Ten Christian Lunacies
This post is a direct response to Mark A. Hershberger. On February 22nd I made a comment on Jeremy Stein’s blog in which I said the following:
I run the aforementioned Losing Faith in Faith Since 1997 site: Ex-WCG Non-Believers. My site deals specifically with people who both had experience in the WCG and who have found good reason to question religion in its entirety. A niche to be sure, but I’d like to point out that I commonly encounter the attitude of, “Boy, glad I didn’t grow up in that cult! I’m just a plain old Christian.” Sorry if this offends anyone, but to those of us who grew up in any flavor of Christianity and ultimately rejected it, it all looks like a historically destructive (and still potentially dangerous) cult, or at minimum a widespread (if amicable) lunacy. Perhaps it’s just a bit easier to see the lunacy when one has experienced its extremes.
A few comments later, Mr. Hershberger responded:
I’m taking issue with the statement that Christianity is at “minimum a widespread (if amicable) lunacy.” I understand that as meaning “whatever else Christianity is, it [is] a madness — you can’t escape its insanity.” Please rephrase If I’m paraphrasing you incorrectly.
What does that mean? What makes Christianity Lunacy? What do you make of Christianity’s contributions to humanity? Or do you think it has made none?
Mr. Hershberger also added in a separate comment:
Hmm… I feel I must add that I don’t think it is necessary for Christianity to have pragmatic value (”What do you make of Christianity’s contributions to humanity?”) Christianity would be worthwhile even if the act of following Christ doesn’t contribute to the progress of mankind.
Perhaps that is what you meant by lunacy?
Mr. Hershberger, I have decided to take your question at face value. I don’t use the term “lunacy” lightly, and I felt the qualifier “amicable” was important enough to include because, frankly, I know and like many Christians, and I never wish to engage in simple name-calling. But it will take some space to give your question a serious answer. So, I have written the following article, in which I enumerate and explain my personal top ten reasons for calling Christianity “lunacy.”
Because your second comment effectively withdrew the question of Christianity’s contributions to humanity, I have chosen not to address that aspect directly here, although I do touch on it in places.
1. Original Sin
Original Sin is the idea that we are all born into an inherent state of “sinfulness” that ineluctably damns each individual to eternal punishment.
Look at a baby and tell me how that child, by any stretch of the imagination, has committed a crime. It didn’t even ask to be born! But you, the Christian, want me to admit that the Christian God thinks that child is intrinsically worthy of ultimate punishment?
And if you want to trace Original Sin back to the mythical Garden of Eden, then you would have to admit that your all-knowing God must have known that Adam and Eve would have eventually eaten of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and thus God essentially entrapped them. Even if you want to say that the Serpent enticed them, then it was done with your all-knowing God’s knowledge and consent.
Original Sin, then, is a manufactured “problem” for which Christianity then offers itself to us as the “solution.” That’s lunacy!
2. Salvation
Christians cannot agree amongst themselves on many topics relevant to their faith, and not least among these disagreements is how one is to be delivered from sin— because each sect interprets their “holy and perfect” scriptures their own way. Moreover, many teach that the other sects have it wrong, and that to practice the wrong set of salvational doctrines is likely to land sincere, yet mistaken, believers in the same hell as unrepentant sinners. In other words, no matter what kind of Christian I decide to be, there will always be some other “Christian” out there who says I’m going the wrong way, and who use their interpretations of the Bible to back them up. That’s lunacy!
3. Substitutionary Atonement
One thing most Christians seem to agree on is that “Jesus died for your sins.” In other words, that, even though you are guilty of both Original Sin and all the other crimes you’ve committed in your life, that God somehow accepts the death of Jesus on the cross as a fitting substitute for punishing you directly for those sins through damnation. There are a couple serious problems with this idea.
First of all, it makes no sense. If my son commits a crime and is brought to justice, there is no court in the world that would allow me to suffer his just punishment while he goes free. Even if I could prove to the court that I had never committed any crime, this would not matter. The idea that one should reap the consequences of one’s own actions is an intrinsic part of the humanistic moral code to which we all adhere, except when we believe that God corruptly hands “get out of jail free” cards to whomever he pleases.
Secondly, it is really not much of a sacrifice. Assuming for the moment that Jesus believed he was some aspect of God incarnate, he must also have believed that his suffering and “death” would not be permanent— that very soon he would be back in the godhead with all the power attendant to it. From this perspective, this seems much less an “ultimate sacrifice” and much more a temporary inconvenience.
So the idea of Substitutionary Atonement can only be accepted by irrationally suspending common sense, and accepting that God’s morals, though corrupt by human standards, are somehow better. That’s lunacy!
From Dead to Rights, by Rev. Jim Huber
4. Heaven and Hell
So what happens to people who do, or don’t, run the gauntlet of Original Sin, Salvation, and Substitutionary Atonement?
