Is the Bible the Word of God?
The Bible directly quotes God roughly 3,000 times and the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament as the Word of God 320 times. Keep in mind that some of those references covered whole sections of scripture and not just one verse.
Also, Jesus claimed to be God, so all the “red letters” would be Biblical claims to be the Word of God. And roughly 10% of the red letters quote the black letters. As noted in “What did Jesus think of the Old Testament,” the references Jesus made to the Old Testament were varied and often cited the most controversial parts – Satan, Noah, Jonah, Sodom, etc. Jesus made zero corrections to the Old Testament, and He quoted from the Pentateuch (the first five books), Psalms, Jonah and others. He even said:
Matthew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
I did some searches in my Bible software on a few phrases to see how many times they occurred. There were so many that I got tired after a while. Watch for them when you read the Bible. It is really quite amazing.
- The Lord says 198
- The Lord said 301
- The word of the Lord 239
- . . . declares the Lord 266
- . . . oracle 47
- I am the Lord 158
- Lord instructed 3
- Lord commanded 117
- Lord had commanded 24
- the Lord gave this command 1
- Lord gave 42
- Lord told 10
- Lord has told 4
- Says the Lord 103
- The Lord almighty says 47
- Says the Lord almighty 31
- The Lord almighty, the God of Israel says 1
- Lord spoke 25
- Lord revealed 1
- Lord then said 1
- Lord answered 23
- God said 54
- Lord had said 31
- Lord replied 11
- Holy one of Israel says 2
- Lord called 14
Then, of course, there is 2 Timothy 3:16-17 – All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (Yes, I know some people think that doesn’t apply to the New Testament. I’ll address that in another post.) And Peter referred to Paul’s writings as scripture.
So the Bible makes an extraordinary amount of claims to be the Word of God and that it was transmitted to us accurately.
What’s the point?
Now before any skeptics or Liberal Theologians choke on their own rage yelling, “circular reference!,” let me point out that I’m not referring to these as my only proof that the Bible is God’s Word. I understand that claiming that the Bible is God’s Word because it says it is God’s Word wouldn’t be an adequate argument. We have other evidence for it being God’s Word.
Still, there are a couple important points one can draw from this huge amount of references.
If the Bible is God’s Word then wouldn’t you expect it to make that claim? In fact, if it didn’t make that claim wouldn’t you view that as a reason for it not being God’s Word? And if it said it wasn’t God’s Word then it obviously wouldn’t be God’s Word. So the claims to be God’s Word are a sort of necessary occurrence.
The second and main point of this post is only for Christians who claim the Bible isn’t all inspired by God, or that it was just what the Jews and Christians thought God was saying, or that it is somehow incomplete.
If you really think the Bible has upwards of 3,000 errors / lies in it, why pick it up?
How do you discern which parts belong there and which do not? You appear to believe in Dalmatian Theology, where the Bible is only inspired in spots and that you are inspired to spot the spots, or Advanced Dalmatian Theology, where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives.
Why should I trust your “inspiration” more than I trust the writings of the Apostles or their close companions, especially considering that every word they wrote has been scrutinized by believers and non-believers for 2,000 years? Why should I trust your views when you deny many of the essentials of the faith and often claim that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection aren’t necessary for people to be reconciled to God or to go to Heaven?
The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament make multiple warnings about sound doctrine and Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their false doctrines. But as Timothy pointed out last week, sound doctrine is found in the Word of God. Otherwise, what doctrines were the writers referring to?
From beginning to end, the Bible claims to be the Word of God. Is believing that a requirement for salvation? No. The criminal on the cross wasn’t a Bible scholar but he went to Heaven because he put his faith in Jesus.
But how even marginally educated Christians can hold a view other than the Bible being the Word of God is beyond me. The educated theological liberals who deny God’s word tip their hands that their beliefs are really just politics disguised as religion.
Filed under: Apologetics, Bible, Favorites | Tagged: Bible, God, religion
Oh great, now wacth this post generate 100 comments, while my post on prostitution and drugs laws untouched. HA!
If you really think the Bible has upwards of 3,000 errors / lies in it, why pick it up?
That is a large part of the problem. They don’t pick it up…
“Oh great, now wacth this post generate 100 comments, while my post on prostitution and drugs laws untouched. HA!”
Thou shall not covet thy neighbor’s blog…
1. I believe the Bible is God’s Revelation to us.
2. Having said that, your assertions are an example of circular reasoning.
3. You’re saying “The Bible says ‘Thus saith the Lord,’ 3,000 times, therefore, these 66 books of the Bible are God’s Word.”
4. There’s a leap in logic in that assertion. If the 66 books of the Bible were written and complete and compiled, and THEN in Revelation, God ended by saying, “Now that you have these 66 books that the ones who will be known as Protestants claim as their Bible, you have My Complete Word and it is ALL My Word,” then you’d have a case. But no where in the Bible does it make any claims about the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. It simply doesn’t. That’s an extrabiblical claim.
5. Again, having said that, I still believe that the individuals who prayerfully (and sometimes, politically) pulled together these 66 books, did a good job of presenting elements of God’s Word.
6. Was it an inspired work (the pulling together of these 66 books)? Perhaps, but that would be an extrabiblical claim, and therefore, it’s not one I’m willing to make. Why? Because the Bible is important to me and a vital source of knowledge about God and I’m not willing to make claims that it doesn’t.
7. I think all of the Christians here agree that GOD’S Word is infallible, in the sense of each and every word that comes from God’s mouth/mind/being.
8. I further think that at least most of us here would not make the claim that the Bible represents God’s Full and Complete Word and no revelation can come apart from God’s Word. The Bible itself tells us that God reveals God’s Self through creation, through “the least of these,” through God’s community, through God’s Spirit.
9. But will God reveal God’s Self in a way that contradicts the 66 books known as the Bible? Well, that gets down to interpretation, doesn’t it?
That’s enough, for now. Just some thoughts. One final thought about Vance’s comment (”they don’t pick it up…”): I’d suggest that as a joke, that’s fine. But we have enough divisions in God’s Body without sowing further seeds of strife. I’d reckon that my so-called “liberal” church is probably the most Bible literate church represented here, pound for pound. I’d lay money on my church in a Bible Quiz game any day.
“Having said that, your assertions are an example of circular reasoning.”
Dan, thanks for proving what I’ve long suspected: You don’t read all of the post, you just launch in with your usual gymnastics. I addressed the circular reasoning part. Sheesh.
“But will God reveal God’s Self in a way that contradicts the 66 books known as the Bible?”
No.
P.S. If you think the Canon is incomplete then feel free to suggest what you think should be added and why.
“I’d reckon that my so-called “liberal” church is probably the most Bible literate church represented here, pound for pound. I’d lay money on my church in a Bible Quiz game any day.”
Knowing Bible trivia and being “Bible literate” are two very different things. There are plenty of people who don’t believe the Bible as even partially inspired, who can rattle off verses to “support” their claims. I also find it funny that any claim (even when the Bible specifically supports it) that does not fall in line with your views becomes “extrabiblical.”
Just because the Bible doesn’t cater to your personal liguistic requirements to define itself, does not mean it’s not the Word of God.
“Now that you have these 66 books that the ones who will be known as Protestants claim as their Bible, you have My Complete Word and it is ALL My Word,”
Wouldn’t it stand to reason, if God wanted more than the “66 books that the ones who will be known as Protestants claim as their Bible” to represent Him, then He would have made it so?
And, if God apparently failed (as implied by your arguements) to prevent the “complete” Bible from reaching us, what does that say of your view of his divinity?
1. Neil, I DID read the whole thing and was responding to your assertion that it is not circular reasoning by pointing out why it WAS circular reasoning. No need to start with the ill-conceived, hostile and incorrect accusations (”usual gymnastics”).
2. PJ, the “Bible Quiz” thing was a joke. The assertion that we are extremely biblically literate was not. It was a response to Vance’s suggestion to the contrary.
3. PJ said: I also find it funny that any claim (even when the Bible specifically supports it) that does not fall in line with your views becomes “extrabiblical.”
Can we do away with the hostility and just discuss things as brothers and sisters? If you think there’s a case that can be made that the 66 books of the bible are called God’s Word within the bible, then make the case. Don’t make accusations towards me and then ignore the point.
Boy, I’d hate to be in a Sunday School class with you all if this is the way you discuss the Bible (I’m sure you wouldn’t behave this way in person, however. I think the nature of blogging can make us more aggressive than we would normally be).
4. I’ve made no points about God’s divinity. God is God and can do what God will. No where within the Bible does God say that “these 66 books are My Whole Word.” It’s simply not there. All I’m doing is pointing out that very biblical point and I’m doing so because I love the Bible.
That’s the second time you’ve made that point, Dan:
Was it an inspired work (the pulling together of these 66 books)? Perhaps, but that would be an extrabiblical claim, and therefore, it’s not one I’m willing to make. Why? Because the Bible is important to me and a vital source of knowledge about God and I’m not willing to make claims that it doesn’t.
All I’m doing is pointing out that very biblical point and I’m doing so because I love the Bible.
In light of your radical position on marriage, and in the absence of any Biblical support of that position, this claim that you dare not indulge extrabiblical beliefs is laughable.
And while we should strive to be as civil as possible, I frankly would find your accusation of incivility to be a tad hypocritical: I don’t understand why Vance’s comment sows seeds of discord while it’s quite alright for you to say quite clearly that you would bet that your church is more biblically literate than Neil’s, Vance’s, mine, and everyone else’s.
Dan, my apologies if you actually read it. But you ignored my reasons for saying it wasn’t necessarily circular reasoning. I pointed out why the claims are part – but not all – of what one would expect from the Word of God. If it never claimed to be the Word of God or claimed it wasn’t the Word of God then those would be major strikes against it being considered the Word of God.
You are right that people are more aggressive on blogs than in person. There are pros and cons to that. I think I tend to tip-toe around serious issues too much in person and are too insensitive on blogs.
“If it never claimed to be the Word of God or claimed it wasn’t the Word of God then those would be major strikes against it being considered the Word of God.”
Yes, but it still remains that the Bible no where within its 66 books claims that “these 66 books are God’s complete Word.” That’s all I’m saying. As noted, I DO think the Bible is God’s Word, just not God’s Whole and completely understood Word.
Let me ask this: Do you think that the 66 books are God’s Complete Word or do you think God can reveal God’s Self in other ways?
You would have to provide examples of what you mean by God revealing himself in “other ways.” The short answer is that if the alleged revelation contradicts the Bible then it isn’t from God.
If you think there is something missing from the bible then the burden of proof is on you to explain what is missing and why. For someone who is so adamant about avoiding all things extra-Biblical I’m interested in your examples.
“In light of your radical position on marriage, and in the absence of any Biblical support of that position, this claim that you dare not indulge extrabiblical beliefs is laughable.”
Gay marriage is not addressed within the Bible. On extrabiblical positions (ie, positions not covered within the Bible), we have to take extrabiblical positions.
“I don’t understand why Vance’s comment sows seeds of discord while it’s quite alright for you to say quite clearly that you would bet that your church is more biblically literate than Neil’s, Vance’s, mine, and everyone else’s.”
Because he started it! That’s a joke.
I was responding to Vance’s assertion (which I admitted was probably a joke on his part) by stating that my church is quite biblically literate. I said, “I’d reckon that my so-called “liberal” church is probably the most Bible literate church represented here,” with “RECKON” being a key word. It means that I’d hazard to guess without knowing all the specifics that my church is PROBABLY the most biblically literate one represented here. I could be entirely wrong. It’s a hunch. A reckoning.
I said that because we have a high percentage of people who’ve graduated from seminaries, who’ve attended Bible schools (probably 20% of our congregation – not including me, by the way), who read the Bible regularly and who were raised in Baptist churches that taught the Bible quite thoroughly.
Fair enough? No criticism meant of others’ churches, just a defense of mine and others of my ilk.
“Can we do away with the hostility and just discuss things as brothers and sisters? If you think there’s a case that can be made that the 66 books of the bible are called God’s Word within the bible, then make the case. Don’t make accusations towards me and then ignore the point.
Boy, I’d hate to be in a Sunday School class with you all if this is the way you discuss the Bible (I’m sure you wouldn’t behave this way in person, however. I think the nature of blogging can make us more aggressive than we would normally be).
4. I’ve made no points about God’s divinity. God is God and can do what God will. No where within the Bible does God say that “these 66 books are My Whole Word.” It’s simply not there. All I’m doing is pointing out that very biblical point and I’m doing so because I love the Bible.”
I don’t believe I was hostile at all, but if you perceived my comments that way, I apologize. My point was simple. You repeatedly use terms like “extrabiblical,” when a the language is not specific enough for your liking (or so it would appear by your repeated assertions…not meant as an accusation, just an observation). My assertion, is that the Bible is the Word of God. Does the Bible say,“these 66 books are My Whole Word,” no. That’s what I meant by linguistic requirements. The Bible says repeatedly that it’s the Word of God, yet you seek more clarification or specifics.
I understand that communication can be easily misinterpreted online, which is why I questioned your statements to begin with. Nobody made accusations. It just seems your a large part of your argument is hinging on the specific language used. I’ve seen you make mention to the Canon not necessarily being the complete Word. If you care to elaborate, I’m all eyes
. Or as Neil already stated, “If you think the Canon is incomplete then feel free to suggest what you think should be added and why.
