1

baloney as usual. Real God demands nothing from no one since it allready has everything...only man made graven image of a god wants to be worshipped

2

only man made graven image of a god wants to be worshipped

Sounds like "Toy Story" meets Tim Burton...

That Campolo kid's worship must sure be somepin' speshul if the God of the Bible isn't worthy of it. His "compassion" standard doesn't seem that hard to meet. How he can fit through standard doorways with such a swelled head... well, it's simply miraculous. Betcha he can out-cuss his dad, too.

3

"Sounds like "Toy Story" meets Tim Burton..."

Actually the childish fairy tale is that of a God so insecure that it wants to be loved and worshipped.

4

What has Campolo done to deserve this complete disregard for what he is actually saying and instead have you morph this into some form of heresy. What is he supposed to say? That he would follow a God who is not good, compassionate, loving, etc.? I think that his standards are pretty spot on the money, it's no use following a God who is just a "cruel bastard".

5

Geoff,

I think you can look to the first lines of the quoted section where Bart says, that if things like God's sovereignty, wrath and hell are true, he'd rather goto Hell than worship God for who he is. He'd rather goto Hell so he can worship the God of his choosing. I'd say that's heretical.

Also, for those of you following the link to read the whole article: From the site hosting:

A note from Mark Oestreicher
If you came looking for the article, "The Limits of God's Grace", I'm sorry to tell you I've asked our staff to pull it from our Website. YS likes to ask good questions—we think questions have great value in our spiritual growth. And we applaud the author, Bart Campolo, and the publisher, Journal of Student Ministries, for being willing to honestly wrestle with tough questions. But people often confuse articles on our Website as statements from Youth Specialties, as endorsed position papers. And without a strong lens of understanding as to why the questions raised by the article are worth talking about, or a counter-argument by someone else, we were concerned that the article could be more damaging than helpful. Thanks for understanding.

6

Joe,

Contra Campolo, God is indeed completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving.

Joe, Mr. Campolo characterizes God in the same terms, as completely good and loving.

Mr. Campolo goes on to say that if he is wrong about God, and if God is not good and loving, then he would without his allegiance from such a God.

Wouldn't you say the same thing, that if God were not good and loving, then you would decline to worship him?

Not all of us will, like Campolo, spit on the Cross and turn away from our righteous Sovereign in order to worship a weak imaginary god. But such heresy should serve as a reminder that we often treat the living Triune God as if he were some patsy, a divine chump.

Joe, I think you've seriously misread Mr. Campolo's article. He doesn't deny Jesus or the cross. If you don't qualify what you have written or otherwise edit it, I think he could seriously mull a libel proceeding.

He doesn't strike me as the kind of person who would pursue such a harsh remedy, but I am concerned that you may have written something that is actionable under the law.

7

Free will to choose the way God will treat us by the way we treat others. Seems like a fair policy inaction via the heavens. What you believe is what you get. If you don't believe in God or heaven then you don't get that. If you do believe in God, heaven and pearlie gates then that is what you get. You create your reality now and after death on earth.

http://www.God-hotline.com

common sense thoughts to bring people together
http://www.God-hotline.net
http://www.God-hotline.info
http://www.kids-write.com
http://www.cainer.com

8

Wouldn't you say the same thing, that if God were not good and loving, then you would decline to worship him?

Matthew--The problem with Campolo's statement is that he seems to be saying that God must meets his (Campolo's) standards of what is "completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving" to merit his allegiance, in effect setting himself up as God's superior. Let's be honest, it is hard to imagine the God of the Bible meeting Campolo's standards, what with the Great Flood, the Seven Plagues of Egypt, Sodom and Gamorrah, and the Israelites destruction of Canaan, but what he fails to recognize is that it is not God that must meet Campolo's standard, but Campolo that must meet God's. The pot does not get to set the standard for the potter.

9

Ucfengr,

I couldn't disagree with you more strongly.

Consider the 1.5 billion people who are Muslim. Let's say that one of these Islamic folk should happen to notice that his imam is preaching a narrative of Allah that seems somewhat bloodthirsty and otherwise inhumane. Are you suggesting that he suck it up and submit to this Allah anyway? After all, if it's in the Koran, why should this poor chap have the temerity to challenge the will of God?

More generally, each of us has an obligation, a profound duty, to examine our religious beliefs and our morality and judge them according to common-sense moral standards. This is not rebelling against God, or the "pot setting the standard for the potter". It's making sure we don't use religion as an excuse for doing the wrong thing.

I would add that Mr. Campolo's life is evidence that his thinking is not as screwy as Joe makes it out to be. His dedication to his ministry would seem to belie the accusations of hubristic heresy that Joe sends his way.