Well, the good ones get to spend eternity with God in Heaven, and the bad ones go to Hell to be tortured for all eternity.
Why?
Because it is God’s will.
Could he have prevented it?
You bet— he’s all-powerful.
Why didn’t he?
Because it is His will.
But why is it his will that some should spend eternity in torment when he could prevent it if he chose?
It’s a mystery.
But what about people who lived before Jesus ever “saved” humanity? They get hell too. Or purgatory. Or perhaps we don’t know— it depends on what kind of Christian you’re talking to. The other Christians are wrong, of course.
That’s lunacy!
5. The Problem of Evil
Christians claim their God is Ultimate Love. They pray to their God for everything from miracle cancer cures to the victory of their favorite football team. They credit God with responsibility for All Things Bright and Beautiful. On the flip side, they put responsibility for all evil on Satan the Devil, The Deceiver, the Big Bad Guy in Hell, who was one of God’s homeys once upon a time, but decided to go his own way— which, as all Christians know, must be “away from God.”
But God is all-powerful! So he must have let this happen! He is all-knowing! So he must have known it would happen! And he is all-loving! So he must know that it is ultimately good that it happen!
Wait a minute.
God knew that Satan would cause all the pain and suffering? He could have prevented it? Those two facts together would, in most people’s minds, make God complicit in the act. If Satan does something, it is with God’s knowing consent. So morally, what is the difference between God and Satan? There is none— Satan is merely God’s tool. In fact, in the Bible God admits he creates evil and calamity even though, being all-powerful and all-knowing, he doesn’t have to.
Why?
Apparently because he loves us. Welcome to The Problem of Evil. Christians accept that their god is a paradox: all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving, and fully responsible for the worst evils imaginable. That’s lunacy!
6. The “Morality” of Divine Edict
I am an atheist. I don’t claim I can prove the non-existence of any and all gods (depending on how they are defined) but I do claim that common religious “god belief” is pretty much in the same category as “unicorn belief.” I am an “a-theist” in the sense that you are most likely an “a-unicornist,” whether or not you’ve ever thought to call yourself that.
One common attack on atheists is that humans need morals, and that atheism is inherently amoral. Well, I’m here to tell you… I agree completely.
I agree because “atheism” is merely a refutation of theism— an outcome of skepticism. It is not a complete framework in which to live a moral life. It is certainly true that Stalin, Lenin, and a number of other notable people who committed atrocities also denied the existence of a god. But this in no way refutes atheism— it only refutes the moral frameworks upon which these people lived. Therefore, attacking atheism because it is amoral makes as much sense as attacking religion because it doesn’t provide a firm foundation in Computer Science.
And this is a big part of Christianity’s attractiveness: it tells people how to live— it provides a moral framework. Unfortunately, Christianity as a framework has at least one grave shortcoming: it is just as morally relativistic as it claims that non-believers are. But it is actually even worse, because although Christians claim that their morals are anchored in those of a perfect, loving, unchanging God, the Bible reveals that God to be mercurial, capricious, and often downright cruel. When confronted with the many moral atrocities committed by God as described in the Bible, Christians retreat to the dubious position that God in his infinite wisdom knows what he is doing, and that humans have no place to doubt the ultimate morality of God’s actions.
Well, I call BS on that.
God is supposed to be setting us humans an example. What kind of example did he set when he helped Elisha slaughter 42 children with bears? (II Kings 2:23-24
) Or his ordering Abraham to sacrifice his son as a “test?” There are plenty more biblical examples of actions by or condoned by God, that would be easily seen as psychopathic if taken by any human. Yet people give God a moral free ride, because, you know, he’s God! The thing is, since God is supposedly all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving, he should also be quite capable of taking actions that are transparently obvious as being the actions of a loving god. Yet over and over he makes a conscious choice not to (for how can God’s choices be anything other), and his defenders rise to every occasion of killing, torture, depravity, and twisted logic— loudly proclaiming our ignorance of both God’s ends and his means. And more ominously, if they do claim that they understand God’s ends or means, then they are usually found using this “knowledge” to defend their own twisted actions performed in the name of carrying out God’s divine will. That’s lunacy!
As an aside, a large part of my moral framework comes from Humanism— a philosophy villified by many Christians not because it is demonstrably evil, but because it competes with their religion by challenging people to take the work of human happiness into their own hands.
7. Holy Apathy
All believers in an afterlife, including Christians, have essentially been given divine license to “give up” on this life, seeing it purely as a rehearsal or test to see whether they are worthy of the Divine Rewards. This anti-life attitude manifests in many subtle and not-so-subtle ways.
In the most extreme cases we have suicide bombers and other kinds of willing martyrs— people who see their own lives as disposable, because they believe that in the act of killing themselves a better life will, video game-like, be immediately granted. Like the “sacrifice” of Jesus Christ, they don’t really see their termination as any kind of deep loss— they are doing God’s will and fully expect to be richly rewarded.
