A friend of mine has recently renounced his/her faith, claiming…
"I've come to a spiritual crossroads in my life. I sought truth, but God did not speak to me and I do not believe in the bible. I have no faith whatsoever and will no longer pretend to be a Christian. My decision to not believe stems from reading the bible. I feel that the Christian document expresses viewpoints and a morality that is at odds with my conscience.If you study history you will discover that Christians have their hands soaked in the blood of millions of people as a result of their religious intolerance. Throughout the ages, the church has been a force that has curtailed the scientific development of mankind. Free and independent thought has been discouraged by religious organizations for thousands of years. I believe that all religions impede the development of mankind.
I feel that the Furthermore, Christian fundamentalists are attempting to block the teaching of evolution, a fundamental cornerstone of modern biology, in public schools. This reminds me of the religious dogmatism, inquisitions and burning at the stake of so-called heretics from a millennium ago. It is incomprehensible to me how a nation founded by freethinkers would allow itself to decay in such a manner.
As for the Christian bible it is an utterly illogical document. It swims in an ocean of contradictions. To believe in the literal truth of every word in the bible is akin to believing in fairy tales. Furthermore, it clearly states that at some point, the Christian God supported genocide, slavery and the total subjugation of women. Most Christians that I've met are too narrow-minded to realize the truth about their religion. I believe that the bible was written by prudish zealots for the purpose of controlling and inhibiting the behavior of mankind.
Biblical support for rape and the subjugation of women:
Judges 21:10-24
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Judges 5:30
Exodus 21:7-11
Zechariah 14:1-2
Religious intolerance and bible-approved murder:
Deuteronomy 17:12
Exodus 22:17
Leviticus 20:13
Leviticus 20:27
Exodus 21:15
Proverbs 20:20
Leviticus 20:9
Leviticus 20:10
Leviticus 21:9
Exodus 22:19
2 Chronicles 15:12-13
Zechariah 13:3
Deuteronomy 13:13-19
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
Deuteronomy 13:7-12
Deuteronomy 17:2-5
Leviticus 24:10-16
Deuteronomy 13:1-5
Deuteronomy 18:20-22
Romans 1:24-32
Numbers 1:48-51
Exodus 31:12-15
Pointless killings supported by God
2 Kings 2:23-24
1 Samuel 6:19-20
1 Kings 20:35-36
2 Samuel 6:3-7
Biblical support for killing children:
Isaiah 14:21
Hosea 9:11-16
Ezekiel 9:5-7
Exodus 12:29-30
Jeremiah 51:20-26
Leviticus 26:21-22
Isaiah 13:15-18
Mass murder:
1 Samuel 15:2-3
You must kill:
Jeremiah 48:10
God supported slavery:
Exodus 21:2-6
Exodus 21:7-11
Ephesians 6:5
NOTE: Anyone can comment; you don't have to have a blogger account. Just click "comment" below, type your comment and then select anonymous. MAKE SURE TO SIGN YOUR NAME if you want us to know who you are.
6 comments:
To the above, Rick Gillert replied:
This is a difficult subject. From the onset, I would wonder if your friend has truly had a conversion experience, or is it just a cultural faith: did this person make a discerned commitment to Christ, or did he just follow in the footsteps of his parents or culture? I'm not making a judgment either way, but it could be an important issue. Secondly, is this person still open-minded? If so, then doubt can be an avenue to true belief. If not, the person may just be looking for an excuse not to believe (again this is not a judgment). If you can, listen to your friend intentionally; see where he is coming from. Ask questions to allow the friend to defend his position. My mom has always said that before we can speek, we have to earn the right to be heard. Show with your life. Look ahead for trials - they may be a chanace to bear witness of Christ in your life. You yourself are going through a huge change and you come under the Lordship of Christ.
The best thing that you can do would probably take up the challenge to study these things yourself. Read them in context, get some commentaries to see what other Christians have said about them. Although we rely on scripture for doctrine, we don't understand it in a vacuum. Take the time to reap the benefits of our spiritual fathers. Realize that God may have brought this into your life to help you to grow.
