I recently got an e-mail from a fundamentalist Christian with the following question:
- I am writing a paper and am wondering what some of the common questions/arguments atheists aim toward Christians?
I responded to her question, and CC'd a number of friends of mine in the La Crosse Area Freethought Society (LCAFS). I got some compliments on what I wrote, so I thought I would share it with everyone through this site. Enjoy
With regard to your first question, I'm not aware of many questions that atheists have for Christians. I have found that most atheists are far more knowledgeable about the bible than the vast majority of Christians are. In fact, most of us used to be Christians previously, but we realized that our beliefs were not supported by evidence, and that there are too many problems with the bible to just take it on faith. In my case, I was a very devout Christian (Lutheran) for the first 20 years of my life, and only at that point did I start to lose my faith.
On your second question, here are just a few of the arguments/objections atheists have with Christianity:
- Is infinite torture for finite crimes moral? I contend that this is absolutely immoral as one component of a moral punishment for a crime is that it has to be proportional. You don't give the death penalty to a kid for swearing in public. That would not be justice. Yet this is exactly the sort of thing the bible is based on- that if you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus you will be condemned to eternal torture in a lake of fire. Even Hitler's victims had an end to their misery, yet with god, there is no reprieve.
- In Christianity, belief is more important than action. Even though Christians love to say, "Faith without works is dead," they are forced to concede that no matter how terrible of a life a person leads, if they accept Jesus as their lord and savior and repent of their sins on their death bed, they get their golden ticket into heaven, all is forgiven. That is, unless they blaspheme the holy spirit. Those people are just toast, but child rapists and murderers- just find Jesus and you're fine.
- Is vicarious redemption moral? If god truly did write morality on the hearts of all people (as it says in Romans), then why do we generally find this practice, otherwise known as scapegoating, reprehensible? Would you allow an innocent man to be tortured and killed for crimes you committed? I would not, and I reject that offering. If I have committed crimes, I stand ready to be held accountable. I will not let an innocent suffer on my behalf.
- Christians often say Jesus was sacrificed for the sins of mankind, or he died for our sins. This is not the case. He was not sacrificed, and he did not die, because (if we are to believe the bible) he came back to life and is still alive for eternity. That is not a sacrifice. Something is a sacrifice by virtue of the fact that it STAYS gone. At most, god loaned his son to us for 30 years or so, before he got him back. Also, if you offered me the same deal that Jesus got, I'd take it, too. I bet most people would. "So you're telling me that I get tortured and then killed, and I go to hell for a day and a half, but then I get to come back to life and be an omnipotent, eternal god? Where do I sign up?"
- Can god really be said to love us if he is willing to toss us into hell (a place he created) if we question the divinity of his son, who supposedly lived 2000 years ago and left behind so little evidence that his very existence (let alone divinity) is questionable?
- The whole concept of the Trinity is a logical contradiction- it is logically impossible for something to be itself and its own son at the same time, yet this is supposedly the case with god and Jesus. It is also impossible for someone to be wholly god and wholly human at the same time, since some attributes of both are mutually exclusive.
- It is unjust for god to require me to believe on some really shoddy evidence, that was left 2000 years ago. I have never seen nor felt anything to believe that the supernatural really exists. However, according to the bible, there were tons of people who got the privilege of witnessing god's power. The freed Jewish slaves were lead by a column of clouds during the day, and a column of fire by night. They were fed mana from the heavens, and witnessed the plagues of Egypt. Jesus performed miracles for all to see. Even Thomas was allowed to feel the holes in his hands once he was resurrected. Moses got a burning bush, and Saul got a vision. All these people were given very good reason to believe (supposedly), yet I am required to believe the same thing, but without any of the evidence. The evidence that I am left with is the same evidence that every other religion has, and there is nothing about the bible to set it apart. It looks exactly as one would expect it to look if it were written by a group of middle eastern desert nomads.
- Why is there so much suffering in the world that is not man made (i.e. diseases, natural disasters, etc)? Did god design the Glyptapanteles wasp to lay its eggs inside caterpillars, so that its young could eat their way out when they hatch? (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14053-zombie-caterpillars-controlled-by-voodoo-wasps.html) If DNA and RNA are information (and thus had to be created by god, according to ID proponents), then did god design HIV, Ebola, small pox, polio, etc? Did he design the parasites that eat out the eyes of young innocent children and leave them blind? There is an awful lot of suffering in the world that can't be blamed on sin and free will.
