don't think St.Silas would treat you that way.

Anonymous said...

Billy

I note that I haven't answered your homosexuality/mental illness query. The information I refer to was, if I recall, specifically in regard to mental illness rates in same-sex couples in gay-friendly countries e.g. the Netherlands. It was part of an article on the theologian Robert Gagnon's site :
http://www.robgagnon.net/

However I can't remember which specific article it was and, given aforementioned exams, don't have time to search for it. As such, you may view this as an unsatisfactory answer, but I would emphasise that I did read something about gay/mental illness rates.NARTH http://www.narth.com/ would probably be a source of secular (or at least not necessarily religious) arguments on the subject.

Lee - I won't get into the Star Wars prequels, but George Lucas is correct when he says that most of the criticisms aimed at the prequels were made of the original trilogy, and it is the worst form of revisionism to pretend otherwise: as Harrison Ford famously said "you can type this stuff but you can't say it" (yes, I know that's not *exactly* what he said but I don't want to force Bruce to do some more editing again!). If the Phantom Menace had been released first in 1977 it would have caused the same childhood ephiphanies as A New Hope; I also like the political content of the prequels which is surely proof that Lucas, despite such criticisms, is manifestly not just making two hour toy commercials. Can one realy conceive of a focus group led mainstream studio regarding telling the story of how democracies become dictatorships or how good people become bad as a means for shifting action figures? And the mooted wooden dialogue and acting is merely a style consistent with old, John Ford style movies and the Flash Gordon serials that are a main source for Star Wars: much as I love the realism and energy introduced into film by the likes of Scorcese and Coppola it is only *a* style, not the one true way to make movies.

And have none of you got an opinion on the Batman trailer?! There's more to life than arguing about god (or God) you know ;-)!

Actually, that point has some relevance to my faith: I used to be a quasi-puritant who thought that TV and music where largely sinful or at the very least a waste of time. But now I enjoy Rap ("Wu-Tang Clan on your mind one time!" "If you can't respect that your whole perspective is wack, maybe you'll love me when I fade to black") ostensibly theologically troubling movies such as Brokeback Mountain (even Christianity Today gave it three stars!) and comics, lovely comics. There's far more liberty in the Christian walk than at first appears, and one has the satisfaction of knowing that said freedom operates in accordance with larger Truth.

Forgive the capital T, but nothing else would do. I am aware of Joyce's denuciation of "those big words that make us so unhappy".


Ryan

Anonymous said...

Oh and here's some stuff from a Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Christian site (http://whosoever.org/index.shtml) on why the OT laws, which Billy emphasised as binding, don't apply to Christians today:

It is clear that the Christian church does not abide by the Holiness Code. It was a set of regulations which governed the Hebrew tribes but is not considered binding on the Christian church because there is now a NEW COVENANT IN JESUS CHRIST! The following verses talk about this New Covenant:

Colossians 2:16-17 "Therefore let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is Christ."

Hebrews 8:18 "For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect."

Hebrews 8:13 "In that Christ says 'a new covenant,' Christ has made the first obsolete."

Hebrews 9:9-10 The Old Covenant "was symbolic...concerned only with foods and drink, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation."

There are those who recognize that Christians are under a New Covenant and yet state that the Old Covenant was divided into three parts, civil, ceremonial and moral. They then insist that the moral part of the Old Covenant remain in force. This distinction can nowhere be found in the Old Covenant itself. In fact, many guidelines clearly have both a civil/ceremonial use AND a moral one (See Leviticus 19:13). Who, then, has the authority to decide "this is morality, but this is civil procedure and this is ceremonial..."?

Ryan

Anonymous said...

Hi Ryan,

Lee - I won't get into the Star Wars prequels

You just did!

But let’s call it a draw… just to say I’m not one of those who hate the prequels because they have disgraced the original holy trinity.

Another time..

Lee

Anonymous said...

It is clear that the Christian church does not abide by the Holiness Code.

so where does the Christian church get it morals if not from the bible?

How does someone choose which laws to follow, and which to ignore if it is the person who decides?

Lee

Anonymous said...

Ryan,

Those verses were written after jesus allegedly said the law will not disappear. He did not say them. Eitherway, my main point is that the OT laws reflect the moral values of god, and that he says homosexuality is wrong - personally, I dont see why.

Thanks for the links, I'll check them later

Anonymous said...

Lee

Good to hear holy trinity forming part of your vocabulary.
;-)

Anonymous said...

Did a message by Lee get deleted? It seemed uncontroversial and I was going to reply to it but it doesn't seem to be their anymore.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ryan,

Good to hear holy trinity forming part of your vocabulary.

Glad you liked my reference, on second reading some Christians could be offended by such a comment. Phew... I was lucky.

Just downloading the batman trailer.. I know it will be cool

Lee

Bruce said...

Not aware of having deleted one of Lee's comments; perhaps Lee/Ryan cd clarify which one ie what was it about?

Anonymous said...

Hi Bruce,

Not aware of having deleted one of Lee's comments; perhaps Lee/Ryan cd clarify which one ie what was it about?

I've no idea... I "fire and forget" - so long as I see it posted I'm happy.

Hi Ryan,

If you give me a clue, I probably have a copy of it around somewhere.

BTW... watched the batman trailer - it was as good as I knew it would be. Thanks for the link.

Lee

Anonymous said...

Found the message sorry. I've subscribed to the posts and it came to me after the "Holy Trinity" one which is why when I didn't see it in that position on the blog here I assumed it had deleted. Mea Culpa.