10

Matthew,

Mr. Campolo goes on to say that b>if he is wrong about God, and
if God is not good and loving, then he would without his allegiance
from such a God.

Campolo believes that if there is a hell, then God is not good and loving. Jesus—who Campolo claims to follow—makes it absolutely clear that there is a hell and that someone people will be going there. Ergo, Campolo doesn’t worship Jesus but a God of his own imagination.

Wouldn't you say the same thing, that if God were not good and loving, then you would decline to worship him?

If God were not good and loving He would not be God. But I am not the judge of what “good and loving” are when it comes to the Creator of the universe.

Joe, I think you've seriously misread Mr. Campolo's article. He doesn't deny Jesus or the cross.

Let me explain my logic:

1. Campolo doesn’t believe in the “Old Testament God.” He doesn’t believe that the OT is true because a “good and loving” God wouldn’t do that sort of thing.
2. Jesus Christ is the second person in the Trinity, which includes the God that Campolo doesn’t believe in.
3. Christ says that He and the Father are one and to reject him is to reject the Father. It works the other way around too. Campolo rejects the Father, therefore He rejects Jesus.

That is how he denies Jesus. Now for the second part:

1. Campolo rejects the Father that sent Christ to atone for our sins.
2. Christ died on the cross as payment for our sins: “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” (Jn. 3:17-18)
3. Campolo rejects this idea and believes that God forgives everyone, whether they reject the son or not. This is a heretical and non-Christian belief.

If you don't qualify what you have written or otherwise edit it, I think he could seriously mull a libel proceeding.

Truth is a defense to libel. Campolo is advocating things that are clearly heretical. He even acknowledges that he is unwilling to believe certain doctrines in order to “remain orthodox.” Campolo is not only a heretic, he is unrepentant about it.

His dedication to his ministry would seem to belie the accusations of hubristic heresy that Joe sends his way.

There are plenty of heretics who are dedicated to their ministry (see: Joel Osteen). Campolo claims that the Bible isn’t true and that Jesus is a lying. That, to my mind, is about as heretical and hubristic as it gets.

As an aside I should point out that while I have a great deal of tolerance for unbelievers who reject Christianity (especially when they are as polite and thoughtful as you) I cannot stomach false teachers who claim to accept Christ while willingly leading people to hell. I may take good-natured cheap shots at atheism but I don’t mince words when it comes to heresy.

11

Currently, Campolo's article can still be read through the following link:

The Limits of God's Grace

12

Joe,

I'm no lawyer, but I would guess that your explanation of your theological interpretations is now sufficient to protect yourself legally. So what follows is just an argument about the merits of what you say.

I don't think you're correct to assume that Mr. Camplolo rejects the trinity on the grounds that he rejects Calvinistic theology.

In his article, Mr. Campolo states that he believes in a vast cosmic struggle between the forces of good, led by God, and the forces of evil, presumably led by some kind of Satan. Even if this does not correspond to your beliefs about God, it is still possible that Mr. Campolo believes that Jesus, the Son of God, sacrificed himself on our behalf. In fact, that's the impression I took away from reading what he had to say.

So yes, I agree with you that Mr. Campolo is not a member of your church. But he is definitely a Christian, and he is definitely not leading anyone to hell, willingly or unwillingly [except maybe you by provoking you into sinful over-reaction ;) ].

13

Matthew--Don't get me wrong, I think Christians and adherents to other religions have an obligation to examine their religious beliefs, but I disagree that we or some iman are the standard that we should measure them against. "Common-sense moral standards" implies that they are something we all agree to, but the reality is that while you and I may agree on them, they are certainly not common to much of the world. Our "common sense moral standards" would probably meet strong opposition even in Europe, where our standards largely originate, let alone much of Asia or Africa. As a Christian, I think the Bible is what I should measure moral standards to; as such I have to accept that God did some things that I, in my fallen state, find objectionable, the Great Flood for example or the Plagues of Egypt, but that doesn't relieve of my obligation to follow God's teachings.

14

Great post, Joe. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I think you are spot on.

15

Bart Campolo: "I will not worship any God who is not at least as compassionate as I am."

I could comment on the hubris inherent in setting his own compassion up as the standard, but I will simply say that because humans are not omniscient, we cannot possibly know in any given situation what the compassionate thing is. Is it more compassionate to feed the drunkard without "judging" him, or trying to lead him out of his drunkenness? I suppose the drunkard and I might have different ideas of compassion - hence a god that encouraged me to do the one and not the other would be good to me and bad to him.

Ultimately, such a god is the god of "what I'm feeling now" - because our own feelings about compassion often change with our circumstances. That Campolo believes such a god is worthy of worship saddens me.