- Is original sin a moral concept? Is it moral to hold the crimes of an ancestor over the heads of their descendants?
- Why is it that, for the most part, Christian parents raise Christian children, Muslim parents raise Muslim children, etc. Isn't it obvious that the main reason you are a Christian is that you were raised in a Christian household and were taught the bible was the truth and the word of god? If you were raised in Iran you would almost certainly be telling me that the Koran is the word of god.
- There is a great documentary on PBS called "God on Trial". You can watch it by following these links: http://midwestatheist.blogspot.com/2009/02/god-on-trial-pbs.html. The best one (in my opinion) is the Fourth link (if you don't want to watch the whole movie) (http://wejew.com/media/3091/God_On_Trial_Complete_Film_44/) The film is about Jews in a concentration camp who put god on trial for his crimes against them and against humanity.
- How do Christians condemn the actions of parents who drown their children in the bathtub to save them from Satan, or cut their infants arms off because they believed god told them to do so? How are these individuals different than Abraham and what he did to Isaac?
- If Jesus does return, how will you know him when he does? Others have claimed to be him, by what criteria to you say they are not in fact Jesus? Will you require some sort of evidence of your messiah before you believe his divinity? If so, how are you and I any different on that day?
- Lastly, here is a quote I am fond of that you may want to consider: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -Stephen Roberts
Hopefully that gives you a starting place with a few points to consider. Feel free to keep in touch with any further questions.


32 comments:
Very good summary, MWA.
So she asked for questions... did she attempt to answer them? Can we see her answers?
A very good summation of what's wrong with Christianity. I'd love to see the answers to these excellent points.
Er, I meant to say, HER answers (I don't think there are actually any good answers, just amusing ones).
She has sent me a 23 page document that attempts to answer them in the form of a fictional exchange between skeptic and believer. Send me an e-mail at midwestatheist@yahoo.com if you want me to send it on to you.
Hi friend, peace...
Your post very interesting.
If you willing visit my blog, and read my post at http://sosiologidakwah.blogspot.com
And... if you love books, read The Holy Qur'an please...
Thank you, sir, for putting it in such context. I have been an atheist for about 1 year now. I haven't felt conflicted, but I have felt that I didn't have all the reasons why I chose this viewpoint. Your points (RE: Questions/Objections for Christians) gives me that closure. Much appreciated!
How about; why does an omnipotent being need a day of rest?
I know, too late...but I like this game!
The appologist would just say that he didn't need it but used the day of rest to set an example for us to follow: to set aside one day to dedicate to jawhe, even if we feel kike we don't need it.
@ Stephen
Then I would say something like; "Yeah but, How can you tell when god is resting? Can you tell when god is resting?" Then we'd be off the the races!
Are you serious?
You got compliments for merely repeating atheist talking point.
And talking point which are based on a lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine and illogical?
Odd indeed.
Are you serious? Trolling a 5 month old post?
"You got compliments for merely repeating atheist talking point.
And talking point which are based on a lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine and illogical?
Odd indeed."
Your grammatical errors are to numerous to point out. Get a life and learn to write.
You don't expect to bait me into some sort of debate or de-bait with that pitiful attempt, do you?
Please be aware that appealing to my grammatical errors is what in logic is known as an ad hominem.
One could express themselves in a manner which is grammatically incorrect and still present make a valid statement.
People such as myself, for whom English is a second language and who are dyslexic, would prefer empathy rather than ridicule but judging by what you consider to be challenging questions you appear to not have much more with which to work.
The fact that you were complemented for listing talking point which are based on misconceptions about Christian theology seems to me to denote that you are engaging in well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think. In an era in which so much information is available at the click of a mouse button such lack of knowledge is inexcusable and if you were an honest skeptic you would welcome reasoned discourse and the possibility of being corrected.
By the way; if you have established some sort of schedule whereby you no longer defend statements that you made mere months ago you should either 1) delete those posts which you refuse to defend or 2) post a note on your comments sections informing the reader as to how far back they are allowed to go chronologically in order to comment.