“Let me ask this: Do you think that the 66 books are God’s Complete Word or do you think God can reveal God’s Self in other ways?”
I believe God can reveal Himself in many ways, as long as it doesn’t contradict His Biblical Word.
Oops, Neil beat me to that last one…didn’t catch it…sorry
Dan, the most laughable claim you have made thus far is that homosexual marriage is not covered in the Bible. We’ve been over this and over this, and while I suppose you could make the case that the Bible does not specifically refer to homosexuality in the term “marriage,” if marriage is going to be merely one of living together and complete sexual chastity and separation. However, this removes pretty much the primary point of marriage, so it’s not really marriage then. The Bible does condemn any type of “gay sexual contact.” Again… I think we’ve been there before. This is not an extra-biblical position.
And speaking of extra-biblical positioins, I would argue that there is no such thing. You can find a guide, or at least an allusion to, the proper moral conduct as concerning anything in the Bible. I’ve not found a situation (involving right and wrong, mind you) that the Bible does not speak to. I may not know what it says in all cases (which means I should go try and find out), but it’s there. If it doesn’t directly say “thou shalt” or “thou shalt not,” the question then becomes, is it Christ-like and honoring to God, which is determined by examining the Bible to find what is Christ-like or God-honoring.
Dan, the most civil way to respond to Vance would have been to affirm that your church is “quite” Biblically literate without going into comparisons, however qualified those comparisons were. Even if you have good reasons for your hunch / reckoning / guess / hypothesis / theory / theoem / supposition, civility would dictate that you keep them to yourselves.
Moving on…
Gay marriage is not addressed within the Bible. On extrabiblical positions (ie, positions not covered within the Bible), we have to take extrabiblical positions.
I presume you mean that we must take extrabiblical positions on extrabiblical subjects. I agree, although I also believe that there are very few subjects about which the Bible is silent.
Gay marriage isn’t explicitly addressed? There’s a problem. Marriage IS addressed, and what does the Bible say about marriage?
We were made male and female for marriage.
In other words, from the very beginning, God intended marriage to be heterosexual, thus making “gay marriage” a contradiction in terms.
It really doesn’t bother me that you continue to ignore this, but I do wish you would stop telling us that you love the Bible so much and the Bible is so important to you that you write, “I’m not willing to make claims that it doesn’t.”
The Bible claims God made us male and female for marriage. You obviously disagree, so you’re not just making claims that aren’t found in the Bible, you’re making claims that contradict the Bible outright.
PJ said:
My point was simple. You repeatedly use terms like “extrabiblical,” when a the language is not specific enough for your liking (or so it would appear by your repeated assertions…not meant as an accusation, just an observation)
Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. For my part, allow me to clarify. I use the word “extrabiblical” when someone offers something as essential or part of God’s word and that point is not found within the Bible. I don’t do it because a scripture is not to my liking.
In the case of the times where it appears God is ordering genocide, I do what I always do: Weigh the single passage against the whole of the Bible. When I do so, I find that passage as literally interpreted to not be sound doctrine.
But I find that not because it “wasn’t to my liking,” but rather because I find it not matching up to the teachings of the whole Bible. As I’ve stated.
PJ also said:
I’ve seen you make mention to the Canon not necessarily being the complete Word. If you care to elaborate, I’m all eyes
. Or as Neil already stated, “If you think the Canon is incomplete then feel free to suggest what you think should be added and why.
I don’t think I’m outside of the mainstream on this point. I think that the Bible teaches us that what we might find within scriptures is one source – a vital one – of revelation from God. We also find God revealed by God’s Spirit, by Creation. In the “least of these.”
So, I don’t think of the Bible in terms of it being “incomplete,” in the sense that it needs more books. So, no, I would not add any books (although, if I did, I might add some Wendell Berry…)
I think we need to recognize God’s Word as God’s Word and The Bible as part, but not all, of God’s Word. I further think we need to realize that we in our human frailty don’t always fully understand God’s nature. We should do the best we can. The Bible is useful in that regards, as it “is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…” as the Bible says.
In the case of the times where it appears God is ordering genocide, I do what I always do: Weigh the single passage against the whole of the Bible. When I do so, I find that passage as literally interpreted to not be sound doctrine.
Dan, this does exhume the question I don’t think you’ve yet fully addressed: if passages like the you one you cite here aren’t to be interpreted literally, how are they to be interpreted? The only other possibility is a figurative interpretation, it’s not clear what the metaphor is in the passage.
I’m pretty sure I have addressed it. I’m pretty sure I’ve already said:
I’m fine with saying it’s a mystery, BUT we know that God doesn’t order genocide.
Or I’m fine with saying that this was literally the way that people thought about it, that they convinced themselves that this was God’s will to commit genocide.
Or perhaps another explanation, but the Truth remains that God does not order genocide, if we are to take the Bible seriously.
We were made male and female for marriage.
In other words, from the very beginning, God intended marriage to be heterosexual, thus making “gay marriage” a contradiction in terms.
I forget the term for this logical fallacy, but that’s what this argument is, which is why I haven’t bothered with it too much.
IF the Bible said, “Male and female is the ONLY way for marriage.” that might be one thing. But it doesn’t. It offers that as a statement, “male and female God made them…” with no further qualifiers.
That’s like saying “A is true. Therefore we know that B isn’t true.” It doesn’t follow logically.
Or, to give a concrete example, the Bible says that God gave David many wives, therefore, one man and many women is the ONLY way that we can be biblically faithful.
T’ain’t necessarily so.
thanks Neil but dont think u can convince skeptics……….you simply can not my friend.:)
Gays have the same marriage rights as everyone else. A gay guy can marry one woman the same as I can. What homosexuals want is a special privilege in addition to the right to marry, that being same-sex “marriage”. They want the state to sanction same-sex “marriage” when the state has no obligation to do so.
The term “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron, like “square circle”. Redefining words is a poor way to win an argument.
Genesis 2:24 wife not wives & one flesh not mltiple flesh
Deut. 17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives for himself
Great post, Neil! I’m not even going to get into all this other stuff.
“In the case of the times where it appears God is ordering genocide, I do what I always do: Weigh the single passage against the whole of the Bible. When I do so, I find that passage as literally interpreted to not be sound doctrine.
But I find that not because it “wasn’t to my liking,” but rather because I find it not matching up to the teachings of the whole Bible. As I’ve stated.”
That is why we disagree. What passages are you measuring the ones you don’t find to be “sound doctrine” against? How can you decide one verse is sound and another is not? Weighing verses against the whole Bible would be a misnomer in that case because you don’t seem to accept the whole Bible as sound doctrine.
“I don’t think I’m outside of the mainstream on this point. I think that the Bible teaches us that what we might find within scriptures is one source – a vital one – of revelation from God. We also find God revealed by God’s Spirit, by Creation. In the “least of these.” ”
The mainstream, unfortunately , is not born again. The mainstream confuses many issues on Christianity, not to mention the Bible. I would hardly call this a selling point on your stance ( that’s just a friendly jab). I will say that I agree that God does reveal himself through his spirit, but as Neil (and I, moments later) stated earlier, if it doesn’t line up with His Word, then it’s not really of God.
On this topic, I don’t see us ever agreeing (unless you get your head right…another small jab). I will end on this, as I don’t want to fill up Neil’s blog with rehashing of similar points. I fully support what he stated in this blog, so I will refer you to that for any questions on where I stand
(consider it a “circular reference,” just for you…really, my last jab…all in good fun!).
Dan T,
I don’t know exactly to which passage you refer everytime you bring up this genocide nonsense, but I can’t think of any piece that would suggest to anyone with half a brain that God mandates, condones, encourages or otherwise, leaves it to us to decide when to wipe out every man, woman and child within a nation. This is a preposterous argument. In each battle where God commands the Hebrews to annihilate a town, it’s a specific command to a specific group of people regarding a specific town and usually because God has judged the town wicked beyond redemption. He uses the tribes as His sword to destroy them for their wickedness. How can you read these stories any other way? Of any of these learned people in your church, did any of them graduate from their semiaries? Try finding a passage that is really difficult to understand. The constant use of these are insulting.
Regarding your last comments on marriage: Now you’re really playing games. Your argument is because God didn’t say male and female are the ONLY way, that there is left open other possibilities? How incredibly lame! And shameful, too, I might add, that you would try to run THAT nonsense and expect anyone to consider you credible in your debating. Contrary to your stated intent, I believe this shows that you are not beneath creating loopholes in Scripture to satisfy what you think is the more holy position on the subject. It “seems” nicer to allow for homosexual marriage, because, golly, the ones I’ve met are such darn nice people! Hey, I’ve known some drug dealers that were really nice guys. They need to repent and change their ways as well.
“Can we do away with the hostility and just discuss things as brothers and sisters?”
It ain’t hostility, brother, it’s frustration. Frustration that you continue to play this silly game by trying anything to defend this defenseless position. You do better with your pacifist arguments and those are lame too, but this pro-homosexual stuff is beyond the pale. However, it IS a pailfull.
One more thing: It is the Glory of God and the evidence of His existence that we see in Creation or “the least of these”, NOT any new revelation regarding what God wants from us or any new mandates for living. If you think I’m wrong here, please cite an example or anecdote that describes a new revelation.
Dan, your list of possible interpretations leaves a lot to be desired:
I’m pretty sure I have addressed it. I’m pretty sure I’ve already said:
I’m fine with saying it’s a mystery, BUT we know that God doesn’t order genocide.
Or I’m fine with saying that this was literally the way that people thought about it, that they convinced themselves that this was God’s will to commit genocide.
Or perhaps another explanation, but the Truth remains that God does not order genocide, if we are to take the Bible seriously.
I asked, if we’re not to take the passage you’re alluding to literally, how are we to take it? Your possible answers?
1. It’s a mystery: i.e., you don’t know.
2. It’s the message people literally thought God communicated, implying that they thought this erroneously: i.e., the passage is a mistake.
3. It’s something else: i.e., you don’t know. Again.
So, the passage is a mystery, a mistake, or a mystery, which is a heck of a way for an all-powerful deity to reveal Himself to man, and a heck of a way for a student of the Bible to demonstrate that he approaches the book with an open mind to accept what’s communicated.
And you’re going to have to be a little more thorough if you’re going to accuse me of a logical fallacy.
It’s not simply that the Bible teaches that God made Adam and Eve male and female for their marriage: Genesis 2 explains the institution of marriage as it was intended for all mankind: “for this reason a man becomes one flesh with his wife” — a man, any man, not just the first man. You don’t find any parallel passage about David, anything suggesting that because God gave David many wives, for that reason a man is supposed to have many wives. The passage ain’t there.
More than that, YOU CANNOT TREAT GENESIS 2 AS HAVING NO LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS IF YOU WANT TO SAY THAT YOU TAKE SERIOUSLY THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST. When asked about divorce, Jesus invoked Genesis 2 as if the passage had as much relevance in first-century Jerusalem as it did in Eden before the Fall. Because He invoked that passage in that way, we must trust that the passage actually was as relevant and applicable to those first-century long-distant ancestors of Adam as it was to Adam himself. Absent any reason to believe otherwise, we must trust that it remains relevant today: regardless, the idea that the teaching about marriage in Genesis was as limited as the specific message to King David is ridiculous.
PJ reasonably asked:
What passages are you measuring the ones you don’t find to be “sound doctrine” against? How can you decide one verse is sound and another is not? Weighing verses against the whole Bible would be a misnomer in that case because you don’t seem to accept the whole Bible as sound doctrine.
As I have stated, I weigh any given passage against the whole of the bible and especially through Jesus’ teachings.
What do you do with difficult or hard to understand passages? What criteria do you use for interpreting and understanding the Bible?
What of the passages where God orders the wiping out of a nation? Or the kidnapping of the virgins that appear pleasing to you? Those appeared to be a direct commands from God. Do they apply to us, as well? Why or why not?
One reason we can know that they don’t apply to us is because Jesus helped clarify the OT for us. He came not to abolish but fulfill the Law. And God does not order us to commit genocide.
This is not out of the mainstream (and when I said that before and here, I’m talking about the mainstream of orthodox Christianity – not society as a whole). Southern Baptists until relatively recently had as a critical part of their doctrine this exact notion. (“The
criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ.” Baptist Faith and Message, 1963)
I love the whole Bible. I think the OT is a great wealth of information and history (although not always literal history, as we write history today… sometimes). And because I love the whole Bible, I weigh any given passage against the whole of the Bible to try to make sure I don’t misinterpret any part.
More must be said, Dan.
IF the Bible said, “Male and female is the ONLY way for marriage.” that might be one thing. But it doesn’t. It offers that as a statement, “male and female God made them…” with no further qualifiers.
First: heh. Even that phrasing which you yourself introduce only “might” be one thing, as if there is no way for God to clearly and unambiguously teaching that indulging homosexual desires is morally impermissible.
On the subject of God’s progressive revelation, you earlier suggested that God may have changed the rules about marriage and we didn’t know about it — which is funny, because while that idea’s progressive (in a very loose sense of the word, in the wrongheaded sense that all change is progress), that’s hardly an act of God revealing Himself and His will to man. In response, I wrote that a 16-year-old boy would probably not be considered a good and obedient son for speculating that the rules his father put down when he was 15 had been changed without his being informed.