C. S. Lewis at least considered hell a more compassionate place for unbelievers than heaven, in the presence of the unbridled holiness and glory of God.

16

Ucfengr,

Here's the standard I use to judge the Bible, or anything else:

Helping people is good, hurting people is bad.

So the Great Flood and the Plagues of Egypt are both prime examples of God allegedly behaving in a prima facie evil way. If you agree with me, that does not mean you are fallen and in need of grace. It just means you recognize right and wrong.

For more of a discussion along these lines, and an example of one of my all-time un-favorite Bible stories, you can look at the comment thread for Joe's last post, "How to Change Your Mind", starting with comment number 30.

17

Joe,

"Wouldn't you say the same thing, that if God were not good and loving, then you would decline to worship him?"

If God were not good and loving He would not be God. But I am not the judge of what “good and loving” are when it comes to the Creator of the universe.

By accepting the Bible as the infallible Word of God, you are in fact passing judgement on what "good and loving" is. Your judgement of good and loving is what the Bible says it is.

You can outsource your beliefs about theology and cosmology and morality to the Bible, but they are still your beliefs. Mr. Campolo and I are more willing to think and judge the biblical God than you are, but what we are doing is not fundamentally different from what you are doing. We are all using our brain, our conscience to figure out the world and our place in it.

18

Excuse me, I should have written:

"more willing to think critically about and judge the biblical God than you are"

in the last paragraph of my comment. Sorry!

19

Matthew -

A few thought experiments to try to get at what you are thinking:

1 - Would if I need to hurt someone to help someone else? Would if the allied soldiers at Normandy need to hurt the Germans in order to help the occupied French? Are the soldiers being good or bad?

2 - What if I said I had an ethical standard that was somewhat similar: Helping God is good, hurting God is bad. I presume you find this inferior to your ethic. On what grounds do you do this?

3 - When you say "help" and "hurt", you have an implied "to" clause. To be a bit tongue-in-cheek, shooting someone helps them to die, and failing to do so hurts their prospects of dying. Or, put another way, what if someone doesn't want help, or wants to be hurt? Where do you get your notion of the state people ought to be in, so that you can decide what things to help them towards and what things to resist hurting them towards?

20

Pastors and other church leaders should print out this article by Campolo and discuss it with job candidates for youth ministry. If the job candidates agree with Campolo they shouldn't be hired. Would you hire a Wiccan to teach your 5-year-olds about Jesus? No? Then why would you hire, as a teacher for your youth, Campolo, who's in the process of creating his own religion under the Jesus® brand name?

21

Helping people is good, hurting people is bad.
Matthew Goggins

Seems like you are assuming the role of determining what is good and what is bad. As the Terri Schievo situation shows, sometimes this distinction is not so easily discerned.

To infer that God is responsible for any of the evil in the world today is unfair and irrational. The earth is our litterbox, and we are the one's that have messed it. We are responsible for the sin in the world. It is a sign of God's mercy that He allows a sinful world to continue, (with the hope that some will repent)rather than call "Game over" and judge everyone right now.

22

Helping people is good, hurting people is bad.

Of course this simple philosophy sets up all sorts of interesting paradoxes, for example is it good to help bad people? Say for example I helped a bunch of Nazis escape from a bunch of Communists (or vice versa)? Obviously the Nazis were bad and did bad things, but so were the Communists, and the Communists did not plan on being nice to the Nazis. What would be good in this situation? My solution would be to kill them both which would help a lot of people, but of course it would hurt the Nazis and Communists, who are also people?

So the Great Flood and the Plagues of Egypt are both prime examples of God allegedly behaving in a prima facie evil way. If you agree with me, that does not mean you are fallen and in need of grace. It just means you recognize right and wrong.

Right and wrong by whose standard? Context is important and I don't have a lot of context WRT the Flood or Plagues. I don't know how bad the pre-Flood world was or how bad the Jews in Egypt were treated. If we look at the bombing of Hiroshima without the context of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, then it looks like a horribly evil act.

23

Matthew,

I find it quite extraordinary, but I agree fully with all you've said. I can't recall the last time I could say such a thing in all honesty.