Most of the assumptions made about the verses are based on a general misunderstanding of the times and people involved. In the Old Testament, God revealed himself gradually. In His grace He did not hammer the patriarchs with all of their sins at once. Over time, however, He set in place a set of principles which would eventually, if followed, bring an end to the subjugation of women, slavery, etc. He did in most cases put strict limits on them in the meantime. Furthermore, the people that God wanted the Israelites to eradicate were not necessarily nice people. They were known for all kinds of butchery like throwing live children into the fire as a sacrifice to their Gods. They may have been much like the Nazis in their brutality. We must also remember that we all deserve God's judgment, and it is only His grace that spares us. One of the challenges is not to impose 20th or 21st century ideals on another time. These were different people with a different understanding of the world.
Like I said earlier, you need to study this yourself and make it your own. That is the only way that you will be able, when the time comes to make a convincing argument. We are all called to be Biblical scholars according to the grace given each of us. This is probably a case of God seeking to bring you to school.
Michael's response to the skeptic:
Where do we begin? First I would encourage you to really study history and biology and the development of science before you cast stones at mythical generalizations. It is my experience that whenever I look into the details of an event, things are never exactly what they seemed. People use events in history like campaign slogans, and we are fools if we don't require a much more detailed account before we pass judgment.
Second, you seem to be casting Jesus and His teachings aside because they don't measure up to some other moral standard that influences you. Where did this other standard come from? If the Bible is so bad, what holy book are you thumping when you call all Christian history to account? I'm really curious from which authority you derive your belief in the equality of all people, and the illegitimacy of violence. Is it your own intellect? Your own moral reasoning? Is it the moral reasoning of Oprah, or some other front row book at Barnes & Noble? Is it from Richard Dawkins, or even further back from Freud or even Darwin? (Clearly it isn't Darwin or otherwise you would have no problem with the strong crushing the weak). Why should people be allowed to pursue whatever ideal they want? Why is it wrong to hinder scientific pursuit? Why should we not own slaves? Why should women be allowed to vote? As a Christian I have some really fantastic answers to these questions... what are the Agnostic answers, because I've never heard them? It was my impression that atheistic thinking (which all agnostic thinking sort of becomes) leads to Nietzsche and Hitler and Stalin and Lenin and Mao. Now there's some enlightened people for you- guided by their own moral reasoning... and who are you to say they are wrong.
Third, I think the Biblical issues you raised are just a smoke screen. Plenty of people have struggled with those things and not abandoned Christ. Heck, a guy named Marcion wrote the entire Old Testament off and suggested that he Jews had followed an evil God, but that Jesus had come to point us to the true God. That's how Marcion, about 2000 years ago dealt with these very issues. If you had any attachment to Christ you wouldn't let these little things get in the way. You'd reason out a way to cast them aside and move on, because Christ is that good. He makes it worth our time to sort out the Old Testament and all its misogynist tendencies....
So I'm going to tell you something that no other respecting Christian would have the nerve to suggest. Just abandon the Old Testament for now, and if God should ever call you back to it, then so be it. For now it is dead to you, and the Jews clearly had a nationalistic/ethnic agenda when they wrote it. And as far as you are concerned, Jesus came out of almost nowhere and He has to be taken on His own merit. He doesn't get any extra credit by heralding from Jewish background.
I also want to get out in the open that MOST people who get their names in history books, who claim to be Christian and do things in the name of their religion, are not very godly people. That includes Popes and Patriarchs and kings and monks and merchants and whatever else you want. Very few of them knew Christ, despite what they claimed. I don't come to that conclusion through some vague moral reasoning of my own making, but rather by comparing the life and actions of those men and women against the life of Christ. Christ is the authority by which I judge them. What you will find is that "religion" and "religious people" have for the most part been a stain on Christian history, and that might be why Christ didn't call us to be religious people, or to develop a religion. He just called us to make disciples and the disciple makers are the only reliable representatives of the faith.
Now that we have the entire Old Testament and the Inquisition and the Crusades and the which hunts out of the way... what do we have left? Ephesians 6:5 is about slaves honoring their masters. You have a problem with this? You think Paul should have told slaves to rise up against their masters or run away? Has it ever occurred to you that because Paul (and therefore the Bible) placed ethical requirements on slaves he was honoring them as active participants in the faith community. They had no excuses, they had to honor the authorities in their lives just like everyone else. That is the bomb that Paul and Christianity placed next to the institution of slavery. When a slave can be you brother or sister in Christ, it becomes harder and harder to justify mistreating them, and then it becomes harder to justify owning them. Look around the world today, the only nations fighting sexual slavery are nations with a Christian ethic.