Now, I think a less advanced analogy is called for.
If a mother tells her ten-year-old son, “Don’t eat any cookies because it will spoil your appetite for dinner,” the child is — barring mental retardation — clearly being disobedient if he eats a candy bar instead. The excuse of “you only said not to eat any cookies and didn’t say anything about candy bars” is so lame that the mother is well within her rights to punish the boy for the excuse on top of the disobedience, and she probably should punish him for that ridiculous explanation.
Why? Because not only was the command clear, the reason was clear as well. The mother didn’t want her son to spoil his appetite: for that reason, she told him not to eat any cookies, but the command quite sensibly entails not eating any candy bars either, or potato chips, or gummy bears, or Skittles.
“Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”
(I almost wonder if the question ought not to be asked to some of us Christians and not just the first-century Pharisees: Haven’t you read this?)
Our biological existence as sexual organisms, male and female, is so closely tied to the divine institution of marriage — the only social institution that predates the Fall — that our being male and female is enough to know whether divorce is typically morally permissible. And yet it’s not clear whether our being male and female has any bearing on whether marriage is meant to be heterosexual?
I cannot believe that this argument is being made. I don’t think any good parent would put up with these approaches regarding their instructions: the difference between a child and a parent is infinitessimal compared to the chasm between a man and almighty God, and our devotion to our parents is almost nothing compared to our duty to God, so it is amazing to see one try these approaches so boldly and without any apparent reluctance.
Do any of you attend churches where women have any role in the leadership, or in teaching? Are they anything less than silent? Then, if you take the Bible at face value, and it is in total God’s revelation to humankind, then why is your church in defiance of it?
Dan, come on.
I love the whole Bible. I think the OT is a great wealth of information and history (although not always literal history, as we write history today… sometimes). And because I love the whole Bible, I weigh any given passage against the whole of the Bible to try to make sure I don’t misinterpret any part.
The Bible is absolutely clear that we were made male and female for implictly heterosexual marriage. You’ve speculated that maybe God overrode this teaching and we haven’t been told, and you now write that the teaching isn’t clear enough because it’s not in the precise form, “Male and female is the ONLY way for marriage.”
“Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?”
This ain’t clear enough? It’s only unclear to those who are determined to deny it and reject it. So don’t tell us you love the whole Bible, and don’t tell us that you give Christ’s teaching primacy. Your behavior in the face of what the Bible clearly teaches speaks far louder than those hollow assertions.
ER, are we to assume that Euodia and Syntyche, whom Paul referenced in Phil 4:2, were mimes? Or maybe we should look at the passages you’re citing in the context of everything Paul wrote about either specific women or women in general — to say nothing about the rest of Scripture — before you try that ridiculous ploy that, because we presumably don’t have the women-folk keep absolutely quiet in church, we’re thorough hypocrites in how we interpret Scripture and really should get with the times in embracing morally deviant sexually relationships.
Really, I have come to respect you a good bit and I expect better arguments from you.
Huh: in Romans 16, Paul has very nice things to say about Phoebe, Priscilla, Aquila, and Mary. Were they anything less than silent? Probably, but gosh it’s foolish to let a silly little thing like Scripture get in the way of a good polemical attack.
“The Bible is absolutely clear that we were made male and female for implictly heterosexual marriage.”
One last time. This is a logical fallacy. “IF A is True, Then, since B is not A, B must be false.”
One last time, on the gay thing:
You look at five or so passages in all the Bible and say that they clearly condemn homosexual practices and, by extension, gay marriage. I look at all the Bible, find those same five or so passages and don’t think they’re talking about all homosexual practices at all.
I think the Bible teaches against sexual immorality, against licentiousness, against prostitution and other abusive sexual deeds – heterosexual and homosexual, but don’t find a consistent condemnation of homosexuality. I understand that you disagree with me. Nonetheless, I don’t think those five passages support your position.
Therefore, from my studying of the issue, I think the Bible is silent on gay marriage. What principles I DO find suggest that committed monogamous marriage is a good thing and therefore I support gay marriage.
We disagree on this issue.
You can say, “But…but..but it’s obvious!” all you want, but that does not make it so. I think it heckuva lot more obvious and biblically supported that one can’t simultaneously love your enemy and kill him and his children as an act of war. But you don’t, somehow or the other.
We disagree.
That doesn’t mean that I think “we’re both right.” Not at all. I think you all are clearly wrong on both fronts. But you know what, it happens. Sometimes, we’re wrong. Thank God for grace. Not that I want us to abuse grace.
I’d much rather you all take the Bible for what it says instead of embracing the traditions of humanity and repent of your positions. But still, grace is there for the times where you and I are wrong. Even if we are colossally wrong.
Bubba said:
your list of possible interpretations leaves a lot to be desired
Oh? To say that the passages calling for atrocities such as genocide and forcible wife-taking is perhaps a mystery, or just a poor interpretation of God by the Israelis leaves a lot to be desired, but saying that God sometimes used to call for atrocities doesn’t?
I think for anyone who loves the Bible, the apparent commands to commit atrocities are difficult passages. We have to explain them one way or another or do something with them. The explanation I’ve heard from others here, as I understand them, are that things change. People (and their children) were sometimes so bad back in the day, that God just had to tell Israel to commit genocide against whole evil peoples (and their evil children).
Then, to rid the world of their evil, God commanded them to leave their virgins alive and take them home and make them their wives. But that’s because things have changed. God wouldn’t command us to commit genocide today, but God clearly did back then. And it’s not really genocide because God ordered it, therefore it’s okay because God was just ridding the world of evil people (and their evil children).
That is the explanation I’ve seen offered by those who insist on taking that passage literally. Correct me if I’ve misunderstood you.
Are you seriously saying that THAT explanation makes more sense and is less biblically offensive than mine?
Dan, you appear to deliberately misconstrue passages or are incapable of understanding verses such as “don’t lie with a man as you would lie with a woman.”
Give it a rest.
Neil, I’ll be glad to quit talking about it. I just keep getting asked questions. That, or people misrepresent (not necessarily maliciously) what I’ve said or believe, and so I have corrected it. If you don’t want me to explain my position again and again, quit asking questions and/or misrepresenting (“you appear to deliberately misconstrue passages…”) what I believe and have said.
Do you understand, though, that for as much as to you it seems I misrepresent that verse, y’all even moreso seem to misrepresent the atrocities passages to me?
To say that, killing all these people and kidnapping their virgin daughters to make them your wives forcibly is NOT genocide and rape as it appears in an unfettered reading is doing damage to the language and to God’s Word. And since that is the gist of this passage – what is and ISN’T God’s Word – this seems an appropriate place to discuss these topics.
Still, I agree. We’ve all said what we believe and clarified misunderstandings. I think I understand where most of you stand on these points. I hope you understand where I stand on most of these points – I think we’re all concerned about following God’s Word, we just disagree on some parts of it. ‘Tis part of our human nature, seems to me, to lack full understanding and full agreement.
Buuba, you really gotta lighten up. And all y’all really need to learn to recognize an argument. I keep getting accused of making arguments — which is really odd when, as above, I’m asking questions. Hard questions. Which require interpretation. And which also demonstrate one of a bozillion contradictions in the Bible that ONLY are contradictions if one insists that the Bible is an “it” that was “transmitted” to man through the writers. When the Bible is seen as the earliest witness to Judaism, and the earliest written witness to Jesus, and the product of inspired human (read: fallible) thought, then they aren’t contradictions per se — just part of a developing story.
I haven’t been able to read through the comment threads yet so I apologize if I’m bringing something up that was already discussed.
Neil,
You make some good points, and I’m glad you addressed the circularity of the normal “the Bible says” type argument. It certainly doesn’t lay to rest the problem of circular logic, but it’s nice to know that you’re aware you need more logical support than this.
I also think you need to address issues of canon formation more than you have in this post (maybe you have in previous posts, I don’t know). The 66 books commonly accepted in Protestant denominations are not the only canon as you certainly know. Also several of the books we DO include in the canon made it in narrowly (Revelations in particular was voted in by a slim margin at Nicaea, and Luther said outright he wished it was not. He regarded it as worthless). Other books, narrowly didn’t make it into the canon – the Gospel of Thomas, for example. Personally, I think that the core of the canon (the TNK, the 4 gospels, Acts, and the uncontested letters of Paul) are very reliable, but historical integrity forces me to acknowledge that the process of canon formation isn’t exactly neat or precise. There is much that is debatable regarding how one text became “the Word of God” and another didn’t.
Some people really need to “lighten up” and realize that they just lost the argument.
Aric – Good points. I may blog about the Canon sometime. I didn’t address it more here as the post was already rather long. In the mean time, here’s a good overview that a friend of mine put together – http://www.4simpsons.com/Lessons/Origins%20of%20the%20Bible.doc
What is your source that the Gospel of Thomas narrowly missed being in the Canon? That was news to me. I thought it was thoroughly rejected.
The Luther opinion is interesting but not terribly relevant. He also didn’t like James but apparently came around on that one.
E.R. – a “bozillion contradictons?” I haven’t seen you offer one yet that doesn’t have an explanation. Difficulties? Yes. Contradictions? No. And definitely not bozillions. If you have any examples please offer them along with the reasons you don’t accept the many explanations available. It isn’t like these haven’t been addressed a time or two in the last 2,000 years.
Dan – You found a passage that you can’t understand so therefore the whole “gay marriage” oxymoron is fair game? You act like you have so much evidence that it is a coin flip as to whether we should overturn the 2,000 year understanding of Christian marriage. You’ve tried the atrocity / rape angle countless times and it just doesn’t compute. You’ve argued from silence. You don’t have a single verse to point to which even hints at gay marriage or speak of homosexual behavior in positive or even benign terms.
Using your reasoning then “marriage” could be redefined to include your sister, grandmother, grandfather, dog, etc. Because the Bible never specifically said that it had to be two human beings and didn’t forbid you to marry your Grandpa, did it? According to your reasoning anything not explicitly forbidden is OK, because the Bible wouldn’t teach with principles, would it? The fact that 100% of the marriage and parenting guidelines involve one man and one woman is just an amazing coincidence, I suppose.
For anyone who thinks Dan’s reasoning holds water, please plug all the other sins listed in Lev. 18 into it and see what kind of conclusions you draw.
Neil said:
“You found a passage that you can’t understand so therefore the whole “gay marriage” oxymoron is fair game?”
1. I understand the “atrocity” passages just fine, I believe. They appear, in a literal reading, to suggest that God sometimes commands genocide, rape, killing children, etc.
2. The rest of the Bible would weigh against that image of God.
3. Clearly, I think, Jesus’ teachings would deny that image of God.
4. I understand that you disagree with me on gay marriage. Fine. I disagree with you, as well. That’s the way it goes in church sometimes. Sometimes we disagree. We must each strive to seek God’s Truth on this matter. We must each seek to correct the other, if we feel so led. And, we must each do so as brothers in Christ. What else is there to do? Certainly, there’s no need to demonize the Other as one who disregards the Bible or its “clear teachings.”
5. The two topics (gay marriage and “atrocity passages”) are two distinct subjects. The purpose of bringing the atrocity passages up is to discuss HOW we interpret the Bible.
So, I wonder, has anyone from “your side” shared how you go about interpreting the Bible? What criteria do you have for interpreting passages, especially difficult passages and discerning God’s Truth for topics not discussed in the Bible?
Perhaps that would be beneficial to consider?
For anyone who thinks Dan’s reasoning holds water, please plug all the other sins listed in Lev. 18 into it and see what kind of conclusions you draw.
Dan also wrote, “What principles I DO find suggest that committed monogamous marriage is a good thing,” but applying his argumentation to matrimonial monogamy would probably yield the same result as his arguments against the necessity of matrimony being heterosexual: the principles don’t use sufficiently emphatic phrasing to forbid polygamy, the passages commending monogamy are few in number, and it’s a logical fallacy to say that, because the Bible suggests (suggests!) that monogamy is good, we can conclude that polygamy is bad or even less good than monogamy.
In fact, I think that the Bible’s position on marriage being intrinsically heterosexual is more undeniable than its position on marriage being monogamous. Dan likes to remind us that “the Bible says that God gave David many wives.” Okay: were any of them men?
I would love to know whether and why Dan thinks the Bible requires marriage to be limited to our species, but I would also love to know why Dan thinks the Bible requires marriage to be monogamous.
“So, I wonder, has anyone from “your side” shared how you go about interpreting the Bible? What criteria do you have for interpreting passages, especially difficult passages and discerning God’s Truth for topics not discussed in the Bible?”
Yes – http://www.4simpsons.com/The%20Bble.htm#Tips_on_How_to_Read_the_Bible
As an example, if I had been misinformed that Romans 1 dealt with natural “desires” (aside from all the other bad pro-gay theological distortions used on that chapter) and then someone pointed out that the proper term was natural “function,” I’d accept the correction and move on. I wouldn’t ignore it because it didn’t fit my worldview.