In discussion of morality, a common move for Evangelicals is to invoke the authority of Scripture. Let us set aside for a moment the issue of Scripture's interpretation. (Evangelicals assume that its intepretation is, at crucial points, clear and indisuptable. I find this deeply wrong-headed, but I will not pursue the point.) Instead let us focus upon the reason why one accepts Scripture as authoratative. One did not do so arbitrarily - it is not as if one hung copies of the religious texts on the wall, threw darts blindfolded, and then believed the text one happened to hit. Rather there must have been a reason to accept the one and reject the rest. Of course that reason cannot have been anything that one draws out of Scripture, for to do that is to assume, not prove, that Scripture is authoratative. So the reason must be something that one knows independently of Scripture. So then we all must rely on our own judgment in religious matters. We cannot pass the epistemological buck, as it were. Be careful, then, when you accuse someone such as Campolo of hubris. He does what you must do, too. (For what it's worth - perhaps not much - I think that the most important of the beliefs on which we must draw to make judgments about religions matters are our moral beliefs. The sole reason why I'm at all tempted to take the Bible at all seriously is that Christ says that the fundamental moral/religious law is to love God and neighbor. This seems dead right to me.)

24

Wonders for Oyarsa,

I could imagine some circumstances where it might be possible for my general principles to be wrong.

For example, if Saddam Hussein and a hero police dog were both trapped in a fire, and I could only save one, I would probably, in the heat of the moment, save the hero police dog before Saddam Hussein.

Would this be the correct, moral decision? I would say yes, but if someone disagreed with me I wouldn't spend a lot of time arguing the point. But this kind of strained example falls under the category of "exception which proves the rule".

To answer your questions:

1) Definitely good to hurt the German soldiers. Not good per se, but only as a means to an end.

2) Your "Helping/hurting God" ethic would likely turn out to be the same as mine in practice, so I would not be quick to assume that your proposed ethic would be inferior. Any such judgement would depend on how you interpreted the God-ethic. For example, would it have approved or disapproved of the events of Genesis 22?

If I did find the God-ethic to be inferior, it would be based on the consequences and how I viewed those consequences according to my own ethic.

3) In general, the presumptive basis for the state a person "should" be in would be the state that the person himself expresses a desire to be in. Of course, such a basis is entirely unsatisfactory in many instances (for example, an elderly parent who refuses to move to a nursing home), so in practice it is unfortunately not always clear what state you or I should be helping anyone to achieve.

There are many deep moral dilemmas in this world that a facile principle such as "Help, don't hurt" won't resolve.

Inquiring Minds,

Seems like you are assuming the role of determining what is good and what is bad. As the Terri Schiavo situation shows, sometimes this distinction is not so easily discerned.

I am assuming the role -- we all do, even if our default position happens to be "Do what the Bible says".

By the way, I approved of the Repubs' attempts to save Terri Schiavo.

Ucfengr,

I'll get back to you again later. I have to sign off for a while.

25

Campolo's comment is really very sad. This was a great post and very well put together... but very sad.

The god of self-sufficiency will always fail.

26

"The god of self-sufficiency will always fail."

How is that? the very term god means absolute self sufficiency...any god is says or is said to want anything isent really one...thats the bottom line

27

"By the way, I approved of the Repubs' attempts to save Terri Schiavo."

The repubs did not try to "save Terri Shiavo"...the poor woman was well beyond their ability to save...they merely practiced their usual bout of political necrophelia

28

The essential choice one must face is whether to trust one's capacity to reason or to trust that a book (and your interpretation of it) contains the absolute truth.

Campolo is right - to worship a god who created hell and did the things described in the Old Testament is an affront to reason and decency. But Joe is also right - to not believe in such a god makes one a heretic, at least by the standards of orthodox Christianity.

I agree with you Joe that it is absurd to claim to be a Christian and then to redefine the god of the Bible.

Humanists believe that every human deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Christians believe that every human deserves in burn in hell forever.

Ultimately, Bart Campolo must choose between following the dictates of the Bible or the dictates of his mind.

29

Joe,

Thanks for posting this, along with the quote you singled out these other two threw up huge red flags for me.

First of all, while I certainly believe my most
cherished ideas about God are supported by the
Bible (what Christian says otherwise?), I must ad-
mit they did not originate there. On the contrary,
most of these ideas were formed during that dif-
ficult time I described to you, when I was suddenly
disillusioned by the suffering and injustice I discov-
ered in the inner-city—I suddenly did not trust the
Bible at all. At that point, for the first time, I real-
ized that people’s lives don’t depend on whether or
not they believe in God, but rather on what kind
of God they believe in. I also realized, for better or
worse, that the only evidence I could rely on was
that which I saw for myself.

Later on in the article he says the following:

This is my first article of faith. I required no
Bible to determine it, and—honestly—I will either
interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse
that suggests otherwise.

By these two statements alone, Bart Campolo has stated that he is the ultimate authority on what is right and just, and what is true within the scriptures. In doing this he's placing himself as judge over Christ, and indeed making himself a heretic.

30

"By these two statements alone, Bart Campolo has stated that he is the ultimate authority on what is right and just, and what is true within the scriptures. In doing this he's placing himself as judge over Christ, and indeed making himself a heretic."