This way they will not bother responding to arguments which you refuse to defend because they were made an unspecified amount of time ago and they will not have to be ridiculed for not being aware of your arbitrary standards.
Hi Mariano
Fair points regarding ad hominem, age of thread, etc.
Would you care to address some of the questions in the original post?
There are many variations of christian doctrine so some of the questions MWA put forward will not coincide with your particular version of christianity, similar to the fact that not all of them coincide with the version of christianity from which I escaped.
It would be interesting to hear what your answers to some of the questions are, even if only the ones that you consider do actually match up with the version of christian theology to which you subscribe.
Is infinite torture for finite crimes moral? (Some versions of christianity say that the torture part is only metaphorical, but even if it means eternal unhappiness, that would amount to the same pain if it is infinite)
Is vicarious redemption moral? (If so, then please justify your answer)
Can god really be said to love us if he is willing to toss us into hell (a place he created) if we question the divinity of his son, who supposedly lived 2000 years ago and left behind so little evidence that his very existence (let alone divinity) is questionable?
Is it moral to hold the crimes of an ancestor over the heads of their descendants? (Jahwe does this many times in the bible, not just "the fall")
Thanks Mariano. I look forward to reading your answers to these questions.
Stephen
Mario,
You have stated that I'm using some sort of "talking point" that tells me that you must be very familiar with the "talking points" As someone who is familiar with the "talking points" it seem to me that you could have come up with a counter point. This is how it works! This is how we have debates! All you said was: "talking point which are based on a lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine and illogical"
You gonna call me a poopyhead next? When you tell some one that they are wrong you should back that up with the reason you think they are wrong. why they are wrong and how they are wrong. What you did was to basically say: "hey! your wrong!"
what was I supposed to say to that?
Your October 25, 2009 1:02 PM post was long winded and added nothing that even resembled an argument on the original post, this tells me that you are not interested in discussing the thread topic. You simply want to argue about nonsense.
Stephen,
Thanks for the question but if you do not mind I had one of my own, before I respond. You state that you escaped from some version of Christianity; to what did you escape? If it was to atheism, please tell me which sect.
Zedge,
I simply do not understand how stating that you listed atheist talking points which are based on a lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine and illogical can in any mature way be correlated to “poopyhead.”
I thought it would work just find if I express my view, you question it, ask just how you are being illogical, etc. You seem quite prepared to argue to ridicule and all but ignore the arbitrary and illogical manner in which you are proceeding.
I'm sorry but your time is up! You failed to make any argument; you just made accusations as to my understanding with no reason or argument nor even a single counter point! you are simply trying to bait me. You still have said nothing that resembles an argument for why you believe I have a "lack of knowledge of Christian doctrine" or how I am illogical? you might as well be saying that I am a poopyhead! It is childish to expect that you be taken seriously without backing up your words. You called me ignorant and illogical,back it up or shut the hell up and leave me alone!
Mariano,
Perhaps the best way to answer your question is to talk about why i use the word "escaped" to refer to leaving Christianity, rather than words like "lost my faith", "back-sliden", "left the fold", etc. I know when I was a Christian, I wouldn't have thought of using that word. Now that I am no longer a Christian, I can look back now and see that my Christianity was indeed a trap. (but let's save that for another conversation - this conversation is about the questions that MWA posted above).
You ask which sect of atheism I joined. The answer is : none at all. Atheism is a label which refers to the default position one holds when one does not accept the claims of someone else telling them that there are gods. In contrast, a theist does believe that there are gods (or only one god, or only one god in 3 persons, etc.).
If someone were to escape from a prison, I wouldn't think to ask them which other prison they had escaped to. If someone had been cured of a sickness, I wouldn't expect them to seek out a different sickness to replace the one they lost.
I have escaped from the trappings of religion but I do not seek a new religion or sect to replace the one I left.
I have no reason to believe that there are gods so I am an atheist. It's that simple. No sects, no cults, no divine creeds mandating what I must do or think.
However, when you refer to "sect"s of atheism, you may be refering to different labels that are given to people who believe that there are no gods (gnostic atheist) vs people who do not believe that their are gods (agnostic atheist).