Somewhat more subtle is the attitude among those who are citizens of a nation (supposed by them) that God favors. In their eyes, the actions of their government (no matter how disastrous their obvious consequences) have the sheen of Divine Approval, and they rest easy in their hubris that God will eventually sort it all out.
Still more subtle is the quite-pervasive attitude among Christians that, “I can’t wait for Jesus to return and fix this horrible world— look at the mess Satan and his demons have made, and we depraved humans have only helped them!” This attitude is quite pernicious, because it tacitly asserts that the world is beyond repair, and expresses a hopelessness that humans can, individually or collectively, bring about significant improvement.
Even Christians who devote a certain amount of energy towards helping the poor or raising the standard of living around the world, when pressed, will admit that they’re doing it not because it is obviously a good thing to do, but because God commands them to, and that ultimately their hope is not in making the world better through human efforts, but in divine intervention. Because of this, success is not measured in mouths fed, or houses built, or living skills taught, but in “souls saved.” In carrying this self-righteous missionary attitude, these Christians are in the most subtle way contributing to this self-fulfilling prophesy of apathy and societal decay.
That’s lunacy!
“Pray for the dead, and fight like hell for the living!” — Mother Jones
8. Mysteries Answered by Deeper Mysteries
Christian evangelists will often approach people with an opening like, “Do you want to know what’s really important in life? Do you want to know how to find true happiness and fulfillment? Do you want to know why you are here? Do you want the answers that for so long have eluded the ‘educated greats’ of the world? Well, let me tell you, those answers are all found in the Holy Bible: inspired and written by our perfect, loving creator God. Yes, the Bible is God’s instruction book for living— startlingly accurate, and completely relevant to today’s fast-changing world.”
Hang on to your wallet.
Does the Bible offer a definitive moral code? Does it answer the deepest mysteries? Does it really tell you why you are here?
Sorry, no.
Christianity, in its multitude of interpretations, sects, factions, and schisms, does provide a moral framework, or rather, a meta-framework in which many conflicting moral frameworks can be defended. The Bible says “God is not the author of confusion,” (I Cor 14:33). Yet as discussed above, Christendom is a mass of confusion. And as moral frameworks go, it still requires the acceptance of deeply lunatic ideas like Original Sin, Salvation, Subsitutionary Atonement, and so on. A truly all-powerful God could have “authored” a world, or at least a religion, with much less confusion in it, and any confusion present is ultimately his responsibility.
And what about the deepest mysteries?
Why does the universe exist?
Because God made it.
But who made God?
No-one made God.
How do you know?
The Bible tells us so. God has always existed.
How do you know the Bible is accurate?
Because God says it is true.
Where does God say it’s true?
In the Bible!
Okay, you said God has always existed. Isn’t it simpler to believe that the universe has always existed?
We know the universe hasn’t always existed. There was the Big Bang, you know.
But how do you know God caused the Big Bang?
Because the Bible says so— God created the heavens and the earth.
How do you know the Big Bang was not the result of some natural process we don’t yet understand?
Because that would contradict the Bible, and we know the Bible is true.
But the Bible contains many scientific innacuracies, such as asserting that Pi is equal to 3.0. In what sense, then, is the Bible true?
It is here that the believer must begin to backpedal, defending the Bible’s accuracy where it supports their particular worldview, and cutting it slack where its accuracy is plainly lacking. An all-powerful God could have inspired an astoundingly accurate text, but apparently chose not to.
And what does the Bible say is my purpose in life?
To please God by doing his will.
And what is God’s will?
Well, Jesus said “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
But many other philosphers, even pre-dating Jesus, said essentially the same thing. That idea is not unique to Christianity at all.
Well, you also need to accept Jesus as your personal savior in order to go to heaven and avoid hellfire.
But then we’re back on Substitutionary Atonement, Salvation, and Heaven and Hell.
So Christianity is a bait-and-switch— offering the answers to deep mysteries, but only replacing them with even deeper mysteries. That’s lunacy!
9. Airtight Beliefs
If someone claims to have an open mind on a subject, then they must consider what sort of evidence could possibly shake them loose from their currently-held position— in other words their position must be falsifiable. This is an essential aspect of skepticism, which simply put is “open-minded non-belief.” As I mention above, atheism is simply the outcome of skepticism applied to unsatisfactory thelogical argument and evidence. But this then raises the question: what would qualify as believable evidence for a God, and furthermore for the truths espoused by (some form of) Christianity?
As a skeptic, I think this is a very good question, and I have often considered it. What kind of evidence would cause me to become a Christian? Here is a set of criteria that, for me, would suffice:
- Dramatic. The evidence would have to be of “biblical proportion.” There are plenty of examples in the Bible that qualify. The parting of the Red Sea for instance— wouldn’t that make a great special on CNN?
- Persistent. The evidence would have to be something that changes the way the world is, and where the world stays that way indefinitely. Such as everyone suddenly getting to see and talk to their own (and everyone else’s) “guardian angel.” Permanently.