Only if the Bible was actually "the inerrant absolute truth" which its been demonstrated not to be...so the point of heresy is moot

31

LudVanB,

I don't believe Terri Shiavo's situation was as black and white as you make it out to have been.

Terri's husband had enormous conflicts of interests which were not sufficiently addressed by the state courts. Terri's parents were competent and eager to take care of her. I would have "erred" on the side of not rushing to pull the plug on her (not that there was any plug to pull -- she was starved and dehydrated to death).

Randy,

Campolo's comment is really very sad. This was a great post and very well put together... but very sad.

I didn't find Mr. Campolo's article to be sad overall. But I did find this part of it to be very disturbing:

[Bart Campolo] got to know a girl who was gang-raped as a nine-year old -- and after her Sunday school teacher told her God must have allowed it for a reason -- rejected God forever.

Talk about "false teachers who claim to accept Christ while willingly leading people to hell" (Joe's characterization of Mr. Campolo) -- that Sunday school teacher should hang his head in shame.

Ucfengr,

What would be good in this situation? My solution would be to kill [both the Nazis and the Communists] which would help a lot of people, but of course it would hurt the Nazis and Communists, who are also people?

I would agree with your solution, up to a point.

If you had some way of knowing that the people who had crossed paths with you were actively engaging in evil, you or I would be justified in killing them, but only as a last resort. In practice, it would be impossible to determine this level of guilt for a group of fugitives in war-time, so the right thing to do would be to take the Nazis into custody as POWs (as opposed to killing them).

Right and wrong by whose standard? Context is important and I don't have a lot of context WRT the Flood or Plagues. I don't know how bad the pre-Flood world was or how bad the Jews in Egypt were treated. If we look at the bombing of Hiroshima without the context of Okinawa and Iwo Jima, then it looks like a horribly evil act.

If helping people is right, and hurting people is wrong, then the Great Flood and the Plagues were wrong. So anyone who holds that particular standard would agree with me.

Here's some context:

Most of the first-born Egyptians who were killed during the Passover were innocents. Killing innocents is wrong, it's terrorism. If Exodus is correct, then God was a terrorist.

Of course, the Great Flood was incomparably worst. If that was a true story, God was a genocidal maniac! For some reason, though, Sunday school teachers don't like to play up that angle...

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are one of those great moral dilemmas I was referring to when discussing "Help, don't hurt" with Wonders for Oyarsa. I don't know if the bombing of those cities (or the horrific fire-bombing of Tokyo and Dresden) were justifiable, but I suspect that if I were in President Truman's shoes, I would have done the same thing.

Franklin Mason,

I find it quite extraordinary, but I agree fully with all you've said. I can't recall the last time I could say such a thing in all honesty.

I find it quite extraordinary, but your explanation of how we can't "pass the epistemological buck" expressed my point of view better than I could have. Thanks for taking my side, sir.

Ex-preacher,

I agree with you Joe that it is absurd to claim to be a Christian and then to redefine the god of the Bible.

Except that that is what Jesus himself did.

The God of the Old Testament was not exactly the God the Father that Jesus seems to have had in mind, the occasional jabs against money-changers and false teachers notwithstanding.

I think Mr. Campolo is more faithful to the teachings of Jesus than Joe is.

32

Joe:

Can you provide me with the quote that indicates the Journal took them down, please? Thanks.
I don't see one, the removal statement is by YS.

And since you are a whiz at searching can you provide the other two articles in the series?

33

"Terri's husband had enormous conflicts of interests which were not sufficiently addressed by the state courts. Terri's parents were competent and eager to take care of her. I would have "erred" on the side of not rushing to pull the plug on her (not that there was any plug to pull -- she was starved and dehydrated to death"

Well i wouldn't personaly call a 7 years long court battle "a rush to pull the plug" but thats just me i guess. and she was not starved and dehydrated to death...she was allready dead in every ways that matter...all that was left was to finally decide to let her rest in peace.

34

If helping people is right, and hurting people is wrong, then the Great Flood and the Plagues were wrong.

Definitely good to hurt the German soldiers. Not good per se, but only as a means to an end.

You may have trapped yourself here, Matthew. To not have hurt the Egyptians with the plagues would mean to allow the Israelites to remain hurt by their slavery. And to have done it in such a way as to not show the god of Israel to be superior to the world power of the day would hurt the Israelites, in that they would not have been able to stick out their journey in the wilderness (they barely did as it happened). It also would have hurt Egypt in the long run, in that their knowledge of the god of Israel helped them not to put confidence in things that could not ultimately protect them.