I am not convinced that there are any gods, but I am willing to change my mind in light of evidence that there are gods (or a god). So far, none of the arguments I have heard have convinced me that there is a god. (well, some of the arguments did in the past, but not any more - after discovering that the arguments that did convince me in the past were flawed arguments).
So I think that answers your question. I'm willing to elaborate if you wish, but I think it's fair to say that it's your turn now.
Perhaps it would be useful to address the questions one at a time.
So the first question for you is:
Is infinite torture for finite crimes moral?
Careful stephen, that there's a "talking point" yer not s'posed to mention talkin' points!
Thanks for the response.
I did note that your questions seem to revolve around the term/concept "moral."
So, I will have to impose upon you again and ask you to define the term/concept so that I may know what I am being asked to affirm or deny.
Thanks again.
@ stephen,I think that where you went wrong here, is that you listed to many questions. I think Mariano is confused or just plain stupid. Either way he obviously cannot or will not actually comment on any of your questions. I'm actually wondering at this point if he read your post at all!
молодые порно онлайн видио http://free-3x.com/ порно онлайн молодые школьницы смотреть free-3x.com/ голые молоденькие на улице [url=http://free-3x.com/]free-3x.com[/url]
Let's keep it simple: Is it good of Jahwe to prescribe infinite punishment for finite crimes?
foflmao
Stephen,
Thanks for responding again.
I note that the terms have changed from “moral” to “good” and from “torture” to “punishment” and although I would prefer a definition of “good” and “punishment” I will proceed nonetheless.
Let us round off the amount of time it takes to shoot someone in the head and murder them at one second. Yes, I considered it good that the murderer whose crime took one second of time to be incarcerated for the rest of their lives.
Your question is one that is succinct and so it boils down various complex issues into, perhaps, terms that are too watered down or falsely dichotomous.
Equally succinctly stated I would say that the person who is infinitely punished for finite crimes chose to commit those crimes against God’s law as it is administered through their consciences.
In this scenario they have also chosen to reject God’s offer of forgiveness.
They have chosen to keep their crimes, to cherish their crimes, to live with their crimes.
In this view; life is infinite and it is either lived infinitely with God—having accepted God—or without God—having rejected God.
Those who choose against God and for their crimes are thus making their crimes infinite by choosing to live with their crimes infinitely. The punishment is eternal because their crimes are eternal.
Let us imagine that someone considered the God of the Bible and based upon their personal moral preference decide that they want nothing to do with this God. Let us further imagine that this turns out to be the one true God. If this God, whom they despise, were to force them to spend infinity with Him this would amount to hell. Thus, God gives them a choice and they can choose to be away from God for all of infinity instead.
I wonder: assuming that you do not consider it good of God to prescribe infinite punishment for finite crimes—upon what ground do you condemn that? Upon what absolute basis? And here I understand that you have a personal preference against it, but upon what is that preference based upon besides your personal preference? Is something good because an atheist says it is good or does the atheist say that it is good because it is good?
Hi Mariano
Thanks for answering.
I note that the terms have changed from “moral” to “good” and from “torture” to “punishment” and although I would prefer a definition of “good” and “punishment” I will proceed nonetheless.
Yes, this was just to simplify and get things started. Regarding the use of punishment rather than torture, this was to allow for inclusion of more liberal interpretations of hell, where there is no literal fire and physical torture. Also, I think we both acknowledge that the words we chose are important to the discussion but we could go on for ever about them before getting to some debating. For example, you use the word "crimes". That in itself is questionable. Anyway I understand what you mean and were getting somewhere now so I'll move on.
...the person who is infinitely punished for finite crimes chose to commit those crimes against God’s law as it is administered through their consciences.
In this scenario they have also chosen to reject God’s offer of forgiveness.
They have chosen to keep their crimes, to cherish their crimes, to live with their crimes.
Whatever I may have or have not done in my life, in the end, the "crime" for which I am due to be punished for eternity for is that of rejecting the holy spirit and God's offering of forgiveness.