I think you’re stretching it a bit to say it isn’t discussed in the Bible. Marriage is discussed and defined in the Bible. Jesus said it was for a man and a woman. I think you’re being literal and legalistic to say that it didn’t specifically mention gay marriage (just as it didn’t specifically say you couldn’t marry your dog).
Er, I wonder how questions can “demonstrate… contradictions” while not even implicitly making arguments.
I believe Neil is quite right about what the Bible says about itself, and I think that Jesus clearly affirms Scripture’s authority. If you can reject all this and doubt so much about what the Bible says about itself, it’s a wonder you can come to trust anything it says about God. After all, the Bible is apparently grossly deceitful in consistently and repeatedly presenting itself as more than it is: as God’s written revelation rather than merely an early witness to Judaism. I think squaring that circle — denying what the Bible says about itself yet affirming what it says about God, except for what it says about God’s authorship of itself — is much more difficult and spiritually dangerous than struggling with passages that can be difficult but aren’t necessarily contradictory.
But if you want to do all that and then accuse theologically conservative Christians of being contradictory, well, what’s one more inconsistency?
Dan:
It’s obvious why you think the Bible is clear in requiring strict pacifism: you have no problem ignoring passages to the contrary, either setting them aside because they must be mysterious or discarding them altogether because you suspect they’re erroneous. You cut out the passages you don’t like or don’t understand and — voila! — what remains is, not surprisingly, a clear affirmation of what you want affirmed.
All of this I don’t mind, if you didn’t simultaneously tell us over and over how much you love and respect the entire Bible. It’s clear that you don’t. At best, you love the Bible as you think it should be, not as it actually is.
And on the issue of fallacies, you must surely be aware of the notion of “NOT” as a logical operator. If “NOT” is used as a logical operator, the following set of premises (P) and conclusions (C) is logical:
1) A is TRUE
2) B is NOT A
3) B is FALSE
The question is, for the subject at hand, is B merely different than A, or is B the negation of A? Are A and B two orthogonal prepositions that are therefore independent? Or are they contradictory, such that one excludes the other?
A: God made us male and female, and for this reason a man (male) should leave the family of his youth and become one flesh with his wife (female), with the only explicit exception to this rule of being celibacy — that is, the denial of sexual expression.
B: It is moral to redefine the institution of marriage so that an individual instance of marriage can exclude either the male or the female.
These ideas are contradictory. If God made us male and female for marriage, then marriage cannot be redefined to exclude one or the other.
It is clear that the Bible teaches (and that Jesus personally affirms) that God made us male and female for marriage. That doesn’t stop you from saying that we can redefine marriage so that some marriages can exclude one or the other.
And it is likewise clear that the use of military force is Biblically permissible: the very next thing that Paul does after writing that we should overcome evil with good is to affirm that the government is an agent of God’s justice, that it does not “bear the sword in vain.” That fact you have never seemed to acknowledge, and you don’t seem above discarding passages that contradict your position on strict pacifism.
In the Bible, war is sometimes permitted, sodomy never is.
If you think the Bible’s wrong, that’s fine, but you should stop pretending that you love the entire Bible.
If I wanted to make the argument that one ought not engage in polygamy, I would not claim that the Bible says we ought not engage in polygamy. Why? Because the Bible does not say that. In fact, as Bubba notes, there are specific God-ordained examples of polygamy.
I don’t agree with you that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I’ve read your arguments and I’ve read the other arguments and I disagree with your conclusion. As you disagree with mine, right?
I’ll not repeat it anymore as that would be, well, repetitive. Nor will I point out the logical fallacy that you are making in your arguments again. It remains a logical fallacy, though.
Bubba said:
“If you think the Bible’s wrong, that’s fine, but you should stop pretending that you love the entire Bible.”
The problem with your argument is that you ignore the Bible as much as I do (if you want to look at it that way – I maintain that I don’t ignore the Bible, I disavow your interpretation of it).
I say that the passages that command atrocities, if literally interpreted, define God in such a way that Jesus contradicts.
You say that the commands to commit genocide contradict the clear teaching of Jesus, so Jesus must be wrong.
IF you want to look at it that way. Your argument towards me is akin to that argument against you. I don’t necessarily think of it in those terms, but if you want to get down to accusing others of not loving the Bible, then clearly, by your standards, you don’t love the Bible either. Or at least the entire Bible.
Dan?
You say that the commands to commit genocide contradict the clear teaching of Jesus, so Jesus must be wrong.
Where in the world did I say this?
It all really does depend on what your definition of “it” is — or, rather, your answer to this question: Is the Bible one thing — an “it” — or many pieces of writing?
And Neil: What is your explanation for the differences in the women-silent verses and Paul’s show of respect for women in leadership in other places. If you take “the Bible” at face value, if you insist that its message is “one” — then they are contradictory by definition. What is your explanation?
While we’re at it: There are two separate stories of Creation at the beginning of Genesis. Which one is the real one and why is other one in there?
Another point: Arguments like have NOT been going on among laypeople for 2,000 years. They’ve been going on, actually, only since a few generations after Luther, they picked up as literacy and the availability of the Scriptures widened, and they really picked up the past 150 years or so especially in the seminaries. Whatever else it is you’re clinging to, very much of it is a fairly recent addition to the Old, Old Story itself.
The exact same place where I said that gay marriage contradicts the Bible so the Bible must be wrong, and I don’t love the Bible. If we don’t limit our discussions to the others actual points but instead what we think they must mean, it makes the discussions all that much more interesting.
Okay, Dan, where did I accuse you of saying that? Are you going to be, um, less than honest about what I’ve written about you so you can be less than honest about what I’ve written about my own positions?
Is this the Christian, brotherly sort of discussion you really want?
“If you think the Bible’s wrong, that’s fine, but you should stop pretending that you love the entire Bible.” -bubba, 2007
And no, that’s not the sort of brotherly discussion I want. I’d rather we talk about what one another actually believes and their actual points, rather than assume that they must mean that they think the Bible’s “wrong,” and that therefore they’re pretending to love the Bible.
Dan, am I wrong that you believe that OT passages that you think command atrocities should be ignored, either as mysteries or mistakes?
Wow, after reading this thread I am SO glad that I am not a Christian.
Hi Frank – yes, it does get messy at times exposing false teachings. Normally I’d stop the discussion threads but sometimes the best way to expose errors is to let the person keep talking. Others can view the debate and form their own conclusions. Distortions on the Biblical view of sexuality are extremely destructive so I think it is worth the space.
So how do atheists handle it if someone spreads a “false teaching” that there is a God? (Kidding)
E.R. What were the responses to those topics when you did your research? What did you think of the explanations?
And what do you make of your “contradictions” and uncertainty of what belongs in the Bible and what doesn’t? How do you know that the parts you trust aren’t the “wrong” ones?
And I don’t recall mentioning “laypeople.” Some great minds have been working with the Bible for 2,000 plus years.
Neil,
I just find it sad that someone goes to such great lengths to “harmonize” a Bronze-Age text and pretend that it was written by some anthropomorphic “God” 2,000 years ago. One would have to be blind to not see the HUGE difference in the “God” character in the Old Testament compared with the New Testament. “God” is a completely different character in each one. Yet, people do mental gymnastics to try to justify how a “God of Love” approved of slavery, genocide, polygamy, racism, killing children, etc., etc. in the Old Testament but somehow changed his mind in the New Testament. It’s almost as if “God” found “Jesus” before he “wrote” the New Testament.
Also, this constant attack on the LGBT community is getting quite stale. Somehow God approves of free-market capitalism and a military-industrial complex than engages in imperialism — but he hates two people making a commitment of love to each other. Some “God”.
bubba asked:
am I wrong that you believe that OT passages that you think command atrocities should be ignored, either as mysteries or mistakes?
I’m not advocating ignoring them. They’re there. We might gain some insights from them. But, one insight that we WON’T gain from it is that sometimes God commands us to commit atrocities.
So, yes, you’d be wrong to say that I advocate ignoring these passages. They’re too dangerous to ignore.
Hi Frank,
Which denominations do you know that participate in the military-industrial complex? Because that would be an apt analogy. We aren’t talking government policy here, we’re talking about what the Bible teaches for Christians and churches.
And yes, He is “some God!” He is actually in favor of people committing to love one another. He just stated what many of us find to be rather obvious: Adding sex to loving, committed relationships doesn’t necessarily make them better. It does make the union of a man and a woman better. It doesn’t improve relationships between parents / children, teachers / students, men/men, etc. Since He created us all I think He knows best.
What is sad is that the Old Testament God / New Testament God false dichotomy gets spread by Christians and non-Christians alike. Perhaps you’ve actually studied all the Bible but I’ve found that most who make those claims haven’t.
They typically have a distorted view of what Jesus really taught. He isn’t the Gandhi-Christ (as Total Transformation would say). He didn’t water down the moral commandments one bit. If anything, He raised the bar (e.g., lust = adultery). He spoke of Hell more than He spoke of Heaven, and the New Testament speaks of Hell more than the Old.
“Both” Gods are exclusive. In the OT the Israelites suffer whenever they worship other gods. In the NT it teaches 100 times that Jesus is the only way to salvation.
The OT God was very forgiving of the Israelites. It is really quite repetitive. Lots of themes are in both Testaments – e.g. Leviticus 19:18 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”
Re. the laundry list of objections – here’s a link on slavery, for starters – http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/What_God_Says_About_Slavery
Frank said:
One would have to be blind to not see the HUGE difference in the “God” character in the Old Testament compared with the New Testament. “God” is a completely different character in each one.
Frank, from my point of view, the “good” God as revealed more completely in Jesus IS there in the OT, as well. It is the OT that first teaches us to “love our enemies,” it is the OT that first teaches us to take care of the widows, the orphans, the marginalized, the foreigners. It is the OT that first warns of the dangers of overconsumption, militarism, greed and hatred.
There’s a lot of great teaching in the OT, a lot that foreshadows the Good News as taught by Jesus in the NT. As long as we don’t take the Bible literally in every case, but rather seek to discover God’s Truths therein.
Is Frank another name for David? Or do they just get their talking points from the same source? Hmmm…
neil asked:
Which denominations do you know that participate in the military-industrial complex?
Well, we all do, if we’re paying taxes. Further, many denominations celebrate the military-industrial complex that “makes america great and gives us our liberty.” Southern Baptists, I know have. I’ve heard Methodists preach that sort of idolatry. Sadly, I’ve even seen some anabaptists preaching a rather subdued support of the military-industrial complex.
You don’t see this in your church? What was your sermon about on the 4th of July?
Neil said: Please tell me that you aren’t saying that all denominations participate in every single thing the government does in the same sense that we are debating the church’s position on “same-sex marriage” just because some of their members pay taxes.
“So how do atheists handle it if someone spreads a “false teaching” that there is a God? (Kidding)”
Even though your question is a joke I think it deserves an honest answer. Atheists would welcome the idea that there is a God, we just expect there to be evidence for it/him/her. Atheism is a rejection of faith, and an embrace of reason, logic, and the Scientific Method. Atheists would not reject the notion of a God, as long there was evidence to support it.
Thanks, Frank. How do you define faith and reason? The reason I ask is that the Bible is full of verses on using reasoning, and its definition of faith isn’t “blind faith” (though some Christians call it that in error). Faith is always based on knowledge.
For example, I’ve been studying the Book of Acts and it has about 13 presentations of the Gospel. Over and over it talks about how Paul reasoned with people.
Here are a couple arguments for the existence of God if you are interested – http://peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm
Neil, my answers are this:
Both Creation stories, as efforts of Jewish believers to explain first things, are “true” and useful, whether or not they are accurate.
Since Paul was speaking for himself in specific circumstances, to particular group of believers, I see what he wrote about Phoebe, et al., as a useful example of how an iconic early Christian managed to overcome the patriarchal society of his day to let the idea that “there si neither Jew nor Greek” nor “male and female” in Christ have real, applicable meaning. As for the women-silent verses, scholars doubt that Paul wrote that, which means that someone who was a close follower of Paul probably wrote it, and as in most such cases, the follower probably took something that Paul thought about a specific group (perhaps one where the women were abusing their freedom in Christ to take over a group and run roughshod over men) and took it to extremes and tried to apply to all situations.
Now. Back to you, Neil. What are your answers and explanations of the contradictions?
I wasn’t sure if you were referring to 1 Tim. 2 or 1 Cor. 14. They are similar so I don’t think they were added later, even though “scholars” say so. It appears to me that the context is women being disruptive in church by talking over their husbands.
Re. Genesis 1/2 – I don’t view Gen. 2 as a full creation narrative. It is more of viewing things from the human perspective. I know a lot has been written on this and I may be oversimplifying it, but I just don’t see the big deal.
So if you want to delete those passages, be my guest. I’m gonna keep ‘em.
If you want to drop something, I’d start with the “long ending” of Mark and perhaps the woman accused of adultery story (John 7:53 – 8:11), since the earliest manuscripts don’t have those. Perhaps they belong, but removing them doesn’t change any church doctrine.
That’s great, Neil. Can you show me where the Bible supports the Scientific Method? Or better yet, show me where the Bible supports a notion of a spherical (not circular) Earth (one without “four corners”), where the Sun is stationary and the Earth orbits around it, and that the Moon reflects the Sun and is not a “luminary”. I’ll give you a minute. And remember, no “mental gymnastics” or going to great lengths to “harmonize”.