The message of Ephesians 6 is "as a Christian you should honor the cultural authorities in your life", whether they be husbands, or slave masters, or government officials. But I also believe that we can honor authority even when we have to disobey it for moral reasons (since God is the highest authority and he trumps everyone else) by submitting willingly to the punishment for disobedience. That is the model the disciples use in Acts, disobeying the Sanheddrin but being joyful when they were punished for that disobedience.
You are waving the "I'm Intolerant of Intolerance" banner as all good Agnostics do, and under that banner you mention Romans 1:24-32. Let me first address the concept of intolerance. Would you agree that there are behaviors that we should never tolerate? If you need help thinking of one let me suggest child molestation, or stealing, or maybe hard core drug use. So there must be a line of intolerance which we draw somewhere. So the debate is not that we shouldn't be intolerant, but what behaviors should we be intolerant of, and how can we legitimately express that intolerance. With that in mind..
I'm guessing you have a problem with these verses because they explicitly associate homosexual behavior with rebellion against God. And that would be a horrible thing for Paul to do if he were wrong. So how are you and the current pop culture going to prove him wrong? I figure you either need to find a gay person with almost Apostolic faith (tongues of fire and healings and all that stuff) to prove that homosexuality and closeness to God are not mutually exclusive, or you need to prove that it is hereditary and gay people can't help it. And if you did either of those two things I would be forced to either reject Paul and all his books in the Bible or re-interpret this short passage in such a way as to make being gay OK for the church. I'm certainly not going to reject Jesus, because like I said before, He's way too good to let a couple of verses get between me and Him.
However this debate turns out, I think it is completely permissible for the church to be intolerant of certain behaviors. We can then debate which behaviors deserve intolerance. Let's all agree to stop throwing the concept of intolerance around as if it was universally vile. Polite society doesn't work without it.
You mentioned evolution being the cornerstone of science and then suggested that people of faith are attacking this cornerstone in their ignorance. I would like to suggest that the cornerstone of science is the assumption that the universe is knowable and that the rules that prevail here (where I am standing) also prevail on Pluto and everywhere else. Both of those assumptions require some kind of deistic faith, because neither is self evident. Why can we describe physics using math? Nobody knows, it just turns out that you can... its a miracle. Why do the forces of nature function by the rules of easily expressed equations? There is no reason, unless you believe that there is a God who wanted us to be able to understand these things.
And why should the rules of space and time here also be true everywhere else in the universe? That would only be a reasonable assumption if you believed that the mind which conceived the space in which I exist was a consistent mind that also conceived the rest of space. If the universe is purely materialistic (no God, no spirit) that assumption in no way follows logically. It doesn't even follow if you are polytheistic. You need one mind over the entire universe.
Our pursuit of scientific knowledge is contingent on deistic assumptions. So why has biology suddenly become off limits to deism? There is a lot of debate to be had here, way too much for this email, but there is a real controversy and the people who oppose Darwinism are being more scientific than the ones who are defending it. I can tell you with confidence that the emperor has no clothes. Consider just this one thing (and I will say much more at another time if it interests you). The SETI project is trying to find signs of intelligence in the universe by analyzing radio waves for certain patterns that suggest intelligence. An intelligent pattern would be something like a series of beats representing a series of numbers and all the numbers turned out to be prime (only divisible by one and itself). If the SETI folks found such a thing there would be a lot of hooting and hollering that they had found alien life, and you and I would have good reason to believe them. Why do you not apply exactly the same kind of logic to DNA? It is clearly a code, and it is a much more complex code than a series of prime numbers. It contains all the information needed to make a human and there are also systems in place to read the code and enact its commands. Some atheistic scientists have applied the obvious logic and concluded that aliens placed DNA here on earth. I respect that point of view more than one that suggests DNA was formed randomly, but if we say aliens did it, that only pushes the problems with life's origins to another planet. Where did their DNA come from?