However, I have not chosen to reject the holy spirit; I don't believe that he exists. This is not something I can choose. I don't choose to believe anything at all. I either do or do not believe something. This is a true dichotomy. Even if I were to not know about something, that would still mean that I do not believe it. If I have heard about something and do not understand it then still, I do not believe it. Any information which I have looked into or been presented with as evidence for the existence of god has not convinced me that the god hypothesis is true. On the other hand, I consider that it is far more likely that the Christian religion is man-made, just like any other religion is man-made.
So I can honestly say that in my case, "the person who is infinitely punished for finite crimes chose to commit those crimes against God’s law as it is administered through their consciences.
In this scenario they have also chosen to reject God’s offer of forgiveness." does not apply.
They have chosen to keep their crimes, to cherish their crimes, to live with their crimes. No I don't chose to live with my crimes or wrong-doings against others. I do acknowledge though that I am responsible for what I do. I also understand that the only person who can forgive me for any wrongdoing is the person I have wronged. That is the only forgiveness that is moral or real in any sense. Who decides this? I do. Which brings me to...
assuming that you do not consider it good of God to prescribe infinite punishment for finite crimes—upon what ground do you condemn that? Upon what absolute basis? And here I understand that you have a personal preference against it, but upon what is that preference based upon besides your personal preference?
Do I need an absolute basis? - someone else to tell me what is moral or good? No, I decide what is moral and what is not moral. Who else but me can decide this? Who else but you can decide for yourself what you judge to be morally good? I may be influenced by other people or by the knowledge that I acquire but it is always me who decides whether I think something is good or not.
Let us imagine that someone considered the God of the Bible and based upon their personal moral preference decide that they want nothing to do with this God. Let us further imagine that this turns out to be the one true God. If this God, whom they despise, were to force them to spend infinity with Him this would amount to hell. Thus, God gives them a choice and they can choose to be away from God for all of infinity instead
For the sake of argument, Let's agree that separation from god for eternity will not be pleasant for me, whether I believe in him now or not, and that heaven is the better place to be than hell. Jesus himself talked about weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, etc. so I don't know how you can justifiably imply that Jesus would be doing me a favour by sending me to hell rather than hang out with him and his dad in heaven because I'm not a believer in this life. If Jesus turns out to really be God and I am punished/tortured/separated from god for eternity because I didn't believe something which I didn't believe, then I judge this to be unfair/unjust/bad/immoral, (etc). That's the way I see it. If someone can convince me that there is a reason that I should see this as fair/just/good/moral, then I'm willing to look at the evidence for that argument.
Please attack my response if you will, and let's move to the next question that MWA asked:
In Christianity, belief is more important than action. Even though Christians love to say, "Faith without works is dead," they are forced to concede that no matter how terrible of a life a person leads, if they accept Jesus as their lord and savior and repent of their sins on their death bed, they get their golden ticket into heaven, all is forgiven. That is, unless they blaspheme the holy spirit. Those people are just toast, but child rapists and murderers- just find Jesus and you're fine.
Is this a fair representation of christian doctrine? Can you see why this presents a problem for non-believers to accept as good?
Can we please proceed under the assumption that some of these non-believers, like myself, have not "chosen" to not believe?
I used to believe. I was told as soon as I could understand (3 or 4 years old) that God was real, hell was real and that I would be going there if I doubted it. The people telling me this were the people I trusted and loved. They told me about Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy and many other strange things. As I grew up I became harder to convince and started to see through all the bull. They caved like a house of cards on every make believe being that they had lied to me about, except one. Because they believed. Why because no body told them, when they were 3 or 4 years old that, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy were going to torture them for all eternity for not believing.
I no longer believe but, it was a struggle and took a lot of research and thought. I've come to realize that it was all a lie and I still live with the effects of my early childhood conditioning.
sorry about the last comment. It seems kinda of point. What I was trying to say was that even if you start out as a believer, you still do not choose to "not" believe. I simply tried to prove to myself that god did exist and failed! Believe me I wanted to go to heaven, but because I was smart enough and brave enough to figure out that all gods are false, my only consolation is that I will not be going to hell either. Believe me when I say; I wish there was an all loving god who holds the keys to the universe and has a vested interest in me.