To answer its question, the NT is full of pastoral letters and commentary which outline what the moral requirements of following Christ are. The Holiness code is no longer completely binding and it is unfair to expect Christians to live like Orthodox Jews. Talking of Jews, do you know what the ritual is for a man who converts to Judaism who's already circumscised ? Apparently they "just" prick the penis and take a drop of blood instead. Oy.

Glad you like the Batman trailer. Ledger's Joker sounds psychotic and scary which is how he should be. Know of some people that don't like Batman's bike though.

Would be interesting to hear Billy's take on the links. When I would have described myself as gay I would have regarded such sites as comparable to the Protoculs of the Elders of Zion, but my attitude was more proud and hateful than open to intellectual debate. But I concede that it is harder to form secular arguments against homosexuality than it is Scriptural ones.

Anonymous said...

I'd also make the point that, due to the renovation of the heart that occurs in Christianity, one hopefully develops a wider conception of temptations to be avoided than just the most obvious destructive behaviour. I read Angels in American on Thursday, which is a truly groundbreaking and excellent play, and I confess that it's gay focus did raise thoughts about the desirability of the homosexual lifestylre. All my favourite authors tend to be pro-gay : Edmund White, Gore Vidal etc. But I've had long experience of dissatisfaction with homosexuality and I don't think it's fair to blame that just on my psychological problems. Maybe if I had never contemplated God then I would be happy just coming out of the closet, but my experience does suggest that there's merit in Christianity's claim to address and fufill the need for something else in life. As regards your evolutionary basis of morality position: I recall Stephen Fry making the point (in the context of defending homosexuality) that the higher human emotions such as love and self-sacrifice are unnatural in the sense of not occuring in animals too.

And here's a link about the religions of superheroes:
http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/comic_book_religion.html

Batman is Catholic or Episcopalian!

Anonymous said...

Hi Ryan,

Know of some people that don't like Batman's bike though.

I really like the look of the bike, but the wife pointed out to me that there was too much tyre in contact with the road, and with the the width of the wheels it would go round corners like an oil-tanker.

The joker was cool as well... like the make-up.

Must go... no time tonight.

Lee

Anonymous said...

I'm sure they'll have some cool explanation to make the Bike go round corners well. I think the best movie Batmobile was still the one in the original Tim Burton film. There's a website that compiles all the different incarnations of the Batmobile in all the media Batman's been in.

The Joker looks good - Ledger's a really good actor. Have you seen Brokeback Mountain?

Anonymous said...

Hi Ryan,

The Joker looks good - Ledger's a really good actor. Have you seen Brokeback Mountain?

I've seen Knight's Tale? (The wife fancies him in that movie for some reason?) not seen Brokeback Mountain - cowboy/western movien are not my thing.
(This isn't a "gay test" is it?)

Lee

Anonymous said...

Are posts getting lost again? I cannot believe the posting has stopped...

Lee

Anonymous said...

Hi Bruce,

I've lost another post then methinks.

Oh well...

Lee

Anonymous said...

Hi Lee

No, it's not a gay test! Brokeback Mountain is just an excellent movie. Most of my tastes (in music, literature etc) tend to be gay and/or atheistic - with the honourable exception of Norman Mailer who beat up a sailor for implying that Mailer's dog was gay! I'm not sure if that's something I should adress - David McCarthy told me that you get Christian rap, which I suppose I could look in to. Certainly don't want to give up reading Gore Vidal though.

Anonymous said...

Hi Ryan,

No, it's not a gay test! Brokeback Mountain is just an excellent movie.

Phew...

Not sure the wife would want to watch the film though... she has fancied Ledger for a long time now (10 things I hate about you I think was the first movie?). Also, not sure about the gay thing in a movie if this is the main focus. (For the same reason I do not want to watch a film with the main focus on stamp collecting... I have no interest in it. In the background it is fine, have you seen “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” – now that is a good movie)

So since you have seen Brokeback Mountain, is the gay relationship the main focus or not? It is what the reviews have focused on.

Lee

Anonymous said...

Lee

Brokeback Mountain is just an excellent love story, really good in its potrayal of loss too. I would say that it's main focus is on the love astory which operates on a level more universal than the particulars of the character's sexuality; gay people can enjoy Romeo and Juliet so why can't straight people watch Brokeback Mountain?

The twin leads spend much of the story married to women, and there is very little explicit material (the trailer was berated for showing heterosexual but not homosexual kissing). Acute homophobes plainly wouldn't like it but it really is a good movie.

Bruce said...

I thought it was a pretty good film too.

Anonymous said...

Hi,

RE: Brokeback Mountain

You sold me it is not as bad as I thought... but it is still a "love movie"... it is not my type of movie really, but I'll try and watch it at some point, but not sure the wife will want to see it.

Lee

Anonymous said...

While I'm converting people to pro-gay literature..... I also highly recommend the major-award winning play "Angels in America". It's one of the texts in the Uni course I'm doing and it's really excellent. Tangentially, when I was in Sauchiehall Street Waterstone's yesterday they told me that the Gay and Lesbian section had been temporarily disbanded, thus forcing me to browse in the religion section. The hand of God is everywhere ;-) !

Anonymous said...

Hi Ryan,

they told me that the Gay and Lesbian section had been temporarily disbanded, thus forcing me to browse in the religion section. The hand of God is everywhere ;-) !

Interestingly(?)... when I went to purchase "the God Delusion" - I could not find it in the store (silly me was looking in the science section).

I was told to look in the religion section - and Quetzalcoatl be praised, there it was. It made me laugh anyway.

Lee