- Pervasive. The evidence would have to be visible and testable by everyone on Earth.
- Explanatory. The evidence must clear up, for both the child and the most educated adult, the morass of confusion surrounding religion. The right way to observe the right religion must be articulated, and it must make sense to everyone. It must provide definitive and irrefutable answers to issues like The Problem of Evil. It must also provide explanatory power over non-religious mysteries that still puzzle humans, for instance reconciling Quantum Physics and General Relativity.
By now, a lot of Christians reading this are probably thinking, “That’s a bit much! God won’t just do that to please little Robert McNally! What an egotist— he just doesn’t want to believe.” But hold on there, buckos: remember that the Christian God is all-powerful, and therefore perfectly capable of providing such evidence. Therefore, if he exists he is choosing not to provide it. Secondly, Christians already have such an event in their eschatology: the Second Coming. In some interpretations of this idea, this sort of evidence is what will be provided to the whole world.
So I suppose God just wants me to be an atheist right now. Isn’t it nice to know one’s place in the Divine Plan?
But what about you? If you’re a Christian what sort of evidence could, in theory, be presented to shake your faith? If you can conceive of nothing that would, then you have an airtight belief system, and perhaps your beliefs are intellectually dishonest. That’s lunacy!
[Edit: Here’s another atheist’s guide for theists looking for evidence that will convert atheists.]
10. Disturbing Mythological Tales Held as True
Christians, like most people, don’t usually let personal belief in miracles affect their actions. We go about our daily lives believing that natural laws always apply, and that they are not capriciously suspended on the whim of some spirit-being. Many Christians, however, do claim to have experienced miracles in their lives or they know of some relative’s friend who claims to have witnessed a miracle. Unfortunately, like Bigfoot and UFOs, these personal miracles are never rigorously documented, and so forever remain in the shadowy realm of personal anecdotes. Furthermore, by some very reasonable calculations, unusual things, even things some would consider miracles, are continuously occuring and completely attributable to statistics.
But what about the Bible? Here Christians are willing to cut the most outrageous myths the most outrageous amount of slack. Dan Barker, a former Christian minister turned atheist, said it well in his essay Dear Believer:
I find it incredible that you ask me to believe that the earth was created in six literal days; women come from a man’s rib; a snake, a donkey, and a burning bush spoke human language; the entire world was flooded, covering the mountains to drown evil; all animal species, millions of them, rode on one boat; language variations stem from the tower of Babel; Moses had a magic wand; the Nile turned to blood; a stick turned into a snake; witches, wizards, and sorcerers really exist; food rained from the sky for 40 years; people were cured by the sight of a brass serpent; the sun stood still to help Joshua win a battle, and it went backward for King Hezekiah; men survived unaided in a fiery furnace; a detached hand floated in the air and wrote on a wall; men followed a star which directed them to a particular house; Jesus walked on water unaided; fish and bread magically multiplied to feed the hungry; water instantly turned into wine; mental illness is caused by demons; a “devil” with wings exists who causes evil; people were healed by stepping into a pool agitated by angels; disembodied voices spoke from the sky; Jesus vanished and later materialized from thin air; people were healed by Peter’s shadow; angels broke people out of jail; a fiery lake of eternal torment awaits unbelievers under the earth … while there is life-after-death in a city which is 1,500 miles cubed, with mansions and food, for Christians only.
If you believe these stories, then you are the one with the problem, not me. These myths violate natural law, contradict science, and fail to correspond with reality or logic. If you can’t see that, then you can’t separate truth from fantasy. It doesn’t matter how many people accept delusions inflicted by “holy” men; a widely held lie is still a lie. If you are so gullible, then you are like the child who believes the older brother who says there is a monster in the hallway. But there is nothing to be afraid of; go turn on the light and look for yourself.
Yet here we are, in a heavily Christian society, where children are commonly taught that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are myths, but all these other things are absolutely true.
That’s lunacy!
March 5th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
[…] I have just posted an article I wrote, Ten Christian Lunacies, over at my personal blog. It was inspired by a WCG-related discussion I engaged in on a separate blog. Explore posts in the same categories: Article […]
March 5th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
Excellent analysis. As an ex-catholic, I have understood well that the roots of my disbelief were not the scientific contradictions in Christianity, but the moral ones. Ironically, this aligns perfectly with what my Catholic teachers taught me - that one cannot “convert” people by arguing facts, but by being an example - that when it comes to religion, the moral argument is far more compelling than the intellectual one. I am perfectly capable of rationalising away the logical inconsistancies and scientific contradictions in the Bible (I do it all the time with Star Trek), but I cannot rationalize away my compassion for the lost souls who didn’t make the cut.
I’ve managed to boil this all down to a pithy one-liner: “I could never be happy in heaven, knowing that my brothers and sisters were suffering in hell.”