The issue of corporate guilt is harder, and we need to take the critique of individual injustice to heart. Yet even here we should also acknowledge the opposite point that the ancients would tell us - that no man is an island, even from the womb. A baby being born in the world may be innocent of personal evil, but the very breast it feeds on may contain nutrients gained by the abuse of the starving poor. The solid house it sleeps in may have been built by slaves, themselves lacking a home for their own little ones. The scales are unbalanced from the very beginning.

I think you'll need to admit you've been a tad bit hasty in your thinking. If ethics and morality really were so simplistic as you've described...well...it wouldn't be so darn difficult. But knowing what is ultimately for our benefit is not so straightforward, nor do we always know what is best for ourselves, let alone others. Furthermore, there is such a thing as horrible evil in this world, and it must be opposed relentlessly even as we recognize the humanity of those who espouse it. And lastly, people are notoriously good at being blind to the selfishness of their own hearts and minds.

I challenge you to take a deeper look at the Bible. It ought to be worth giving the benefit of the doubt for the simple reason that so many brilliant people throughout history have found its story to ring true and beautiful, bringing light and life to their lives and that of their societies. You don't need to blindly presume every word of it is binding on your life to recognize that it has deep and wise insights on the nature of things. Hold back the condemnation long enough to really understand, and you may find your horizons broadened.

35

> Talk about "false teachers who claim to accept Christ while willingly leading people to hell" (Joe's characterization of Mr. Campolo) -- that Sunday school teacher should hang his head in shame.

1. You weren’t there. You don’t really know what that Sunday school teacher said.

2. Neither do you speak for Christ. It is odd to find you invoking His name to make an accusation and demand shame, when you are quite willing to turn around and reject other things He said.

3. Either God permitted this vile act to occur, or He did not. If we say He permitted it, we might say we do not appreciate or understand the reasons, or we might openly rebel and say His rule is unjust. But if God did not permit the act, and God was totally unable to intervene, then in fact God is beholden to some higher power and is not really God at all. Because the second option collapses upon itself, only the first is logically tenable.

Bad things happen to all of us, and when they do we are always tempted to wonder if God is in fact benevolent. But “God hates me/is hateful” is merely an easy way to shift blame to God when it belongs on ourselves. That little girl Campolo spoke of needed to understand that sin is an awful, awful thing because it constitutes rebellion against God. When people rebel against His order, as a result, people can get hurt, just as she did. So we have a choice. Turn away from God, and cause more suffering, or turn toward him in a full recognition of our weaknesses and error, and through Jesus Christ be transformed into an instrument of healing and reconciliation in His hands.

By the way, I find Tony Campolo’s heresy to have begun much earlier in the paper. He writes with admirable frankness: “[This particular theological assumption] is my first article of faith. I required no Bible to determine it, and—honestly—I will either interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggests otherwise.” It doesn’t really matter what his assumption was; his bald dismissal of scriptural authority tells me everything I need to know about his theology.

36

Ex Preacher wrote

"Humanists believe that every human deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. Christians believe that every human deserves in burn in hell forever."

Really Ex-Preacher, this is misleading even by your standards.

The truth here is as follows

" Some Humanists believe that every human deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, then they die and life ends"

Christians believe that every human deserves to be treated with dignity and respect in this life. That God is soveriegn and will hold all accountable for their sins. That all humans have sinned and deserve eternal condemnation to hell. That God sent his only son to be a perfect living sacrifice to save us from our sins. That those who believe in him and make Jesus Christ, Lord and Saviour of their lives will not perish but have eternal life."

37

I have only recently started reading this blog, following a reference by Tim Challies a few days ago. I am surprised by the number of antagonistic comments. It seems there is a lot of polemic going on here!

In response to the essay by Mr. Campolo, I think he realizes he is leaving orthodoxy and accepts responsibility for doing so. His introduction seems to indicate that he wishes this to be known so that poor conference organizers won't discover it mid-conference and have to ask him to leave.

These theological currents are disturbing, and I think you do well to point out leaders and teachers who have departed from Biblical belief and are given to "strange teachings". Let the polemic roll....

38

Kaffinator,

You weren’t there. You don’t really know what that Sunday school teacher said.

Valid point, sir.

I'm making the assumption that the story is accurate. But even if I knew the story is accurate, I wouldn't presume to judge the teacher's character, only his actions.

Neither do you speak for Christ.

Neither do you, sir.

I wasn't speaking for Christ, though, I was speaking for myself.

It is odd to find you invoking His name to make an accusation and demand shame, when you are quite willing to turn around and reject other things He said.

I can see how you find it odd. It depends on how you look at it.