So science is not under attack from fundamentalism. Rather the ideology of Darwinism is under attack from the ideology of deism, as it should be. You yourself should be attacking a view of life's origins that suggests the only valuable life is the life that is able to survive, or else your high moral ground isn't so high. If we look around we see atheistic Darwinists, prudish fundamentalists, activist gays, middle class suburbanites, legalistic Pharisees, Islamic zealots, Feminists, Communists, Capitalists, liberal celebrities and racist senior citizens. The world is full of people in cultural conflict, each fighting for their own religion, or ethnicity, or economy, or language or all of the above. This shouldn't be news to you and it should re-enforce true Christian faith rather than destroy it (because people, even religious looking people, are in rebellion from God, and that is why we need Jesus). So I ask you, which group are you going to fight for? As I see it there is only one group with solid philosophical footing and a clear directive to love all people. That group is the disciples of Jesus. They are a hard group to pin down because they aren't trying to stake out their own slice of heaven. Because they have no self serving agenda they aren't trying to push anyone else down in order to improve their own place. They do radical things like obey their slave masters and turn the other cheek. They don't care about storing up treasure on earth. They are elusive because they are such a minority, even among the religious. I feel that your crises of faith has come just in time, or you might have become one of the religious Pharisees. You recognized that for the philosophically hollow thing it was, but your current philosophy is no less hollow. This crises might have been just the thing you needed to start heading down the right track. It sounds like you viewed Christian faith as a strictly religious institution, and I think its a good thing for that view to die, however horribly. I hope that a new view rises from the ashes that properly follows after Christ, rather than some sort of institutional ideal.
I'm sorry that this email is so impersonal, but it as brought to my attention with you identity kept secret. I was brought into this discussion because I try to ask and answer the hard questions, and I thing a steady stream of hard questions has led me to a philosophically sound, logically reasonable, and fantastically miraculous understanding of the Bible and my faith. I'm always interested in addressing real skepticism. I don't expect words alone to direct your journey, but at least you can see that for some of us faith is the only rational option.
Jeff's advice to the friend of the newly proclaimed atheist:
This person sounds very angry. Have they missed Jesus? Do they not see the value in following Christ? I feel sorry for this person for all the hurt and anger they are feeling toward Christianity.
You can approach this a couple ways – argumentation will only get you so far, what they need to see is the value of following Christ. So, I suggest helping them better understand their history. Then I suggest helping them see what following Jesus really looks like. They’ve missed Jesus. If you dismiss Christianity, you replace it with something else. The values that he claims – against abuse of women, against slavery, against murder, etc – stem from a Christian ethic. They come from a values based in Christianity. Even vigilant atheists miss the fact that their values often stem from the Christian influences we have had in the Western world. Look at where Christianity is not an influence and what do you see? SLAVERY! MURDER! KILLING! Even in Europe which is moving toward total secularization, the values they think are so liberal really stem from their Christian heritage, even though they now see no need to follow Christ.
This is not a religious issue. This is one of do you follow Jesus or not!
They have missed the enormous value that Christianity has played in history. Schools. Hospitals. Relief efforts. Feeding the poor. Sounds like they have been reading books – that this is not original to them.
Ask them what they have been reading. My guess is they are a fan of Christopher Hitchens - “God is not great” is his book. They have probably been on websites too. These are not original thoughts to them. I’ve heard these allegations all before. That’s why I just keep pointing people to Christ. Say what you will, condemn what you will in the OT, the main thing is what do you say about Jesus?
As for God supported slavery…give me a break. Slavery back then was nothing like we imagine today. Slaves were often the business and household managers. People sold themselves into slavery for the economic benefits. Look at how Paul tells Philemon to welcome back his slave as a brother. What? That was REVOLUTIONARY for his time. This person is very angry and judgmental of people he/she has never met. And, what Paul and Jesus did was to put a literal time bomb under the whole institution of slavery. William Wilberforce and other Christians led the fight against slavery. They don’t know their history.
Sounds to me like they were looking for a way out and now they are justifying themselves. I find it interesting that their only NT Scripture is on slavery. That is an easy argument to diffuse.
Atheists have killed millions. Stalin for example. Religious people are not the only ones advocating violence and bloodshed. That’s nothing new and has little to do with religion. It has to do with the heart of the individual.
I’ve heard all this stuff before. They likely had no personal relationship with Christ to begin with. Their goal is to put us on the defensive, but let’s not fear. They are where they are for reasons that go beyond what they have listed here. They feel more righteous and proud because of their decision most likely. As a result, they are likely to become like the very people they despise. They are full of pride. They “disdain” Bush. How is that compassionate? How is that noble? Does it come down to hating the right people? Or, are we to love people, even if we disagree with them? Did he/she find Christianity unbelievable or just too hard to live out?