March 5th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Bravo!!! You’ve managed to elicit a standing ovation from this crowd. My whole life has been haunted by Christianity through serveral different sects. Honestly, there was always a deeper part of me that rejected the romantisized idealisms of each and every one. Geez, to this day, whenever I seem to be struggling with something in my life, I hear the following: “What you need is to come to Church. I just know it will make everything better.” My gut response to this is: “What?!? How can going to Church help me to learn Algebra better, or teach me how to manage my time so that everything I need to accomplish is encompassed and no single aspect suffers?” Are you kidding me? I mean really, just adding the attendance of church to my already unreal schedule would in fact create more problems. While I have many Christian friends and even family members I do not subscribe to the, “Going to Church will solve all your difficulties in life.” concept.
Your words have very deep meaning for me. Always, I feel these things on an emotional level, but putting them into words has never been my strong suit. I, for one, am ever so grateful to know that there are intelligent, rational people out there such as yourself that feel the same way and have a propencity for putting it in a powerful written form. I can’t tell you how often I feel as though I am being run rough-shod over by an exuberantly zealous Christian. I am not one to ram my beliefs down anyone else’s throat, so I often sit in silence as they preach at me.
Thanks so much!!!
March 17th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
I’m not sure I agree with many of the premises of your points. However, the conclusions based on them seem logical. In fact, I, a Christian, agree that Christianity and the gospel are lunacy. The Bible even points this out, in a way:
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
)
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” (I Cor 1:18,19
March 17th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Tara,
I am familiar with that scripture. There are others like it as well. They all rely on you accepting the idea that you (and everyone else) are weak, depraved, and in need of saving. They say, in essence, “Don’t worry how idiotic this book of myths seems, because for reasons that are not likely to be made known any time soon, it is really amazingly cool Truth that the ’smart’ people can’t see.” Sorry, but I will not throw away my life on such a ruse.
But thanks for agreeing that my argument is valid. I do understand that a valid argument with invalid premises is at best right for the wrong reasons. So, why not point out the premises upon which I stand my argument that you feel are false?
Robert
March 21st, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Excellent. You have summed up just about everything that frustrates me about Christians that I know. I can’t understand how seemingly intelligent people who call themselves Christians use logic and common sense in just about every other part of their lives except for their religious beliefs. I have used many of the points which you have detailed in your article in discussions and debates with Christians, and have just about given up because their brains seem to shut down when they are faced with facts: That is why I resort to satire on my blog.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:50 am
As a christian I’d like to answer some of your points, if I may.
is the easiest/ simplest way to explain what everyone ought to be saying “… whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”
#1 ORIGINAL SIN: It’s true we believe that “all have sinned & fallen short of the glory of God”, however, there’s the ‘age of accountability’ to consider. This is different for each person [ie. mentally challenged people do not comprehend things as quickly as other], therefore, a baby would not be sent to Hell if it dies. Nor would a 30 yr old, if they couldn’t discern sin, or morality, or good vs. bad, etc…. Also you state God must have known about Adam & Eve sinning- that’s true. It wasn’t an “entrappment” though. God gave us all free-will; w/o it we would be robots. He knew Adam & Eve would sin but He also knew they would repent. He wants everyone to come to Heaven but only those who recognize their sin & believe in Him as the true God can enter.
#2 SALVATION: I agree w/ you that it is lunacy for all these sects to bicker & accuse one another over this issue. I can see your point & it’s well precieved. John 3:16
#3
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:58 am
For some reason my above reply was printed before I was done. Perhaps for the better it is a bit long & I will leave it at that. I think I can become long-winded at times. This ought not to come across as preachy [I’m certainly not trying to be] but simply as an explaination of how chritians think concerning the points you brought up.
I agree there are many out there professing to be christians, and are not. They give us a bad rap. I will visit your site again- it intrigues me & I will be happy to respond to comments or questions if anyone wishes to hear form me.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:04 pm
RJ,
Your comments on Original Sin largely don’t address the issue of Original Sin as a Christian doctrine. The teaching of Original Sin is not that “all eventually sin” but that each human is inherently sinful due to the Fall of Man. The idea of “age of responsibility” is a humanistic teaching, not a Christian one. Another humanistic idea is, “The punishment should fit the crime,” which, to Christians usually means that while God may have deeper pits in hell for more “serious” sinners, everyone is still worthy of death, if for no other reason than Original Sin.
So you admit that God knew that Adam and Eve would sin, but you don’t want to call it “entrapment” because he knew they would also repent. But for an all-knowing and all-powerful God, knowledge that something will happen is essentially the same as willing it to happen. So God wills Adam and Even to sin, so he can then will them to repent? To me this sounds like the government or some other authority “willing” me to break the law (entrapment) so they can then “will” me to become rehabilitated. How about not forcing me into a lawbreaking situation in the first place, mm’kay?