@Zedge
I used to believe. I was told as soon as I could understand (3 or 4 years old) that God was real, hell was real and that I would be going there if I doubted it. The people telling me this were the people I trusted and loved. They told me about Santa, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy and many other strange things. As I grew up I became harder to convince and started to see through all the bull. They caved like a house of cards on every make believe being that they had lied to me about, except one. Because they believed. Why because no body told them, when they were 3 or 4 years old that, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy were going to torture them for all eternity for not believing.
I no longer believe but, it was a struggle and took a lot of research and thought. I've come to realize that it was all a lie and I still live with the effects of my early childhood conditioning.
Ditto, man. Well put.
Stephen,
Thank against for the discourse.
Part 1:
I wrote a response but later realized that you had posted two in a row. I posted one but maybe the admin has not gotten around to it yet, he can always just delete it as I will post it now. Although, due to these two comments being rather lengthy, as per the comment section’s word count limitations, I will post them in three parts—maybe from here we can narrow our focus.
I am afraid that you are leaving too much undefined and assumed such as “immoral”—for what if, in your estimation, my views are immoral? What then? You condemn me as immoral and what then? You condemn based on your personal preferences because I do not adhere to your chosen personal preferences.
I think that in referring to Jesus “sending” you to hell misses the point about the fact that you are sending yourself by refusing to be forgiven.
Also, statements such as “punished/tortured/separated from god” are a category mistake as you are correlating things together which do not belong.
I have shown that hell is eternal because sin is eternal as it is chosen, nursed, cherished and kept.
I certainly do not care to defend emotive hypothetical scenarios such as the death bed scenario. If you understand Christianity to be promulgating the concept of sinning as much as possible and waiting for a death bed (assuming that such a person will have such a dead upon which to lay and repent) then you are dealing with atheist talking points and not interested in the Biblical concepts of grace and salvation.
This is not even the least bit realistic as it implies premeditative manipulation of grace—getting God on a loophole, as it where. That someone may repent on their death bed due to true sorrow for a wasted life, etc. is another matter altogether.
Grace is about love and relationship not about getting away with it, “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not!” Romans 6:1-2, “you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh” Galatians 5:13, etc.
Thank God salvation is not based on works because while I may feel quite well equipped facing judgment standing next to many people whom I have known I am afraid that I would not make it standing next to a Mother Theresa.
Now, I must take a moment to get in on the anecdotes and state that having been raised in a 100% secular home by an atheist and an agnostic I was never once told about God (and we did not have a Santa or Easter Bunny). When I found out that my country of origin’s equivalent of the tooth fairy was not real I became so very angry that I became an instant skeptic and have been one ever since.
But I was raised being told about mythological realms where the universe is the eternally uncaused first cause, where life came from non-life (without evidence) and various other secular myths. I no longer believe in the secular myths but, it was a struggle and took a lot of research and thought. I have come to realize that it was all a lie and my wife, kids and myself have been treated very, very badly simply because we do not believe like the secularists anymore.
Yet, I note that correlating the concept of God with Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy are also a category mistakes and display, for one, a deep lack of knowledge of that which we can infer about our creator from science and philosophy.
Back to the issue at hand; yes, I can see why your strange view Christian doctrine presents a problem for non-believers to accept as good (even if they base “good” upon personal preferences) because you are taking something beautiful and soiling it whilst misrepresenting the concept in the first place. Indeed, I have noticed time and time again that non-believers have a very hard time with doctrines which are not Judeo-Christian at all but are fallacious common misconceptions.
I mostly think that such issue as sin and hell are very, very difficult for non-believers because two of their consoling delusions are the delusion of absolute autonomy and the delusion of lack of ultimate accountability (in fact, your whole objection to hell is based on an attempt to avoid justice). Atheism simply lacks any concept of ultimate transcendent justice. On this view: atheism makes evil even worse by 1) not doing anything to ultimately stop it, by 2) not being able to redeem it, by 3) making it benefit the evil doer who gets to enjoy their evil deeds and if they are not caught (assuming that enough other people agree that their deeds were “evil” and have a judicial system in place) they simply get away with it while their victim continues to suffer.
There is no justice: Mother Theresa ends up the same as Adolf Hitler—no accountability; simply do whatever you makes you most fit to survive (even if that is believing in hell—by the way).