Hi Frank,
“Can you show me where the Bible supports the Scientific Method?”
I’m not sure I follow. The Bible isn’t a science textbook, so I’m not sure why you’d expect to find a lesson on it there. There are no objections to the scientific method that I am aware of. Christians are lauded for using reason and told to test things, though these aren’t necessarily scientific experiements.
You don’t appear to be seriously inquiring so I’ll just answer one of your sound bites as a courtesy. “Four corners” is a saying that people use. If you are going to assume that is was meant to be taken literally then I imagine that you are in constant angst over the moronic weathermen who claim that the sun “rises” and “sets” each day.
The Bible is fair game for questions, but taking things literally that were obviously figures of speech and vice verse isn’t a very productive way to read any text.
“The Bible isn’t a science textbook, so I’m not sure why you’d expect to find a lesson on it there. ”
Because so many Christians treat it that way?
Neil,
We use the phrases “rises” and “sets” because that WAS our understanding of the universe. We have since corrected our understanding of how the universe operates, yet those phrases linger on in our language. This issue, however, is not one of semantics. If the Bible suggests that the Earth is a flat circle (supported in a number of verses), that the Moon produces its own light (found in Genesis), and that the Sun moves around the Earth and can be “fixed” in the sky, then its author must be sorely lacking scientific knowledge. This, however, is not particularly surprising given that the Bible was written by men some 2,000 years ago — long before the advent of much of the scientific knowledge we take for granted today.
Hey, Frank:
Just one point: Testimony is evidence. Neil and I differ greatly on the origins of the Bible. He says it was transmitted by God to man somehow — which is the fundamentalist conservative-evangelical position. Others, myself included, understand it more to be a testimony of humankind’s interaction with the Divine, Jewish and Christian. Inspired by the seeking as much as the finding.
Testimony. You might think it’s hearsay. You may very well do so. But there it is: a form of evidence.
Frank, why can’t metaphors be used? Do you give the Bible credit for understanding the water cycle long before “science” discovered it, among other things? http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
What is your explanation for the creation of the universe, the meaning of life, morality, etc.?
Guys,
Frank’s quote breaks my heart!
“Wow, after reading this thread I am SO glad that I am not a Christian.”
Look at the testimony that has been given of our Lord through this thread. What a black eye. I am angry and embarassed.
This stuff of nonsense that is being spouted about the Bible being full of errors plain just makes me furious!
Proponents of the “errors and contradictions” have yet to offer sound Biblical, historical, and logical evidence that the Bible is erroneous, evidence that hasn’t been dispelled over the past- God knows how long.
On top of that, what believer would WANT to spout this stuff to begin with about the Word of God that Jesus used, believed, supported, obeyed, wrote, breathed…….
And this whole “the Bible supports gay marriage,” “the Bible doesn’t say for gays not to marry, so it’s ok,” “since the Bible doesn’t say there are 66 books of the Bible, parts of it are wrong,” and “since the Bible supports genocide in the OT, the Bible is not the Word of the Lord” nonsense.
It is hard enough for non-believers to take Christians seriously with those stupid church sign quotes that make us look like idiots (Moses was a basket case. This church is prayer conditioned.), and then to have our very own sin and hypocrisy we inevidibly slip upon, and then have “believers” attack the very Word of God we are to live by and use, not only for exhortation and edification of the body, but for teaching, evangelism and conversion/means of grace. Why should a non-believer- and atheist- believe what Jesus says and the Bible teaches, when so-called Christians don’t believe it themselves? AGH! I am so angry now that I could about spit nails!
What is being done to the Bible, to Christ’s very name and reputation, and to Christianity because of the attacks upon Scripture, is a travesty. I am apalled.
Frank, please forgive us.
Dan, about the supposed atrocity passages:
I’m not advocating ignoring them. They’re there. We might gain some insights from them. But, one insight that we WON’T gain from it is that sometimes God commands us to commit atrocities.
So, yes, you’d be wrong to say that I advocate ignoring these passages. They’re too dangerous to ignore.
What do you advocate instead? What insight do you think can be gained from these passages? I’ve seen you speculate that the meaning behind these passages are mysteries that we cannot fathom (even though they were instructions to ancient Israel rather than descriptions about God) or that they were mistakes on the part of Deuteronomy’s writer. You’ve said so much about what the passage doesn’t mean but nothing substantive about what it does mean, so, yes, it doesn’t seem like it’s a passage that you cherish.
E.R.:
Both Creation stories, as efforts of Jewish believers to explain first things, are “true” and useful, whether or not they are accurate.
The problem with seeing the first two chapters of Genesis as efforts solely on the part of Jewish believers is that, for instance, there were no human witnesses to the creation of the universe, the sun, or the earth. If the accounts are true (not just quote-unquote “true” but inaccurate, whatever in the world that means) it can only be because God revealed the story of creation to man.
Hey, Neil. I’m not takin’ nothin’ out of the Bible. I think it’s fine, warts and all.
Kristine said:
Frank’s quote breaks my heart!
…Look at the testimony that has been given of our Lord through this thread. What a black eye. I am angry and embarassed.
Yeah, me too.
Then maybe you should quit spouting your unsupported pro-gay theology right about . . . now.
i like what Paul Harvey said about Genesis 2.
“The reason God put Genesis 2 in the Bible is so we had the rest of the story.”
Oh, I think that the early Jewish faithful absolutely came upon those two stories, and surely others, in their quest for God and for meaning in life.
Bubba said:
You’ve said so much about what the passage doesn’t mean but nothing substantive about what it does mean, so, yes, it doesn’t seem like it’s a passage that you cherish.
Cherish? No, not especially. But neither do I want to ignore it nor excise it. What does it mean? Well, it could stand as testimony of humanity’s desire to get God’s endorsement on even the most heinous of actions. Or a note that we can justify even the most horrible crimes, if it’s “god’s will.”
How about you and your interpretation? Do you cherish a passage that has God commanding the wiping out of a whole peoples, including their children?
If you want to keep discussing this point please take it offline or to another blog. Thanks!
Well, count me the odd man out yet again. What angers and embarrasses me is not honest disagreement with other Christians. It’s the demand that we all march in lockstep as we try to follow Christ. The fact is, I don’t want Frank to “become a Christian” if that’s what it means, and I don’t want him to join our “religion.” I want him to seek the Truth, for even just seeking it will set him free. And when people quit pretending to have “evidence” that isn’t there, maybe he and others will notice the evidence that *is* there, which is, in fact, mainly testimonial.
Frank, very briefly:
Atheism is a rejection of faith, and an embrace of reason, logic, and the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method assumes that inferences about the entire universe can be drawn from local observations, that the things we observe here and now can reveal things about how the universe behaves in all places and at all times. Though it is necessary in order to draw conclusions from observations and experiments, this assumption cannot possibly be proven and it therefore must be taken on faith.
Moreover, it’s one thing to affirm capital-R Reason, another thing altogether to believe that your human mind is capable of reason. If the human mind is nothing more than the result of a complex chemical reaction, there’s no reason to believe that the mind is capable of producing rational thoughts — that is to say, thoughts that conform to an external, objective thing called Truth. Going on just what we can prove scientifically, the brain is just another organ, more complex in degree than the liver, but not different in kind. Expecting the brain to produce rational thoughts is about as rational as expecting the liver to produce rational bile. Myself, I believe the human mind is both at least partially independent from the physical universe and capable of genuine rationality: the latter is, I believe, absolutely dependent on the former. But because these beliefs cannot be proven scientifically, they must be accepted on faith.
As a contemporary Christian thinker wrote, there is no such thing as reasoning “alone.” Consider: Could a person prove, by reasoning, that reasoning works? Of course not; any such “proof” would be circular, and as everyone knows, circular reasoning proves nothing. Then how does the reasoner get his confidence in reasoning? He certainly doesn’t get it by reasoning “alone”; he takes the reliability of reasoning on faith. What this shows is that faith is not the opposite of reasoning, as silly people often think; rather, faith is necessary to the act of reasoning itself. No one can choose whether or not to have faith; the only choice open to him is where his faith should be placed.
Suppose someone answers this by saying, “Okay, I admit that I have faith in reasoning. But I refuse to have faith in anything else; reasoning is the only thing in which I’ll place my faith.” There are two problems with this way of reasoning about reasoning. First, it’s arbitrary. Once a person admits that one act of faith is reasonable, on what grounds can he argue that all other acts of faith are unreasonable? Second, it’s shortsighted. The first thing that any honest person learns about his reasoning powers is how limited they are. He can find out some things with them, but he cannot find out the most important things with them. God, who created human reason, must have known this. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that if God wants us to know more about Him than just that He exists, He would have given our reasoning extra help to know the things that it couldn’t reach by itself. That’s why He has given us biblical revelation.
You see, to know the limits of sight is not to be blind; true blindness lies in refusing extra light when it is offered.
Kristine,
I’m glad to hear that you are angry and embarrassed — as you should be. Rejecting the bulk of science is one thing, but continuing to advocate for the suppression of a minority group is clearly immoral. GLBT marriages have existed since the beginning of time — long before the creation of God or Christianity. And yes, GLBT relationships will to continue to exist long after Christianity goes the way of Zoroastrianism. My advice is to become a rational, thinking citizen of humanity and not waste so much time on what other people do with their respective genitalia.
Frank,
Who said anyone rejects the bulk of science? Really, you are welcome to comment here but lay off the straw men.
You claim that suppression of a minority group is immoral. What is your foundation for morality, and why should everyone adhere to it?
My foundation for morality is much the same as it is for any society based in reason — it is grounded on a utilitarian ethic. As a group we should seek to reduce pain and suffering and maximize happiness. As modern psychology has proven, GLBT couples are happier when in stable relationships. They are not happy when excluded, abused, harassed, or otherwise demeaned. Sexual orientation, in and of itself, can never be an issue of morality or ethics. Any sexual orientation (homo, bi, or hetero) can be used for either moral, or immoral, purposes. It is immoral, however, to preclude GLBT couples from marriage as there is no rational argument, free from religion, against it.
“Who said anyone rejects the bulk of science?”
I’m glad to hear you say this, Neil. Apparently you are saying that you don’t reject the bulk of science. I can only assume, then, that you accept the evidence for evolution, given that it is the basis for modern biology?
Can you expand on “utilitarian ethic?” I am familiar with the utility theory in economics but wasn’t sure if that is what you meant.
Either way, it sounds a little like majority rule as opposed to universal morality.
“As a group we should seek to reduce pain and suffering and maximize happiness.”
Who decided this? Who does the calculations on an ongoing basis to ensure that happiness is maximized? Who defines the group? Who defines happiness? In a Darwinian worldview, why should I care about anyone else’s happiness unless I’m convinced that it will always increase my own? What if I discover that enslaving a group of people will increase the happiness for other people?
Yes, I accept micro-evolution. I reject macro-evolution, and I don’t think that means abandoning the bulk of science. If it does, then science is in big trouble. The Lucy exhibit just came to Houston. What a joke. Lots of drawings and fanciful stories based off a few bones. Buried in the fine print was the notation that she isn’t even an ancestor of humans – just on a different branch of the dogmatic evolutionary bush.
I have also noticed that science reverses its positions now and then so I don’t trust it as much as I trust God. Since not all scientists agree on everything should that make me glad I’m not a scientist?
(BTW, I think scientists are swell and I like science. I think it is amazing to see how God put the universe together. I think Darwinian Fundamentalism is bad because it limits inquiry and scientific progress.)
Dan, it seems to me that Neil wants us to wrap things up on some of these subjects, which is fine by me, but let me quickly address one point:
Cherish? No, not especially. But neither do I want to ignore it nor excise it. What does it mean? Well, it could stand as testimony of humanity’s desire to get God’s endorsement on even the most heinous of actions. Or a note that we can justify even the most horrible crimes, if it’s “god’s will.”
This sort of speculation justifies my belief that you have no business telling anyone that you love the entire Bible. If you can speculate that passages that presume to be good commands from a holy God are the exact opposite — thoroughly evil commands from wicked, unholy men — then you have no love or reverence for these passages. You love only those parts of the Bible you like, and if you think it’s terrible of me to point out that obvious but inconvenient fact, that’s simply too bad.
“Who decided this? Who does the calculations on an ongoing basis to ensure that happiness is maximized? Who defines the group? Who defines happiness? In a Darwinian worldview, why should I care about anyone else’s happiness unless I’m convinced that it will always increase my own?”
That’s easy, Neil. I think anyone, yourself included, would have little difficulty in determining between right and wrong. I recall a quote from Sam Harris (I think) who said something to the effect that the ancient Hebrews didn’t need to wait for God (and the Ten Commandments) to know that murder and adultery are wrong. We know these things intrinsically. They are hard-wired into our collective evolution. Altruism is itself an evolutionary by-product. We sacrifice our own happiness (to a point) to help ensure the happiness of others. This promotes cohesion within our society and helps our species.
There is no such thing as “macro-evolution” and you know it. It is a term created by ID advocates. The fact of evolution is now without dispute, particularly with our contemporary fossil record and the amazing advances we’ve had in genetics. Science understands the mechanism of evolution better now than ever before. And that’s the beauty of science. It is open to debate, criticism and revision — just as long as there is evidence which is observable and falsifiable.