Bad things happen to all of us, and when they do we are always tempted to wonder if God is in fact benevolent. But “God hates me/is hateful” is merely an easy way to shift blame to God when it belongs on ourselves. That little girl Campolo spoke of needed to understand that sin is an awful, awful thing because it constitutes rebellion against God. When people rebel against His order, as a result, people can get hurt, just as she did. So we have a choice. Turn away from God, and cause more suffering, or turn toward him in a full recognition of our weaknesses and error, and through Jesus Christ be transformed into an instrument of healing and reconciliation in His hands.

You are wrong.

That young woman, that nine-year-old girl needed to know that she was a good person and that she had all the love and support she needed. Any theological cr-p at that point was adding injury to injury.

There is a time and a place for prosyletizing -- that wasn't it.

By the way, I find Tony Campolo’s heresy to have begun much earlier in the paper. He writes with admirable frankness “[This particular theological assumption] is my first article of faith. I required no Bible to determine it, and—honestly—I will either interpret away or ignore altogether any Bible verse that suggests otherwise.” It doesn’t really matter what his assumption was; his bald dismissal of scriptural authority tells me everything I need to know about his theology.

"Bald dismissal of scriptural authority" -- when you say things like this, you are caricaturing yourself. This ain't 1300 A.D., and you ain't the Spanish Inquisition.

Relax a little. Like I said in the other comment thread, apply some of that healthy skepticism to the Bible. God won't smote you with a thunderbolt.

39

LudVanB,

I respectfully disagree.

Wonders for Osayra,

Hold back the condemnation long enough to really understand, and you may find your horizons broadened.

I don't go around gratuitously condemning the Bible. But if someone holds the Bible up as an infallible moral guide, I will raise a very forceful objection.

The issue of corporate guilt is harder, and we need to take the critique of individual injustice to heart. Yet even here we should also acknowledge the opposite point that the ancients would tell us - that no man is an island, even from the womb. A baby being born in the world may be innocent of personal evil, but the very breast it feeds on may contain nutrients gained by the abuse of the starving poor. The solid house it sleeps in may have been built by slaves, themselves lacking a home for their own little ones. The scales are unbalanced from the very beginning.

Well, life is inherently parasitical, I won't deny it. But I strongly and vehemently disagree that the scales are therefore unbalanced.

You claim I have been hasty in my ethical analysis. Yet you focus on the parasitical and forget to put the symbiotical on the other side of the scales. Life is much more than a zero-sum game.

I categorically deny the mark of Cain, the original stain. All people are worthy and dignified until proven otherwise. Babies come with a certain amount of pre-packaged software for "good" and "evil" routines, but that makes them no more evil than the hungry-bear-in-the-woods that I mentioned in the other comment thread.

As for the plagues, I agree with you that life is replete with ethical traps and unintended consequences. But I disagree that the ends furthered by the plagues justified the means. God was a terrorist in this instance. (For clarity, I'm speaking hypothetically, I believe that God does not exist.)

I know my disagreement with you predisposes you to think I don't really understand the Bible. Perhaps you could look at it as my understanding a different aspect of the Bible than you do.

Thanks for the comments and the challenge.

40

"I respectfully disagree."

with what exactly....that 7 years is not a rush to judgement or that terri was for all intents and purposes a living corpse?

41

Both.

42

Note: Christianity Today picked up the Bart Campolo article, recognizing he is quoting Fyodor Dostoevsky.

I've responded to you and Justin Taylor at connexions.

43

Matthew Goggins writes

"Would this be the correct, moral decision? I would say yes, but if someone disagreed with me I wouldn't spend a lot of time arguing the point."

Nor could you, since in rejecting the bible you have no reliable basis on which to make any moral decisions. Anything you would say on the subject would be nonesense.

44

Scott,

... in rejecting the bible you have no reliable basis on which to make any moral decisions. Anything you would say on the subject would be nonsense.

Helping people is good... that's not nonsense.

Hurting people is bad... that's not nonsense.

Pulling the police dog out of the fire before Saddam... like I said, I can see why someone might disagree with me, but that's not nonsense either.

You are attacking my views because I disagree with the Bible about certain things. How about letting down your guard a little instead and admitting that the Bible is not perfect, and that it is not the source of all wisdom.

If God exists, he would tell us right from wrong not on the basis of his personal fiat, but on the basis of some objective standard like the ones I keep repeating: Helping people is good, hurting people is bad.

If God went against such standards (for example, "Go round up the heretics and burn them at the stake, please"), then God would be wrong. If that sounds like nonsense to you, then maybe it is your standards that could use a little extra logic.

Peace,
Matthew

45

BD: More accurately, CT recognizes an echo of the words of Ivan Karamazov, a fictional character created by Dostoevsky, in Mr. Campolo's position. Whether Ivan spoke for Dostoevsky is another matter.