With regard to salvation, you seem to be saying that anyone who acknowledges Jesus will be saved. Are you including Mormons? Are you including Muslims (who believe Jesus was a prophet?) Are you including these people? How about these? What if I “believe in him” in the sense that I think he was a historical figure? Where do you draw the line? Oh, there? Well what about that “Christian” over there who draws it differently?
March 23rd, 2006 at 2:52 am
The company of someone who chooses to be w/ you is much sweeter than one who is forced/ or doesn’t have a choice in the matter. The great joy comes from knowing that person could be w/ another but instead is w/ you. This is why God gave us a choice- it’s a greater joy to have us choose to be with Him. If we don’t want to we don’t have to.
It wasn’t entrapment [to trick one into incriminating oneself]- neither Adam nor Eve had sinned up until that point, they couldn’t have incriminated themselves for something they hadn’t yet done. And just because someone/ God knows a thing to be doesn’t mean He wanted it to be. Yes He could have stopped Eve from eating the fruit, but then life wouldn’t be so special if everytime someone screwed up He simply erased it & we all started over. If the world had started over we may be discussing how Adam cursed God, ate the fruit. The only way to ensure nothing ever goes wrong is to erase free-will.
About salvation- Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, & the life; no one comes to the Father but by Me.” (John 14:6
). Mormons believe that Joseph Smith holds a higher place than Jesus Christ in heaven. They also believe that black people came from the demons, & the Bible isn’t a complete work- that’s why they wrote the Book of Mormon. They have many other strange beliefs [ie. becoming gods of their own universes after death] that don’t hold w/ the christian doctrine. Yes they do believe Jesus to be the Son of God but they don’t think He is the only road to salvation nor do they hold true everything He said. So no they are not saved in the Biblical sense.
)- meaning acknowledging He is the Saviour, The Son of God, the Light of the world, etc…. He professed to be these things & we christians believe it to be so. Others [ie. Mormons, Muslims, etc] do not. Muslims hold Muhammed to a higher degree than Jesus. They also believe the Koran is the proper word but Mohammed wrote that. That contradicts what the Bible says about Him being the The Way….
I did not mean simply acknowledging Jesus to have existed means you’re saved. The demons believe He exist. You have to believe in Him (John 3:16
As for chritians having differing opinions- that is unfortunate. The Bible does tell us how to avoid trouble & keep true to what Jesus taught but it also says “the spirit indeed is willing but the flesh is weak.” It’s difficult for me to answer your final question above w/o hearing the specifics of a particular peson. Like I said before some people profess to being christian but are not. I heard about you from your response to the article about Greg Albriecht. If it’s true what those people said about Greg [maybe it is or isn’t, I don’t know] then he would be a good example of someone who says he is but isn’t.
March 23rd, 2006 at 9:56 am
RJ,
Why do you limit you own supposedly illimitable God by claiming that “allowing” Adam and Eve to sin was the only way to have a “sweet” relationship with them? If God is sinless and happy, why could he not have created humans, or angels for that matter, that remain sinless and happy? Obviously that’s not what the Bible describes, but your position seems to be that it could not have happened any other way. But I do not accept the Bible a priori as you do.
I don’t understand how you can claim that, “just because God knows a thing to be doesn’t mean He wanted it to be.” You seem to be saying your God is not all-powerful— capable of creating beings that are his moral equals. The basic problem, if you read the references I have pointed to, is that the idea an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving “God” is fundamentally incompatible with both free will and the pain and suffering we see in the world. This is the paradoxical God described in the Bible and accepted by unthinking Christians. But again, I do not accept the Bible a priori as you do.
Then you spend some time judging other people I have pointed to: Mormons and Muslims specifically. It doesn’t appear you followed the other two links I provided to the Christian Mystics and Westboro Baptist Church. You also condemn Greg Albrecht, who is not Mormon or Muslim, but Christian. I could line up high-profile representatives of a hundred Christian groups from around the world, and you could spend all afternoon walking that line and putting each one of them down for one reason or another. But, who condemns you in the name of Christ, my friend? If you laid your doctrines on the table for all of Christendom to see, who would step forward claiming to be a true Christian and call you a heretic? I don’t doubt a good percentage of that line of Christians you just condemed would. So how does one choose among you? You all accept the BIble a priori.
My answer is to judge the Bible on its own merits, and in the context of history and science. My conclusion is that the confusion we see in Christendom is not merely “unfortunate” as you would have it: it is a tragic disaster that warns any thoughtful person away from its pyre. Any God that would “allow” such confusion among those who are supposedly his followers, not to mention the bloodshed and suffering caused in his name, is not in fact any kind of divinity but a myth— the construction of men for psychological, cultural, and political purposes; taken up again and again and reshaped by other men for their own purposes, and eventually evolving into the morass of conflicting concepts and doctrines we see today.
March 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 pm
I’ve often thought that arguments are really rooted in definitions of terms.