Frank, you and Sam both make the same mistake: You sneak morality in the back door. Try again. Who said it was a moral good to help the species? Lots of species went extinct. Was that immoral?
Yes, it is intrinsic because of how God made us. Materialistic philosophy has to sneak it in the back door and pretend it was always there. But the molecules to man theory has no foundation for it. According to that theory, anything we do is a result of materialist forces so you couldn’t say something was moral or immoral.
Just because someone came up with a term you don’t like doesn’t mean it doesn’t describe reality. If you can’t see the difference between species of dogs and the molecules to man nonsense that isn’t my issue.
I’m not following Neil. We are compelled to act morally by our biology, not God. If we, as a species, continually acted immorally we would eventually cease to exist. We have abandoned tribalism in favor of civilization, not because of religious influence, but because a peaceful society is a biological advantage.
Have you even read Sam Harris?
Hi Frank,
No, I haven’t read Sam Harris.
“If we, as a species, continually acted immorally we would eventually cease to exist.”
OK, now I’m not following. We have acted immorally forever in my view, and the planet has over 6B people. I consider slavery as practiced by the U.S. to be immoral, but we could have gone on with that forever without wiping out the species.
More importantly, you continue to assume that perpetuating the species is a moral good. What is the foundation for that? If we are just the product of random chance, etc. then how can you claim anything is moral?
And not to get back on the gay thing, but in your view wouldn’t that behavior be immoral since it isn’t helping to perpetuate the species? And wouldn’t birth control and abortion be immoral as well? (You may be pro-life, as I know many atheists are. I’m just throwing out examples so I can understand your position.)
OK, I think you have two things confused here. The foundation of morality is NOT to perpetuate the species. Otherwise, bacteria and viruses would be the most moral species on the planet. Morality implies concern for the well-being of others. In a utilitarian ethic, morality would be that which gives the most happiness with the least amount of pain for the fewer number of people. If a stable, homosexual, relationship serves to heighten your happiness and decrease your suffering then it would be moral — insofar as it does not increase the suffering of others. Birth control, again, would be moral if a woman felt that her happiness would be best served by limiting the number of children she bears.
OK, but when you said, “If we, as a species, continually acted immorally we would eventually cease to exist.” I inferred that you were saying that morality was important for the species to survive. Now I’m not sure what you meant.
Why is it immoral to kill someone if it will make you happier? Are lions immoral?
“If we are just the product of random chance, etc. then how can you claim anything is moral?”
You’ve made a HUGE jump with this statement. What’s your basis for it? Why can’t morality exist in a world of randomness? I don’t understand how one impacts the other.
Sorry if I left out a step. If you hold to a materialist worldview then everything is a result of random chance, natural selection, etc. You don’t believe in a transcendent morality. That means that morality had to come out of the Darwinian process, right?
Also, if “God” is the basis of your own morality then you are essentially saying you would be devoid of morals if you were not religious. I’m sure, Neil, that you would be a moral man with, or without, your religious beliefs.
You are very kind, but you don’t know me very well
. Seriously, as I mentioned before, God wrote his moral law on our hearts (Romans 2 and elsewhere). So yes, we all know we shouldn’t murder or steal. A timeless creating God designed us that way. That is a logical foundation.
I have been very careful not to say that non-religious people don’t have morals. They have them, but they can’t explain their foundation.
My point – which I’m sticking with – is that a materialist worldview has no basis for morality. If it did, then wouldn’t we all be morally perfect? How could we not be?
This is gettin’ good. An eternal question! Does morality exist apart from God? Hmmm.
That’s very interesting, Neil. Yet I wonder how your idea that mankind is basically moral fits in with Christian theology which argues that mankind in totally depraved. I think you’ve got yourself an oxymoron there.
Good one
Only the answer is: Knowing the law and obeying it are two different things. As I said, “We have acted immorally forever in my view . . .”
So we “know” what is wrong and right but we can’t act on it? That’s very interesting. How then do you explain people such as Erudite Redneck and Dan who find passages in the Old Testament to be immoral? I’m assuming under your framework that both Erudite Redneck and Dan are also created by “God” and therefore given the same “morality” (yet they apparently can’t act on it consistently). Yet, how do you explain their revulsion at the killing of Egyptian babies, or of children by a bear (Numbers 33:4; II Kings 2:23)? Shouldn’t they find these acts, committed by God himself, to be moral since that is the foundation of their morality? Or is it because Dan and Erudite are liberals and thus their God-given morality has been compromised resulting in them having compassion for heathen children being murdered by God?
It may be more productive to stay on track here with the foundation for morality issue rather then me trying to explain what Dan and E.R. may or may not think (as tempting as that activity sounds!).
Also, not all Christians believe in total depravity. Even those that believe in total depravity don’t think you can never obey the law.
Well, I think this goes to the very foundation of this issue. If our morality, or “conscience”, is “God-given” then we shouldn’t find anything in the Bible with which to object. We should read the stories of the Egyptian Plagues and etc. without a gut-reaction. And yet most of us do find these texts extremely troubling. We reflexively find them immoral. And yet they were committed by God himself — the creator of morality. Doesn’t that fly into the face of your argument?
No, but it flies in the face of yours.
Here’s why: People don’t always fully understand what they read. It happens all the time, and not just with the Bible.
But if there is no God, why would those things be immoral? By definition, people did them so it must have made someone happy.
(Also, God is sovereign over life and death, not man.)
“But if there is no God, why would those things be immoral? By definition, people did them so it must have made someone happy.”
I see you’re practicing your non-sequitors.
I was just using your reasoning: Morality is whatever makes people happy (though I’m still waiting on the formula and tracking system that proves how we are genetically inclined to derive the maximum amount of happiness for all people).
OK, seriously, WHY do you need “God” to know what is moral? Have you NO other criteria on which to judge an action’s morality? I don’t think you’d like to take your argument to its logical conclusion. Namely, that we ONLY act morally because of some cosmic mandate or cosmic intervention. That would make morality empty and meaningless. I act morally not for some divine reward or punishment, but because I enjoy helping others, in a peaceful community. This morality serves to strengthen the community, ensure our children’s survival, lengthen our lives, and maximize our happiness while minimizing our pain and suffering.
Maybe I’m not articulating this the right way. You keep assuming a definition of good but you haven’t provided a foundation for it. You assume that it is good to have strong communities, live longer, etc. But who says that is good? We both seem to think those are intuitively good things, but the molecules to man approach doesn’t explain it.
We seem to agree that morality exists and probably agree on a great many examples of moral and immoral behavior. But where did this universal morality come from? If beings “evolved” on another planet is it possible that their “morality” could be the opposite of ours – i.e., it is admirable to run away in battle, it is noble to pick on the weak, etc.?
If society decided that it was moral to jail all atheists, I would disagree. But on what basis would you argue with them? If it made everyone happier, how could you dispute their findings? Was slavery moral until the 13th Amendment was passed?
Re, “If our morality, or “conscience”, is “God-given” then we shouldn’t find anything in the Bible with which to object.”
Well, obviously, I disagree with this. I think Frank could have guessed that, but I’m not sure. He seems to be basing a loot of his objections to the idea of God on previous encounters with fundamentalist Christians — and so do I!
Oh, and call me ER.
Neil, come on. Now please explain why even a staunch materialist perspective would not give a moral foundation. Evolution itself acts “morally” — it seeks, although without any intention, to further itself and continue living. In fact, I think it is much EASIER to formulate a reason why morality exists using a materialist framework than a theist one.
I’m pretty sure the burden of proof is on you to explain where a universal morality came from in a molecules to man model. Morality is an immaterial concept. You can’t weigh it or package it. So where did it come from in a purely material universe?
I know it is impossible for you to explain it, which is why you struggle. People give Dawkins/Harris/et al a pass and don’t press them when they make silly moral claims. They always sneak it in and no one seems to call them on it.
Who says it is a moral good to continue living or not to kill others? In a Darwinian worldview, why would it matter? Again, are lions immoral?
Without my relgious beliefs, I would probably still consider myself a moral man. But a lot of people wouldn’t like me very much, and they probably would not consider me moral either.
It would be fun while it lasted and perhaps there is something to be said for “a short life, but a merry one.”
(or was that a gay one)
SST,
Did you know what was right and wrong before your conversion? If so, then religion didn’t give you “morality” it simply gave you the impetus to act on it.
“Who says it is a moral good to continue living or not to kill others? In a Darwinian worldview, why would it matter?”
Precisely BECAUSE it is a Darwinian worldview. Evolution clearly favors life over extinction. This is the basis for our morality. It is pretty obviously you haven’t read Dawkins or Harris.
From all the reviews I read Dawkins and Harris trot out old ideas but share them at a higher volume.
I thought it was all about maximizing happiness, not expanding the species.
Darwinism favors survival of the fittest. It would have no position to make claims about morality.
If it is about favoring life over extinction then wouldn’t medical experimentation on prisoners and forced organ transplants from death row inmates be moral actions? Again, wouldn’t abortion, birth control and homosexuality be immoral? I know your answer will be the “happiness” thing but you seem to go from one argument to another.
So your contention is that lions are immoral?
Ah hah!! I see where you are making a mistake. Morality, as you rightly pointed out, requires consciousness. Evolution, cannot be, in and of itself, moral even though it may act morally. We, as sentient beings, are able to “empathize” with others. This, along with our evolutionary history, give us the basis for human morality. We choose not to inflict harm on others, because we are able to visualize what it would be like for ourselves. You are quite right in claiming that morality requires empathy and a degree of choice. We have difficulty empathizing with insects (and will gleefully kill them with insecticide). The same, however, cannot be said of African children even though they are not related to us, and their survival or death would have little impact on our lives. We are able to act morally in these cases, due to our ability to empathize. This ability, however, gives us a biological advantage and is wholly derived from our evolutionary history. I recommend you read Richard Dawkins for more on this topic. He has an amazing analysis of altruism using an evolutionary perspective.
Sorry to rain on your endorphin-fest, but I don’t follow that line of thinking. When did the immaterial concepts of empathy and sentience enter into the materialist world? You’ve just snuck in the morality concept in a different way.
So when someone breaks the morality you have made up, why punish him? Maybe he is evolving on to something new?
This is like watchin’ a Harry Pottersesque wand battle.
MY contention is that y’all are both pretending to communicate, when each of you actually is trying to persuade the other either that each is right, or that the other is wrong. Which is how wars start.
Y’all go right on ahead. I’ll be a phlosophical suttler, sellin’ goods to whichever one of y’all happens to be in the lead at any given time.
But, really. Don’t either of you think yer winning! This woulda been won LONG ago if it was “winnable” by either side.
Of course it isn’t winnable by your definition. It is a narrow road, remember? But that doesn’t mean you have to sit on the sidelines.
I must admit, though, that I’ve never encounter such an evangelical atheist. Actively promoting a specific author! Y’all are comin’ along.
Pretty soon y’all will have the same kind of religion — a worthless one — that Christianity has managed to belch up.
NO USE for religion. At all.
ER, I think you’re a bit ethnocentric on this one. Christianity has fought a two-front battle from the beginning – false teachers inside and the world outside. There will always be challenges. There’s a lot of bad stuff in the U.S. what with the mainline heretics pushing gay marriage and saying Jesus isn’t God and isn’t the only way to salvation. But there are a lot of great things going on around the world.
Re. evangelical atheists: Yep, if they really love people they’ll send missionaries to China, India and the Middle East with their time and money to un-convert the religious.
Hi Frank – your latest comments keep showing up in my filter and then I release them. I’m not sure why . . . perhaps it is because we’re both commenting a lot and it think yours are sp*m. Or it may be because the email address you posted has that word in it.
I’ll “liberate” them as quickly as I can but will not be at my PC much tom’w. I didn’t want you to think I was deleting them.
Thanks for the discussion!
ER – as usual, my goal isn’t to change someone’s mind. I’m not on commission (OK, I’m on the great commission, but that’s different). I would have banned . . . uh . . . certain people long ago if it was all about changing the mind of commenters. But I think the middle grounders can see these things for themselves and consider what makes the most sense. I used to be an atheist. Now I’m not.
Neil,
You are doing a great job. The Lord has blessed you with the gift of apologetics. And patience…and self control.
I used to be all messed up on drugs. Now I’m all messed up on the Lord. Wonderful. .. Faith has nothing to do with logic. Atheism has nothing to do with faith.
Neil, if you were saved from atheism, you were saved by God Almighty God’s self. No “reason,” no “argument” was involved. If you were CONVINCED of the “truth of the Gospel,” you can just as easily be persuaded otherwise — which is the main reason I LAUGH at your puny human efforts to logically deduce, or prove, or otherwise argue for something that is a matter of faith.
Mr. Atheist? Likewise, why do you give a rat’s ass about something you don’t believe, can’t be convinced of and otherwise hold in personal disdain? Think yer gonna get it outlawed? Go for it. It ain’t gonna gonna happen.
In this country, you both truly have to surrender to the other. Fortunately, it’s actually easier for the Christian if he follows the apparent example of the Saviour.
“Faith has nothing to do with logic.”
I really wish you wouldn’t say things like that. It reinforces so many unfortunate stereotypes about Christians and it simply isn’t true.