Fact is, we are all seeking to become someone. We are all seeking an example to follow. When it comes to Scripture and its value, I keep coming back to Christ. Without the OT, the NT and the Church, we would not have Jesus. Keep bringing them back to Jesus. Don’t get caught up in their arguments about the OT. Those are a smoke screen for a deeper reason they have renounced Christ.
Plus, we can’t place our 21st century values on past cultures. They claim to be more open minded and liberated now. Yet, they are judging centuries of people based on their perspective and values. How open minded is that? How liberated is that to be so judgmental?
This has got me going. Thank you very much for passing this along. We need this sort of challenge in our church, to know how to help people who face these sort of choices. I look forward to what [others] might say…
Continued: If the Bible advocates what they suggest, then tell me how it has inspired such great sacrifice and love for humanity? How is that all Christians are not rapists and slave owners? If it’s in the Bible, then why don’t we obey it? This is why I suggest that their arguments are a smokescreen. They feel abandoned by God because He did not “speak to me.”
Are you convinced in your self that the God of the Bible is the one true God worthy of worship and following? Are you sold on that down deep? What answer would you give for why you believe the God of the Bible is the one true God worthy of worship and following? And, how is it that Jesus is this God’s Son?
I always counsel people in these positions to have answers for themselves before they ever try to convince someone else. We must be persuaded before we can ever persuade anyone else.
Did you find his/her arguments persuasive?
Updated response from my friend the atheist, who wrote the e-mail featured in this blog topic; he/she is countering some of Jeff's & Rick's points that I passed along to him/her:
I appreciate your efforts in trying to "save my soul". Your friends are obviously experienced biblical scholars. I am definitely not an expert - just someone who has experienced an incongruity between my own moral judgment and the morality of the Christian religion. It is not my intention to discourage you or anybody to break from Christianity, and if a person can derive comfort and peace from the Christian movement, who am I prevent this ? However, I feel that as a matter on good form, and in consideration of all the effort you put into assisting me, you deserve to have a reply.
Part 1
"What your friend needs to see is the value of following Christ. So, I suggest helping them better understand their history. Then I suggest helping them see what following Jesus really looks like. They have missed Jesus. If you dismiss Christianity, you replace it with something else. The values that they claim – against abuse of women, against slavery, against murder, etc – stem from a Christian ethic. They come from a values based in Christianity. Even vigilant atheists miss the fact that their values often stem from the Christian influences we have had in the Western world. Look at where Christianity is not an influence and what do you see? SLAVERY! MURDER! KILLING! Even in Europe which is moving toward total secularization, the values they think are so liberal really stem from their Christian heritage, even though they now see no need to follow Christ."
Reply to Part 1
"If you dismiss Christianity, you replace it with something else". In case you're wondering I currently consider myself a total atheist. I would not exactly call atheism a religion, just a preference for the rational over the irrational. Not to say that Christians are irrational, it's just that I believe the principles of science. By this I mean that I, like most Christians, require proof before I agree on any nonreligious matter, but I, unlike Christians, have decided to place the same burden of proof on religious matters as well. There is no empirical, concrete evidence for the existence or nonexistence of God so it really does not make sense to conclude either of these concepts. Both concepts are equally plausible given the evidence or in this case, lack thereof.
Getting back to the original question of "replacing it with something else", I'm comfortable with the concept that no higher power exists. It is far more peaceful and relaxing than believing there is a creator of the universe who, although omnipotent, cannot tolerate the fact that all of his creation is not eternally groveling in the dust and praising his name. I know this from the fact that he intends to subject me to an eternal torture in a fire-and-brimstone abyss. [Just as an aside, although Jesus was supposed to be meek and mild, why is he the one to have introduced the concept of eternal torture in hell? What happened to turning the other cheek? Do Christians really have a choice in what they believe in or are they just "buying insurance for the afterlife"?] If you examine the universe and its vast beauty it seems kind of strange that a being, capable of creating such awesome splendor would be so petty and vindictive to want to inflict eternal torture on some specks on some tiny rock in the middle of nowhere. God must really be disturbed by the fact that people don't worship him to go to such lengths. Doesn't it seem odd that an omnipotent being would worry so much being worshipped by some miniscule blots found at one corner of the universe? It just doesn't add up. I feel much safer knowing that the Christian God does not exist.