Your last comment smacks of “Could God have created a rock too heavy for Him to lift?”. What does “all-powerful” really mean? Especially if all-powerful has to be taken with “perfect”.
You’ll probably love bashing this one but, hey, I can’t resist:
— of course it’s even better with more context):
(from Romans 9
10Not only that, but Rebekah’s children had one and the same father, our father Isaac. 11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f] 16It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ “[h] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”[i] 26and,
“It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
they will be called ’sons of the living God.’ ”
And so on — basically, if God is all-powerful, etc. etc. (and our Creator), He has every right to do whatever He wishes (particularly when it brings glory to Himself) and we have no right to question. [Let me write the words ‘cop-out’ before you do — and, incidentally, I don’t think this is a mandate to stop thinking or trying to figure God out. *And*, I realize that I am operating from the premise that the Bible is true and that you are not but you’re probably used to that.]
March 24th, 2006 at 3:46 am
Ironwolf, you say “the christians I just condemned” but I didn’t condemn any. I mentioned muslims & mormons- neither of which are, nor profess to be christian. I said many say they are christian but aren’t. And I said (IF) Mr. Albrecht was what they said he was he wouldn’t be following Biblical teachings.
As for the christian mystics [I had not heard of them before this]- they seem to have meditation dealing more w/ relaxation techniques. They talk of “becoming the tree”, becoming the staff”, becoming the serpent” these are not Biblical.
& 8, I Tim 1:15
). They also seems to be hung up on some seething hatered toward gays. The Bible says “Who are you to judge your neighbor?” (James 4:12
). -I couldn’t get any farther into their site because my computer has some problems everytime I try to enter & I get logged off. But I have pointed out 2 things that Biblical teachings refute.
The Westboro church states Jesus died only for the believers but the Bible repeatedly states He died for all (Is 53:11-12, Rom 5:6
I realize others would condem me. I understand your observation [who does one choose among you] that it seems like a buffet line & there are so many choices. I was in a discussion once w/ someone who said ‘because the Bible can be misinterpreted means it has gray areas’ I don’t think so. I believe it can be black & white & still be misinterpreted. A person new to christianity has to choose which church [methodist, baptist, etc] they think the best. Not all are wrong; some differences are only minor. But since we are given the freedom to choose we must be sure we make a wise one.
Finally the problem of an Omnipotent/scient God allowing pain & suffering into the world. We all have freedom ( to choose A & not B). If we didn’t have freedom there would be no choices to make; we’d simply have A w/o the possiblity B- do you agree on those? I believe it better to have a choice, even if one of those choices is wrong. You said it’s impossible to have a God, as christians do, that allows evil. Again I state free-will (of any kind) opens the possiblity of rebellion. And someone who chooses freely to be w/ you & spend time w/ you is more lovable than one who has no choice but to be w/ you- do you agree? Because we are more lovable by having freedom, God made us that way, even though we could possibly turn away from Him. That is where evil was born. God knew it all before it happened. He could easily have stopped it. But because its better to have freedom than not, He went that route.
You seem to think there could be a way of having free-will w/o the possibility of evil “I do not accept the Bible as priori.”. How?
March 24th, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Tara,
I know what the Bible says and there are plenty of resources out there on the net to read the Bible. A URL will do, so don’t clutter up the comments by quoting long passages of scripture; I will delete further comments that do.
My take on the common conception of “all-powerful” is, I believe, shared by most Christians, which is that Christians conceive of a God that can, at least, do anything that is not logically self-contradictory. In my article I do not address the Omnipotence Paradox, but the moral argument, including the Problem of Evil.
You seem to want to rely on the Argument from Authority, which I also already addressed in my article, so I won’t do so again here.
March 24th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
RJ,
You are taking it into your own hands to define what a “Christian” is. Therefore you are condemning those who take that label without conforming to your definition. Were the people who committed the 9/11 atrocities Muslims? Many practicing Muslims would claim they were not. Does that make it so? Whether or not Mormons are Christians is a matter for debate, but again, how shall the impartial observer choose among you when many Mormons wish to use that label? You say the Christian Mystics are “unbiblical.” You also level the same charge at the Westboro Baptists. These are condemnations of their faith.
You make my point very well for me, thank you.
Well, apparently you believe that God himself has free will and is not in the least bit evil. So based on your own beliefs there would seem to be a way. But if God has free will and therefore could choose to become evil at any moment, how do I know he will not? If he can become or do evil, then why should I worship him? And if you say he could not become or do evil, then why could he not create beings to keep him company who have free will and also could not become or do evil? Again, you seem to be limiting your God.
March 24th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
I apologize for my long quote.
And, I’ll assume, for the moment, that you are correct in believing that there is no God. If so, where did you come from?
March 24th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
Tara,
“Where did you come from?” Hm, that’s sort of an ambiguous question, don’t you think? I don’t expect you mean, “Where do you live?” or “Where did you grow up?” or “Who are your parents?” or “What is your ancestry?” or “How are babies made?”