Thus, in Christian theology there is redemption for the worse of us. Indeed, there is grace enough to forgive the most wretched. That some want to turn that into emotive references to “Those people are just toast, but child rapists and murderers- just find Jesus and you're fine” is indicative of the manner in which some choose to discuss otherwise serious and important issues.
If you have “not ‘chosen’ to not believe” were you predestined by the bio-chemical makeup of your brain to become an atheist? Is this how you seek to survive as the fittest? Or are we dealing with an argument from personal incredulity?
I must say that although you want to move on to point two we are not done with point one. My initial assertion was that atheist talking points were presented and we have not deal with the first one; we have dealt with your redefined watered down version of the first one. Yet, I was not contending with the future revision but with the original.
So back to #1: the assertion related to “torture” and this has nothing to do with “more liberal interpretations of hell” versus others since the issue is that, along with the assertion, one would have to present where the Bible details and describes “torture.” And I am not asking for a word which we can then proceed to fill by appealing to, for example, a lake of fire, etc. but am asking where torture is specified.
For instance, if you toss me into the mouth of an active volcano you have murdered me but have not tortured me. Thus, in order to affirm that it is torture we would have to invent explanations about the difference being that we are said to be eternal and thus, forever burning. But how can that be since something can only burn once? Well, God would remake your body to destroy it again or…whatever. But now we are merely inventing our very own theology-of-the-gaps.
You can seek to deny your personal responsibility of making conscience decisions but you have chosen to deny that the Holy Spirit exists. We always choose whether or not to believe something. You also seek to deny your personal responsibility that you chose to “commit those crimes” (in my terms).
Incidentally, what would you consider convincing evidence of God’s existence?
Also, if there is any such thing as a “Christian religion” then it is this “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).
If not, then indeed, it is man-made and you condemn “religion,” I condemn “religion,” and we are millennia behind the Bible which condemns “religion” and thus, God who condemns “religion.”
If you are much like the average bear then you have wronged very many people; some whom you have surely forgotten, some whom you could never hope to find, some who may refuse to forgive you, some who have died, etc. Thus, if “the only person who can forgive me for any wrongdoing is the person I have wronged” then you will remain unforgiven. Also, I am not sure why seeking and getting forgiveness should be any sort of standard. You dogmatically assert that yours “is the only forgiveness that is moral or real in any sense.” Well, you have most certainly embarrassed the very concept of a God-free universe. “Who decides this? I do” you determine that which is right, wrong, good, evil, moral, immoral, true, false, etc. and then declare that yours in “the only” way.
I am not certain how you gained such authority but granting it: what if I disagree or violate your absolute standard?
But “Do I need an absolute basis?” Only if you want to be logically consistent. For example, without an absolute standard you 1) cannot condemn any past action since your standard is not absolute and you cannot apply it to anyone outside of yourself and before your time, 2) cannot condemn any present action since your standard is not absolute and thus, does not apply to anyone outside of yourself and 3) you will not be able to condemn any future actions since your standard is not absolute and you cannot apply it to anyone outside of yourself and after your time.
Now, in a God-free universe I am doing the same as you; inventing my own standards and if yours and mine ever clash we would see how survives as the fittest—and I have a five finger death punch up my sleeve :o)
I do not deny in the least bit that we humans can muse upon moral issues and come to epistemic conclusions, but we cannot provide any ontological premise. Without such a, ultimate/transcendent/absolute, premise I conclude that there is nothing to violate and so no one can be condemned of anything.
The point here is that technically “morality” is necessarily relative as it refer to the “mores” and “describes” what is, what it is that people are doing. While “ethics” refers to the “ethos” and “prescribes” that which people should and should not do.
I do understand that you premise your condemnations upon your personal preferences which are themselves premised upon your personal preferences which are, after all, bio-chemically induced. If my bio-chemical makeup differs from yours then my personal preferences will differ and we will end up back in the death match.
I think that it is a very good idea for “someone else to tell me what is moral or good.” For example, I tell my children as they are in need of my much more developed, via musing, revelation and life experience, advice. I would also highly prize such guidance from a much more experienced person such as a seasoned citizen (sounds like an item on a cannibal’s menu does it not?). I would most highly prize the guidance from a being who has eternally experienced relationship.
Post a Comment