"The values that they claim – against abuse of women, against slavery, against murder, etc – stem from a Christian ethic." This statement is blatantly false. The Christian bible has been used throughout the ages to support slavery, murder and the subjugation of women. Firstly slavery was condoned in the bible, murder and genocide were encouraged, and women were oppressed. Has this person actually read the verses that I've mentioned in my previous email ? It is one thing for Christians to say that Jesus was great and that I should focus on his teachings, but the problem starts when they say that the entire bible is the infallible word of God. Once you say this, it forces any serious person to read and critically analyze all parts of the manuscript, not just the cherry-picked verses. The entire bible must, as a result of this supposition, either succeed as a whole or fail as a whole. The fact is that at some point the God that Christians worship supported slavery, genocide, murder and the subjugation of women. If you study the history of the religions in general you may get to take the following quiz:
Which religion used quotations from there "holy" text to justify the existence of slavery in the US?
Which religion was behind the burning of witches in Salem?
Members of which religion were opposed to granting the right to vote to women?
In what type of organization in the US is it still impossible for a woman to reach the highest office?
Which religion opposed rock 'n roll and jazz as the "devil's music"?
It would be more accurate to say that Christians were putting the brakes on social and scientific development for more than a millennium.
Part 2:
"Your friend has missed the enormous value that Christianity has played in history. Schools. Hospitals. Relief efforts. Feeding the poor."
Reply to part 2:
Christianity has been involved with charitable works. There is no denying this. However to conclude that only Christians are charitable would be a most egregious lie. People from all faiths and people without faith have been involved with charity throughout the ages. This argument falls flat. Charity is not a uniquely Christian concept.
Part 3:
"I've heard these allegations all before. That's why I just keep pointing people to Christ. Say what you will, condemn what you will in the OT, the main thing is what do you say about Jesus?"
Reply to Part 3:
As I've pointed out earlier, it's one thing to believe in parts of the bible dealing with Jesus, but it's quite another to claim that the entire bible is the factual truth and word of God. Once you do this the entire document is open to scrutiny. Let me put in terms that may be easier to understand. When I buy a car and I sign the contract, I find that the first page talks about all the benefits of the car, it's features, it's excellent mpg rating, etc, etc, but on page 7 in the fine print there's a point about how, if I fail to make an installment on time, somebody can come to my house and torture me for an hour with a blowtorch. Now the dealer can say, don't worry about page 7, we just like to talk about page 1, but in the end I have to signoff on each page of the contract. This type of deal makes me nervous.
Christians cannot ignore the Old Testament (Matthew 5:17-19, Luke 16:17).
Jesus himself supports the laws of the Old Testament (Mark.7:9-13, Matthew 15:4-7 (supporting child abuse here). Just increased the penalty for adultery (Matthew 5:27). Also slavery is supported in the New Testament, read 1 Peter 2:18. Christians cannot escape the Old Testament (also known as the Law of Moses) – read John 7:19 and John 1:17. Jesus also encourages intra-family conflict (Matthew 10:21)
Part 4:
"As for God-supported slavery: Slavery back then was nothing like we imagine today. Slaves were often the business and household managers. People sold themselves into slavery for the economic benefits. Look at how Paul tells Philemon to welcome back his slave as a brother. What?! That was REVOLUTIONARY for his time. And, what Paul and Jesus did was to put a literal time bomb under the whole institution of slavery. William Wilberforce and other Christians led the fight against slavery. Your friend doesn't know their history."
Reply to part 4:
I'm afraid to say that I do know my history. While it is true to say that some Christians were involved in the abolition of the slave trade, it would be equally true to say that many Christians used the Old Testament for guidance and as a justification for the keeping of slaves. The Christian viewpoint on slaves as evolved over the centuries. In earlier times leaders in the Christian faith were strong proponents of slavery. Take a look at Robert Dabney and others. Several Christian scholars including Thomas Aquinas believed that slavery was morally justifiable. For many centuries Christians were actively involved in the slave trade. While it has become very necessary for Christians to put as much distance between themselves and the institution of slavery, the history books cannot be closed and cannot be rewritten.
Part 5:
"Your friend is looking for a way out and now they are justifying themselves. I find it interesting that their only NT Scripture is on slavery. That is an easy argument to diffuse. Atheists have killed millions. Stalin for example. Religious people are not the only ones advocating violence and bloodshed. That's nothing new and has little to do with religion. It has to do with the heart of the individual."