So what are you really asking?
March 25th, 2006 at 6:43 am
I meant, “what is the origin of life?”.
March 25th, 2006 at 11:55 am
Christians believe that God always existed but then again God is an intelligent being. The universe [planets, stars, nebula’s, etc] isn’t. The universe cannot create itself. And the “Big Bang” suggests a tiny atom of sorts or an extremely dense & hot state was around before the universe as we know it existed. If neither of these 2 things were intelligent [no one suggested they were] then were did they come from?
You said it’s easier to believe the universe always existed, but why is that easier than believing a god always existed? Questions to both can be raised. I mean not a god in the christian sense but any god.
March 25th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Tara and RJ,
You seem to both be asking essentially the same question, so I’ll answer you together.
Humans don’t know everything. Therefore, the ability to say “I don’t know,” when faced with a tough question is, I think, quite healthy. Far from an admission of defeat, it acknowledges that there is exploration yet to do, discovery yet to be made. To ask “Why?” without prejudice to one’s own biases is the hallmark of science.
Less healthy, even dangerous, is to assert that one has come into the possession of “revealed” answers that are beyond question because of the supposed authority doing the revealing. For one thing, how does one decide among conflicting “authorities?” For another, what does one do when “revelation” clearly conflicts with the observable world or common-sense ethics?
Humans, in general, make no claims to being all-powerful, all-knowing, or even all-loving. Thus, we are clearly not subject to the logical paradoxes that beset Judeo-Christian views of God. Instead, we must acknowledge and deal with the fact that we can’t simply do anything we want to, we don’t (and may never) know everything, and we do need to live in the world as well as possible in each others’ company. So we engineer devices that amplify our brains and bodies. So we study the world, including our own minds, and develop tools such as the scientific method and modern education that, while not perfect, far exceed any prior methods of obtaining, using, and transmitting knowledge. So we develop philosophies such as Humanism that apply our best perspectives on history and wisdom, and give us tools that lead us into closer harmony.
So, Tara, your question “What is the origin of life?”
I don’t know.
Of course, Evolution is a very good explanation of how we get the plethora of diverse and well-adapted life forms we see on Earth. As scientific theories go, it is right up there with the Theory of Gravity. But you’re probably more interested in Abiogenesis, which is how matter makes the transition from “non-life” to “life”. Many theories are under development, and many experiments being conducted. But the simple answer right now is: we don’t know— yet.
There is a good deal of further explanation about Evolution and Abiogenesis in the Talk.Origins Archive.
RJ, your question centers around cosmology, and the origin of matter/energy/space/time. You assert that the universe cannot create itself, and I would agree with you if we also agree that “creation” can only happen with an intelligent agent as “the creator.” But if by “creation” we are simply referring to how things came to be as they are, then I do not see evidence that requires an intelligent “creator.”
Where did matter and energy— the stuff of the universe— come from originally?
I don’t know.
It’s not clear the question is even answerable. “What came before time?” is not a sensible question. “Where is outside of space?” doesn’t work either. While there are some tenuous theories, none of them are currently supported by scientific evidence. If and when such theories become supported, I may have a better answer for you.
But to say that everything came from God is not satisfactory either, because as I already stated in my article, this opens the question of “Who created God?”: a philosophical infinite regress. And this is why it is simpler to acknowledge mystery than to go replacing mysteries with deeper mysteries. Science only does this when the answers that lead to deeper mysteries have explanatory power. A good example of this is Germ Theory. But while scientific theories have power to explain, I argue in my article that Christianity (as one example of God-belief) adds complexity and confusion without, on balance, explaining anything.
If you want to believe that a God started the universe and now lets it run its course alone, then you are in good company. But this is a far cry from giving your heart and mind to the paradoxical, sexist, capricious, bloodthirsty, and ultimately mythological God of Christianity or the other Abrahamic religions.
So, I hope you can understand that I consider it no shame to admit that I don’t know something— that my eyes only see so far. But the True Believers, who claim they are initiates into deep mysteries even though their superstitions blind them to the most basic scientific and moral truths, are truly shameful.
And that, my friends, will have to be the last (public) word on this topic for now. I’ve been in debates of this kind numerous times before, and I don’t expect to change your minds. But others will hopefully read this and find some things worth considering more deeply— as once upon a time I myself read, and was swayed by other similar arguments. For now, however, I’ve gotten it out of my system, and am ready to invest this energy in other aspects of my life. If you feel something important has been left unsaid, you are welcome to write to me personally.
If you’re a Christian, think on this: you have nothing to lose from a careful consideration of the ideas of people who do not believe as you do, and you may have much to gain. Do not let True Believers presume to speak for us and tell you “What Humanism is,” or “How atheists think.” There are many good books and web sites where we speak for ourselves, and you’re perfectly capable of making up your own mind.
Robert McNally