I have faith in Jesus because I believe that He really lived, died and rose again. It isn’t blind faith or faith in opposition to the evidence.
I realize that God changed my heart and drew me to him. I know the Holy Spirit controls this. But one of the ways He used to do that was Christian apologetics.
Have you read Acts lately? Over and over it says how they reasoned with people and demonstrated that Jesus was the Christ. The Gospel of John was written so that people would believe. And on and on. Here’s a few from Acts:
Acts 17:2 As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Acts 17:17 So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.
Acts 18:4 Every Sabbath he reasoned in the synagogue, trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.
Acts 18:19 They arrived at Ephesus, where Paul left Priscilla and Aquila. He himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.
Acts 26:25 “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable.”
You assume that human logic is the only tool God has at God’s disposal. You err.
Be glad for whatever tool God used to bring you to God. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that because it happened to you that way, that it must happen to everyone that way.
That’s funny, I was about to tell you the same thing! So we agree.
You talk all the time about revelation — yet you deny it when it really counts, insisting that it be forced and shaped and crammed into YOUR ideas about a book that isn’t a book in the first place, but centuries of numerous writings.
Straw man alert. Nobody light a match. I don’t limit what God can do. He can reach people all sorts of ways – dreams, visions, evangelists, literature.
Those writings are a guide. Perhaps THE guide. But NOT a checklist of things to believe, a box in which to cram a small God dressed with the pathetic, fleshly carnal meat of human “logic.”
Actually, I think it was his decision to cram those things in the Bible. But let’s not start that discussion over.
Frank made a comment that just boggles. (I’m often boggled) I’ll paraphrase to save me some time, but it went something like this:
Evolution is moral because (dang I gotta go look. Hang on.)
Evolution is moral because it favors life over extinction. How is that morality? What’s moral about it? It seems patently self-serving to me. The concern of life over extinction only benefits the self. It has no feeling for favoring another’s life over extinction. Wassup?
One final shot to Dan.
Genocide’s a strong term to apply to God. But don’t judge Him on human terms because He’s definitely NOT human. But did He “commit genocide”? The Great Flood, Sodom and Gemorrah, and the other towns whereby he used the armies of Israel to annihilate them every one. And will not Jesus judge the quick and the dead at Judgement? What will He do with those He judges not worthy of Heaven? Hammocks and pina coladas? You keep bringing up these verses and they’ve been answered and explained. You don’t disagree, you deny. (BTW, for all that, there’s no command for US to commit genocide. None.) OK. I’m done. Perhaps I’ll take this up at my blog.
Crap. Marshall and I agree on something. Re, “Evolution itself acts ‘morally’ — it seeks, although without any intention, to further itself and continue living.”
That is the furthest thing from morality according to Christianity. Emptying oneself, giving one’s life up for others, denying oneself — that’s morality. NOT self preservation.
And Neil: Do you have nightmares about straw men chasing you? It really is comical the way you see them everywhere. Funny even.
Re, But did He “commit genocide”?
The Bible says God did, yes.
“Deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.”
“A systematic attempt to annihilate a racial group or nation.”
There’s no question what the Bible says. The questions are 1., did it really happen that way? and 2., if it did really happen that way, what kind of God does that make God and 2.a., what do we do with that?
The problem with this entire genocide question is that it assumes that God does not have a right to judge the people of the earth. We are HIS creation for Him to do with as He pleases. The Bible speaks of His holiness more than it does of His love, and out of that holiness comes the necessity to deal with sin. He chooses how He will deal with it. Two ways: eternal judgment starting with temporal judgment, and, (this is the way that I like the best), imputing the judgment of His children upon His Son.
But the point is that to say that God commanded genocide, which He did as a form of judgment, is wrong is to set ourselves up as the final judge of what is right and wrong. God is continually pouring out His wrath on mankind, just as He did in OT days. Why? Because we are ALL rebellious and deserve His wrath. This is what makes His grace so wonderful. We all deserve genocide, but in His goodness and kindness, He shows us His live through His Son Jesus Christ.
Yes, He did wipe out entire cities in the OT. Why? He was judging sin. But He also spared some of those cities as well, and raised us a Savior for those who would be saved.
Remember, this world we live in belongs completely to Him, for Him to do with as He pleases. If that is genocide, He is right in doing so since we are all fallen sinners, (rebels against Him), and deserve nothing less than hell. But the beauty is, He doesn’t give us what we deserve… Blessed be the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
There’s no question what the Bible says. The questions are 1., did it really happen that way? and 2., if it did really happen that way, what kind of God does that make God and 2.a., what do we do with that?>
This brings to my mind that we NEED to remember that one of the attributes of God is holiness.
Timothy,
You may have done one of the best analysis of the entire genocide issue. Great job.
Did it really happen that way?
Is there really any doubt that God allows people to die? If we discard the story of the Deluge, we must still deal with contemporary events like tsunamis: even on a less dramatic scale, the fact of pediatric cancer cannot be denied, regardless of what one does with the OT accounts about Job and Sodom — or, I might add, Christ’s many promises of judgment and His fearsome (yet still merciful) miracle of the fig tree.
God is merciful, God is loving, God is love.
But this truth can be difficult to accept (to say nothing of understanding) in the face of contemporary pain, suffering, disease, and death. Our own experience tells us of God’s unknowable ways, so to accept that in our own experience yet reject passages of Deuteronomy because we don’t understand them is dumbfounding.
Can I talk about genocide, too Neil?
Timothy said:
The Bible speaks of His holiness more than it does of His love, and out of that holiness comes the necessity to deal with sin.
One problem with this approach to try to resolve the genocidal god question, Timothy, is the problem of children. What evil did they commit that god felt it necessary to kill them?
Let’s assume that every adult in a given destroyed land practiced evil non-stop. Do you think that god sometimes kills babies because of their parents’ sin? Really?
And, even in the case of the adults: Do you think that god is in the business of wiping whole nations of people, including their children, because they sin? Do you think that god might tell Nation A to wipe out Nation B because of the people there sin? Even to commit genocide?
Do you think that if god tells us to do it, genocide, rape, infanticide, that these are all okay, “because god told me to”? In other words, do you think that god is going to order us to commit atrocities that otherwise would be the most horrendous of sins? Will god do so today or was that only in the OT? What scriptural basis do you have for believing this?
Neil,
You are doing a great job. The Lord has blessed you with the gift of apologetics. And patience…and self control.
Kristine
I echo Kristine’s comments with other random thoughts…
Neil and Bubba, Job has nothing on the two of you gentlemen. Your posts have a wealth of information and at the same time you two utilize an economy of words.
With all due respect to our founding fathers, all men are not created equal! The basis of this observation was reinforced when I read a Thomas Sowell quote earlier this week: One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people’s motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans– anything except reason. Etiquette prevents me from mentioning by name who I had in mind.
Neil, thanks again for a truly wonderful blog and forum!
Respectfully,
Joseph
Bubba said:
Is there really any doubt that God allows people to die? If we discard the story of the Deluge, we must still deal with contemporary events like tsunamis: even on a less dramatic scale, the fact of pediatric cancer cannot be denied
This is sort of a different topic, but I think that the answer is – God doesn’t work that way. God doesn’t “allow” people to die. People die. It’s the nature of life. We’re born. We live. We die.
There’s nothing inherently evil in death. “The rain falls on the just and the unjust,” Jesus tells us. That’s just the nature of living.
And there’s a vast difference between a God who lets the world operate under the parameters of life and death and a god who orders atrocities, a god that deliberately kills children.
One is fitting within the context of the whole teaching of Jesus and the Bible. The other (genocidal) god only shows up if you take certain passages of the Bible literally and discount the weightier teachings of the Bible, seems to me.
Dan, If God were to get as tired of you questioning these 2 or 3 issues, as I do………look out! You will not accept any logic or answer that is offered to you, so why not just sit down with your Bible awhile and search it out. If you search with all your heart, you will find.
For those of us that have no problem with these issues, you get tiresome. Debate is good, but I think you could cut and paste most of your comments.
mom2, I don’t think that anyone’s ever answered these specific questions before (here in this dialog, that is). I happen to think genocide is an important thing to stand opposed to, as I’m sure everyone here can agree with. Which is why I find it puzzling to be so despised and mocked for asking questions. Questions that tend to go unanswered and only met with derision.
The answer that I hear coming from Timothy is that if god orders it, it’s not genocide. Is that it? That’s your answer to this?
If so, I’d have to suggest that it’s not a very logical, nor biblically sound response. Which is why I ask the follow-up question: What other hideous sins can be okay if god orders it? Rape? Child abuse?
I think the Bible shows a God that is consistent. That Right is Right. That it’s always wrong to commit genocide.
Usually it’s the so-called liberals that get accused of moral relativism, but if I understand y’all, that sure doesn’t apply here…
Dan, It appears that you are waiting for all us to validate your views. Timothy gave a very good explanation above and Neil and Bubba have done a great job on explaining scriptures. If that is not good enough for you, tough. Do as I said and sit down with the Bible and search.
Somehow I knew the issue of children would come up. I have a question regarding to them:
Why do you assume their death was a bad thing? It just could be that because they were children God didn’t extend the same punishment to them that may have gone to their parents. In fact, as Dan always reminds us, if we look @ the entire Bible, God seems to have a special place in His heart for children. As far as we know, they may be enjoying the eternity with God we only dream about on this earth.
Bigger question – who are you to question God or His motives? Last time I checked, I don’t remember God asking humans for their approval for Him to carry out His plans. You may want to spend a little time in Job. God was pretty clear about what He thought about being questioned.
Wow – “regarding to them”. Apologies – “regarding them”.
Must type slower, Must type slower….
If God did not command genocide because it goes against his love, then can i ask do you believe in the parting of the red sea? Who drowned Pharoh’s army?
Also, does htat mean that the story of the flood of Noah was allegorical? or did it happen? even if it was not global, but local were not all things killed? What are your answers to these?
Well that does not fit my idea of what God is when I look at the whole Bible therefore I will not believe that it happened. Are you saying that you have completely reconcilled the Bible to your way of thinking and do not have any problems understadnig any of it? That may not be what you are saying, but it seems that is what you are implying.
Dan,
I’m not going to waste my time with you.
For the rest of you, I will say that when it comes to Scripture, all are guilty of sin, whether they have committed sin or not (Romans 5:12). That is why the fall of Adam is so important to understand. We are sinners, and this is why we sin. Not the other way around. Therefore, God is just in sending babies to hell and condemning them with their parents, etc.
Can God save babies if they are His elect? You bet. He can move when and where and how He pleases to make sure that all those who are His elect will come to know Christ through faith and be saved. What a precious doctrine… that God would move in us so that we would believe, regardless of our sin, age, ability to understand, etc.
Does that mean God saves all babies that die? No, not at all. But I bet you He saves some, and for that we can praise Him.
As for God having the children wiped out as well, yes, He did, and that does not impugn His goodness or love in the least. Remember, the entire creation deserves hell, not just a few people. All of us because of the sin of Adam. This is where the idea of federal headship comes into play, an idea that is lost on many people even though we live in a country that capitalized on this idea for government.
Adam represented all of mankind. When he fell into sin by eating the forbidden fruit, we all fell with him because we are all descendants of Adam. He passed his sin on to us. So the moment we are conceived, we are sinners and deserving of punishment (see Psalm 51:5). Yet in God’s goodness, He provided a Second Adam, namely Jesus Christ. When we believe in Him by faith for salvation, we are then transfered from the federal headship of Adam, to the federal headship of Christ. He is now our representative before God, and not Adam.
It comes back to those who are in Christ and those who are not in Christ, regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, etc. Those who are not in Christ are children of wrath (Ephesians 2), and those who are in Christ are made His children. All start out as children of wrath, by grace, some are saved and made His children.
Is God just in wiping out children? Yes He is, for they are just as sinful as the death row inmate. The only difference is that they have not acted out on their sinful nature. Given time, they will act out on it.
For example, I have a wonderful 2 year old. Do you want to know something about him? He lies. There are times when I ask him if he has a poopy diaper, when it is obvious to all that he does, and he says no. He knows the correct answer is yes. The point is that he lied to me, and that is sin. Who taught him to lie? No one. It is his nature. What I have to do is teach him about right and wrong, sin and being truthful. That is because he was born into sin just like all of us.
He may not have been able to lie at 2 days old. But the sin nature was still there, waiting for the opportune time to act. He needs to be redeemed, and I’m praying that in due course of time, he will be.
The point is that we are all born into sin, even those babies wiped out in acts commanded by God. Does that make God unjust? Heavens no. Remember what we all deserve? He is Good, and every man is a liar. He is the standard for goodness and we have no clue about what goodness is unless He works that in our hearts.
While some may not be able to deal with the reality that God is the God of both the OT and NT, He is. He never changes. He is immutable. He is good and right and what He does is not for us to question, but for us to be grateful for the grace and mercy He has shown to us.
Blessings
Timothy:
Beautiful post! I think your last paragraph bears repeating:
“While some may not be able to deal with the reality that God is the God of both the OT and NT, He is. He never changes. He is immutable. He is good and right and what He does is not for us to question, but for us to be grateful for the grace and mercy He has shown to us.”