Reply to part 5:
I love the example of Stalin. Yes, he was an atheist and yes he killed millions. The critical difference here is that he did not kill people because he was an atheist. He did not claim that his "God" told him to go around killing people. He did not believe that he was appointed by any higher power. He was just a cruel and evil person that was paranoid and focused on maintaining a total grip on power. On the other hand Christianity itself has been used as a justification for war and genocide. When Germany split from the Catholic Church it triggered the Thirty Years War, which left millions dead. Jesus himself said that he did not come to bring (Luke 12:53) and encourage killing (Luke 19:27).
Part 6:
"Your friend is where they are for reasons that go beyond what they have listed here. They feel more righteous and proud because of their decision most likely. As a result, they are likely to become like the very people they despise. They are full of pride. They "disdain" Bush. How is that compassionate? How is that noble? Does it come down to hating the right people? Or, are we to love people, even if we disagree with them? Did they find Christianity unbelievable or just too hard to live out?"
Reply to part 6:
George Bush is widely regarded as the worst American president of the last few decades. He deliberately lied to the American people in order to wage a war in Iraq. This is sufficient justification to despise him. What irritates me about me even more is the fact that he believes that he was personally appointed by God. He supports "abstinence only" sex-education programs that are widely regarded as a failure. This "abstinence only" viewpoint has tainted the so-called AIDS relief effort in Africa. He shares the belief of the mujahedins that warriors who die for the cause will go to heaven. That's why he has no problem with sending our young men and women to die in Iraq. He would not have amounted into anything without his father's political connections and he did not serve his country in Vietnam due to obvious political connections. His ignorance and right-or-wrong interpretation of all moral issues and idiotic utterances have embarrassed America in the international community. He's environmental viewpoint was morally reprehensible for much of his presidency and his family's close ties to the Saudis, connections in the oil industry provide more questions than answers. George W. Bush has caused the largest drop of esteem and respect for the American people in the international community than any other president. He makes all conservatives look bad. Another thing that he has done is to give money to faith-based initiatives. This is little more than paying tax payers' money directly to churches. This is contrary to the establishment clause of the constitution that places a firm wall of separation between the church and state. Yes, Christian organizations have always received money from the government for charitable purposes, but they were required to remove their crosses and not to proselytize when doing this work. This requirement has now been removed. America is a secular nation. It is not a theocracy. To call it Christian nation is only intended to make others feel excluded. If I'm a Muslim, a Jew or a Buddhist will such comments make me feel at home? I don't think so. Christianity needs to stay out of politics.
Part 7:
"Fact is, we are all seeking to become someone. We are all seeking an example to follow. When it comes to Scripture and its value, I keep coming back to Christ. Without the OT, the NT and the Church, we would not have Jesus. Don't get caught up in the arguments about the OT. Those are a smoke screen for a deeper reason your friend has renounced Christ."
Reply to Part 7:
Yes, I have problems with the concept of the Christ. I do not buy into the Christian doctrine of sin and guilt. We are all born sinners and now we must immediately start to repent. This doesn't seem fair to me. How can I be responsible for the actions of Eve? Now you will say that Jesus came and washed my sin away. But I wasn't around when Jesus was supposed to have lived, so I could he wash my sin away? I could not have sinned because I did not exist. On the other hand, this concept of vicarious redemption is very odd. How can somebody else suffer for my sins? If I did a crime or offended somebody, I cannot ask or expect somebody else to take the fall for me. I'll take responsibility for my own actions, thank you very much.
Part 8:
"Plus, we can't place our 21st century values on past cultures. They claim to be more open-minded and liberated now. Yet, they are judging centuries of people based on their perspective and values. How open-minded is that? How liberated is that to be so judgmental?"
Reply to Part 8:
Well it's hard for me to take this argument seriously. Christians use an ancient manuscript as a manual for their moral beliefs and actions. Not only that, they believe that it is the infallible word of God and that every word of it is directly from God and true. Yet the bible contains many texts that they do not obey. It is true to say that Christians, like everybody else, have evolved their morality and by today's standards would be considered more enlightened than previous generations. However, it is also still possible for the world to move backwards. Christians feel uncomfortable in the modern world of "sin and vice" and are would like to turn the dial back a bit. That's why many of them opposed universal suffrage and the abolition of slavery. Even today they oppose a woman's right to choice and gay rights.