Amen
Respectfully,
Joseph
Dan,
Once again, I’m trying to rescind my short and testy response in your direction. Please forgive me for being short on patience. That was wrong.
Timothy
Hi Joseph,
Thank you.
Blessings
I must also acknowledge that Timothy’s first comment on genocide is a fair summation of standard belief. “Genocide” is a loaded word. But it does mean the annihilation of a race, or city. If we are, in fact, sinners in the hands of an angry God, then, yes, God can do what God dang well pleases with any of us at any time. I think that makes God out to be capricious, though, and I also think that unquestioningly accepting the idea of such killing by God makes it too easy for people to point to Scripture and say, “See? God did it. That makes it OK if we do it.” And then start killing, or just being a judgmental jerk, in God’s name. No thanks. I accept that it’s in the Bible and, as such, is part of Holy Scripture, therefore part of our spiritual inheritance as followers of Christ. But I doubt it, absolutely, and in good conscience.
Wow! I’m speechless. I guess I just don’t understand first why someone would want to construct their life around a mythological character, and secondly why create a mythological character that is so devoid of morality. The “God” you described would be far more immoral than any human that has ever lived. Some “God”.
No one would be saying that God would do such today. As I explained on my blog, to Dan, that God was working through the nation of Israel today, and used them to judge the nations around them. And consequently, when Israel rebelled, God used the nations to judge them too for their disobedience, i.e., see Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all the rest of the writings of the minor prophets.
No one, anywhere, that I’m aware of is using the OT in order to act out genocide on any nation, except for Hitler, etc… but he was hardly a model Christian.
God is working through the preaching of the gospel today, not the use of the sword for the purification of the nations. Yes, in the OT, He chose to wipe out those cities that were in rebellion against Him and His people. Today, He extends the Kingdom of Christ through the foolishness of preaching and the blood of His children, i.e., martyrs.
The point is that He could easily come back today, judge the entire earth, send all to hell, babies included and still be just. But again, there is His sweet mercy and grace found in His Son. In His Son we have access to the throne room of grace, so that we can ask for more grace and mercy, for our weaknesses and shortcomings. Hallelujah, what a Savior.
But to impugn God, Christ as well, for being unjust in the OT because He did choose to wipe out some nations, cities and people, is to sit in judgment upon Him and is the ultimate in arrogance and stupidity.
Psalm 24 The earth is the LORD’s, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein.
It’s His to do as He pleases. I’m grateful He condescends to us in order to save some, even the stupid ones.
I thought this devotional by Spurgeon was good and applicable to this discussion.
Job 38:16
Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea?
Some things in nature must remain a mystery to the most intelligent and enterprising investigators. Human knowledge has bounds beyond which it cannot pass. Universal knowledge is for God alone. If this be so in the things which are seen and temporal, I may rest assured that it is even more so in matters spiritual and eternal. Why, then, have I been torturing my brain with speculations as to destiny and will, fixed fate, and human responsibility? These deep and dark truths I am no more able to comprehend than to find out the depth which coucheth beneath, from which old ocean draws her watery stores. Why am I so curious to know the reason of my Lord’s providences, the motive of His actions, the design of His visitations? Shall I ever be able to clasp the sun in my fist, and hold the universe in my palm? yet these are as a drop of a bucket compared with the Lord my God. Let me not strive to understand the infinite, but spend my strength in love. What I cannot gain by intellect I can possess by affection, and let that suffice me. I cannot penetrate the heart of the sea, but I can enjoy the healthful breezes which sweep over its bosom, and I can sail over its blue waves with propitious winds. If I could enter the springs of the sea, the feat would serve no useful purpose either to myself or to others, it would not save the sinking bark, or give back the drowned mariner to his weeping wife and children; neither would my solving deep mysteries avail me a single whit, for the least love to God, and the simplest act of obedience to Him, are better than the profoundest knowledge. My Lord, I leave the infinite to Thee, and pray Thee to put far from me such a love for the tree of knowledge as might keep me from the tree of life.
“I guess I just don’t understand first why someone would want to construct their life around a mythological character, and secondly why create a mythological character that is so devoid of morality. The “God” you described would be far more immoral than any human that has ever lived. Some “God”.”
Come on Frank, you can do better than that. Your first point assumes what you should be proving. It is just a silly putdown. You’ve yet to explain how an atheist could have a foundation for morality anyway. You shift between “maximizing everyone’s happiness” (whatever that would mean) to keeping the species alive, but neither explains the existence of a transcendent morality.
You also make the same mistake that pluralists do, namely that you get to decide if there is a God and if there is one what his attributes should be. But I’ve got bad news: If there is a God (and there is – go look out the window and explain where all this came from ) then you don’t get to vote on what He is like.
If you want to cherry pick verses to support your preconceptions, go ahead. But someone could do the opposite and point out all the verses where God is a softy and forgives people over and over, and ultimate comes to earth to take on the punishment of all who will trust in Him.
P.S. Timothy made many good points and may be right about infants and Hell, but many Christians hold a different view on what happens to people who die before the age of accountability.
It is not for me to prove there isn’t a God — it is for you to prove there is one. You have made a “truth” claim – now back it up. And remember, you can’t engage in “circular reasoning” like it’s in the Bible or “look out your window”. Those statements don’t hold any weight in an argument based in logic.
And your continued claim that atheism provides no basis for morality is both specious and unconvincing. Atheists, as a group, have continued to have far lower divorce, abortion, adultery, and poverty rates than Christians. In fact, at least in America, the group most likely to have an abortion and cheat on their spouse would be evangelical Christians.
I’d say those are questions of ethics, not morality. But I could be wrong.
Timothy, I liked your first post on the “genocide” issue. I still need to digest the rest of it.
From my perspective, only God knows exactly what happens to people after they die. If he takes death lightly I think that might be a good sign. Whatever happens, however, I have learned to trust God. In my personal relationship with him he has given me plenty of reasons for trust.
As for God doing such things today, I have studied Revelation and read many books on it (NOT fiction books). I am inclined to think that the world will feel the wrath of God again before the end. He makes it quite clear what we need to do, and I try my best to do it.
Frank,
It is not up to anybody to prove to you that there is a God. If you are interested in eternal life, it is up to you to seek God. If you seek him with an open mind you will find a remarkable amount of evidence. In the end only God can prove to you that he exists, and he can’t do that until you are on speaking terms.
I will pray for you, but in the end you are responsible for yourself.
Darwinism does not favor life over extinction.
For example suppose an organism was living in a pond. Something happened to temporarily increase the temperature of the pond (maybe a volcanic eruption or a cow passing gas). Then through the magic of Darwinism some of the new generation of these organisms have changes that make them wildly successful in the new environment; though they would not be able to survive in the old one. True to Darwinian form the new organism replaces the old one. But now the volcanoe becomes dormant or somebody gives the cow some gas-ex. Either way the organsims die and we have extinction.
Darwinism is blind, if something indeed evolves and is selected for, it is only based on current conditions. Darwinism cannot see the future.
“It is not for me to prove there isn’t a God — it is for you to prove there is one. You have made a “truth” claim – now back it up. And remember, you can’t engage in “circular reasoning” like it’s in the Bible or “look out your window”. Those statements don’t hold any weight in an argument based in logic.”
I gave you a link to 20 lines of thinking, and here it is again – http://peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm Here’s a short version – http://www.newmanmag.com/arguments.php
I’ll be glad to discuss any of them if you are seriously interested. If you aren’t, why should I bother? As best I can tell you are here with your atheist sound bites and are actively rejecting God. Perhaps not. I have plenty of time for sincere seekers. I am glad to have dialogues with people hostile to the faith or false teachers provided they are reasonably charitable and I think that readers might benefit from it.
If you don’t find any of the evidence compelling then good luck with that. But you tip your hand when you insist that there is none.
“And your continued claim that atheism provides no basis for morality is both specious and unconvincing. Atheists, as a group, have continued to have far lower divorce, abortion, adultery, and poverty rates than Christians. In fact, at least in America, the group most likely to have an abortion and cheat on their spouse would be evangelical Christians”
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me or is it an accident? As I noted yesterday, I am always careful to say that atheists have morals and act upon them. But their worldview does not provide a foundation for them. You keep making morality claims about atheism and they always sneak morality in the back door. I’ll say it again: If your “universe came from nothing and life originated on its own and evolved to everything we see today” view is correct then there is no basis for morality. Survival of the fittest would rule.
P.S. I’d be skeptical of those statistics. I don’t say that out of defense for evangelicals, because there are many things wrong in the church today. But those same studies show that “Christians” believe all sorts of patently non-Christian things like reincarnation. Many “Christians” are functional atheists. (That isn’t a dig at atheists, just a recognition that the views these folks hold don’t reflect a Biblical worldview).
Timothy took my steam mentioning that we are all sinners worthy of God’s wrath. That handles the “God killing children” issue for the most part. As to what happens afterward, we can’t know. Kids go to heaven or hell? No word whatsoever, just total annihilation for the whole town.
For Frank, I offer Lee Stroebel’s “The Case For Christ”. Some dismiss this book, but I think it is an easy read and a good overview of objections and responses to them, and of course, it contains a bibliography wherein the serious seeker can find more detailed explanations for the generalized points made in the body of the book. Frank, you could easily get through this book within a week’s time and have a starting point for further seeking, if you truly want to view anything close to evidence (by your standards). Neil’s offering of Peter Kreeft is also good as I’m familiar with some of his work.
As to the atheist morality bit, I’d also like to bring up the modern philosophy of “MY Truth”. This is practiced by people of faith as well as atheists. It is bascially an example of what happens when the individual no longer wishes to abide traditional notions of morality and posits that he has a truth unique to himself. (Sadly, this rings as a parallel to the positions of Dan, ER, and Geoffrey, and liberal theology in general.) The point being that what you might consider is an outgrowth of our biology is really just a self-serving set of propositions that in many cases might match or resemble the “my truths” of others. Thus, the real difference between your argument and Neil’s, is that your, or the atheist’s, morality is from within and flexible–it changes when circumstances seem to demand it–and Neil’s, or the traditional “fundie”(?) morality is from without (from God), and is fixed so that we negotiate circumstances in light of this fixed morality. I don’t see that morality, apart from God, is anything more than what an individual decides it is and what he can get away with in the face of the people around him.
Final thoughts on “God mandated genocide”. (and I mean it this time)
Bishop Spong had the same trouble with these passages. In an interview with Dennis Prager, he said they didn’t seem “God-like”. Dennis responded thusly, “No, you don’t think they’re “Spong-like”. It doesn’t fit the view of God that people want to have because it seems so nasty. They don’t want God to be nasty. They want to forget that He’s a jealous God and a wrathful God. It’s a heartbreaker. Of course a “nice” God is more forgiving. A “nasty” God will hold our feet to the fire. Literally.
The other point is the insistance that these passages will lead others to believe that somehow “genocide” (or rape or whatever else Dan was saying) is acceptable. One has to have done a less than cursory read to walk away with that belief. It’s ridiculous to even pretend that’s a good argument. However, it does add to all the other foolish arguments used to diminish Biblical authority and provide for loopholes elsewhere.
“Spong-like.” Heh.
Great points, Marshall.
Though I do need to apologize to Dan for not shutting down his “genocide” comments more gracefully. I was frustrated with the repetition and incoherence with his “I love the Bible” themes, but that wasn’t an excuse to be rude. Dan, I apologize.
Neil,
I must address this issue of age of accountability.
The Southern Baptist were concerned for all the Aggies in College Station, so they sent two missionaries down there to help evangelize the Aggie heathen. After just one semester, the missionaries reported back and told the agency that they had 100 percent success.
They determined that no one in Aggieland ever reached the age of accountability and therefore, they were all saved!
[...] There’s no point in reinventing the wheel on this issue. Pyromaniac’s lively post is much more interesting to read than anything I could have come up with anyway. Full Post Here Plus, another excellent post at Four Simpsons! [...]
Neil, did you delete some of Frank’s comments or am I just that inept at blogging? It could be that last thing! But I can’t find a lot of his comments that I thought he left. …
Hi E.R. – No, I didn’t delete any. Was it on another post perhaps?
OK. I guess. These things become a blur after while. No offense intended.
No problem. Someone appears to have started a rumor that I delete lots of comments. It is quite a rare occurrence, and even then only after warning people once or twice.
[...] things like, “This is what the sovereign Lord says . . .” As I pointed out in “The Lord says . . .,” the Bible claims to speak for God ~ 3,000 times. That doesn’t prove it does, of [...]
Hey, Neil. When I have occasion to visit your site, I’m amazed at the width and breadth (and sometimes the depth) of your posts and the responses. It takes a lot of courage to address issues head on. As you know, light always generates heat. And motion always creates friction. When I look over all you’ve attempted and accomplished, I’m even more appreciative that you’ve taken time to visit my site and offer encouragement. I’ll always remember that, when I first struck out on my little journey, you were among the first to offer encouragement and assistance. God bless you for your good work. Incidentally, I believe it was Art Buchwald who once said: “If you tell people the truth, you better make them laugh. O/W they’ll kill you!” ~donkimrey
[...] is an enormous claim to make, because the Bible quotes God roughly 3,000 times! That isn’t what makes it true, of course, but it does mean that we shouldn’t run [...]