Part 9:
"If the Bible advocates what your friend suggests, then tell me how it has inspired such great sacrifice and love for humanity? How is it that all Christians are not rapists and slave owners? If it's in the Bible, then why don't we obey it? This is why I suggest that their arguments are a smokescreen. They feel abandoned by God because he did not 'speak to me.'"
Reply to Part 9:
The reason why Christians no longer follow the bible literally is because it no longer applies in a modern humanistic society. Rationalism has usurped blind faith and churches no longer control governments like they used to do during the Dark Ages. Yes, many Christians have been great people, but it is equally true that many non-believers have also been great people. You don't need religion to be a good person.
Part 10:
"Most of the assumptions made about the verses [referenced by your friend] are based on a general misunderstanding of the times and people involved. In the Old Testament, God revealed Himself gradually. In His grace he did not hammer the patriarchs with all of their sins at once. Over time, however, he set in place a set of principles which would eventually, if followed, bring an end to the subjugation of women, slavery, etc. He did in most cases put strict limits on them in the meantime. Furthermore, the people that God wanted the Israelites to eradicate were not necessarily nice people. They were known for all kinds of butchery like throwing live children into the fire as a sacrifice to their gods. They may have been much like the Nazis in their brutality. We must also remember that we all deserve God's judgment, and it is only His grace that spares us. One of the challenges is not to impose 20th or 21st century ideals on another time. These were different people with a different understanding of the world."
Reply to Part 10:
Just when I thought we were having a logical debate here, you make these weird arguments! Yes, we admit that believers in our God butchered and abused the believers of another God. But these other people were really bad people because they were butchering and abusing somebody. At the end of history, the people who butchered and abused the best will be the one's surviving, the others having been butchered into extinction were actually bad people, and because this current group of butchers survived it proves that their God is the only true God and all the other Gods were fakes. I believe religion can be a useful tool for people who wish to wage war. It can provide justification for unspeakable atrocities. Sometimes I think religion was invented by the ruling clergy in order to control the population and make them more pliable to purposes of conquest.
Well, I had prepared a point by point rebuttal to your points. But, after thinking and praying over this some more, I just have one question for you.
We can go down an endless road of debating this point and that. But, really, very few people come to God because they have reasoned themself into knowing him. Just as I can not reason myself into loving my wife (love makes no sense), we can not reason ourselves into loving God. This is not to say there are not good reasons to believe, there are. But, the REASON we do believe has to do with the heart. Most of the time we believe what we believe because we want to, it does something for us. You admit this much about your atheism - if provides a sense of peace, control, freedom, etc. It does something for you.
So, I just have one question. You've made a lot of allegations about Christianity, Christians, the Church, God, the Bible etc. But, I'm not here to defend Christianity. I'm here to tell and show you something. I'm here to introduce you to someone who has changed my life and the lives of billions of people since he first showed up on this earth. Your response is up to you.
So, here's my question...what do you think Jesus taught us?
There's a lot to this question. I think of the following... What did he teach us about God's expectations? About what God wants from us? About God's attitudes toward us? About what's really wrong with us in this world? About how our view of God can transform us and this world?
You answer however you wish. I'm just curious, what do you think Jesus taught?
I look forward to your response. And, if possible, I look forward to knowing your name.
I don’t know if anyone is following this particular blog topic any more, but I thought that I would clarify a couple of things.
First is that the argument here is not about exact postulates or proofs, but about presuppositions. We have two parties who hold two divergent world views. Mine is that God is the final arbiter of ethics, and such has the right and responsibility to judge evil. The other is that another idea sees itself as the final arbiter of the same issues.
So what happens when one disagrees with God’s view of things? That is what this is about. To an extent, that is what this is always about.
Secondly, even many atheists and agnostics can discern the difference between God’s standards and the failure of God’s people to carry them out well. We as a people are imperfect, and at times work contrary to God’s standards. That doesn’t mean that the standard is wrong.
We are each called to make a choice to believe that God is and is who he said he is, or to reject that. I respect the right of each individual to make that choice in a way that seems best to him.
This is just a brief summation of what I see the issue to be. I am not a professional philosopher, but I understand from those who are, that if we were to formally discuss it, we may have ten pages defining a single term before we even get started to talk about syllogisms or syntheses. Obviously, this is beyond the scope of this blog. My best wishes to the friend though. I hope that he does one day return to the faith. But, even if he doesn’t I hope the he understands that we are not mad at him nor do we harbor any hard feelings towards him.
Rick.
Post a Comment