46

Hi Matthew,

> I wasn't speaking for Christ, though, I was speaking for myself.

Actually, in post #10 you compared the teacher to someone who claims to accept Christ while willingly leading people to hell. And elsewhere you claimed Campolo represents Christ better than Joe does. This implies that you have a better read on who Jesus really is and can judge between Campolo and Joe, or between this Sunday school teacher and the fantasy perfect Sunday school teacher you have in mind.

These kinds of claims can only rest on a high level of self-confidence. But when it comes to actually dealing with the information we have about Jesus (the scriptures) I see you going into a sort of “mix and match” mode. It seems like you want to claim Jesus’ moral high ground while selectively ignoring what Jesus said. I confess I don’t have a lot of respect for that kind of posture.

> That young woman, that nine-year-old girl needed to know that she was a good person and that she had all the love and support she needed. Any theological cr-p at that point was adding injury to injury.

We both hope she received loving care. I do however think it’s reasonable to assume that the girl was asking a retrospective theological question. Campolo didn’t like the answer and neither do you. So what? Neither of you are beholden to any authority other than your own opinion.

> "Bald dismissal of scriptural authority" -- when you say things like this, you are caricaturing yourself. This ain't 1300 A.D., and you ain't the Spanish Inquisition.

Nice. You get to call down condemnation on an anonymous Sunday school teacher in a third-hand story but I’m not allowed to question Campolo’s theology when its error is plain for all to see.

47

Kaffinator,

Actually, in post #10 you compared the teacher to someone who claims to accept Christ while willingly leading people to hell. And elsewhere you claimed Campolo represents Christ better than Joe does.

Comment 10 was Joe, not me. And my claim about Campolo was a direct response to Joe's claim.

... when it comes to actually dealing with the information we have about Jesus (the scriptures) I see you going into a sort of “mix and match” mode. It seems like you want to claim Jesus’ moral high ground while selectively ignoring what Jesus said. I confess I don’t have a lot of respect for that kind of posture.

I don't selectively ignore what Jesus said. I selectively disagree with what Jesus said. Jesus was right about some things, and he was wrong about some things.

Campolo didn’t like the answer and neither do you. So what? Neither of you are beholden to any authority other than your own opinion.

My opinion is based on what is decent and humane and loving. Feel free to disagree.

It's possible the Sunday school teacher made an honest fumble. I hope he learned from his mistake, you don't seem to.

Nice. You get to call down condemnation on an anonymous Sunday school teacher in a third-hand story but I’m not allowed to question Campolo’s theology when its error is plain for all to see.

You are totally allowed to say whatever you want. I am allowed to call you on it.

By the way, Mr. Campolo's error of theology makes more sense to me than your orthodoxy. And I would bet it would make more sense to Jesus too.

Doesn't mean you're going to hell, doesn't mean you're a bad person, but you do come off a little bit like a pompous Pharisee. Sorry!

48

Matthew

nonsense

. words or language having little or no sense or meaning.

. something absurd or fatuous: the utter nonsense of such a suggestion

"Anything YOU would say on the subject would be nonsense."

Helping people is good... that's not nonsense.

- how do you know this? how do you define helping? How do you define good? How do you tell the difference? Unless you can describe to me a self-justifying world view that does not borrow from Christianity you can not even begin to make sense of any of the above.

Hurting people is bad... that's not nonsense.

See above

Pulling the police dog out of the fire before Saddam... like I said, I can see why someone might disagree with me, but that's not nonsense either.

See above

"You are attacking my views because I disagree with the Bible about certain things. How about letting down your guard a little instead and admitting that the Bible is not perfect, and that it is not the source of all wisdom."

The Bible is God's revealed word to us. It describes completeley and perfectly his nature and lays out the structure of our relationship to him.
I accept it as infalliable in its entirety. You say you disagree with some parts of it, but by what authourity do you do this?

"If God exists, he would tell us right from wrong not on the basis of his personal fiat, but on the basis of some objective standard like the ones I keep repeating: Helping people is good, hurting people is bad."

He has revealed his nature through the Bible and his laws are clearly explained thein. His personal fiat IS the only standard that matters. That is the subject of this post. Any attempt to judge God or mold him into your personal standard of acceptance will ultimately collapse when subjected to proper theological review. You are then left with only non-Christian world views which all collapse when examined closely.
Do you claim to be a believe? I can't tell.

If God went against such standards (for example, "Go round up the heretics and burn them at the stake, please"), then God would be wrong. If that sounds like nonsense to you, then maybe it is your standards that could use a little
extra logic.

God would be wrong? Against what standards? The ones you impose? By what authourity do you set them? By definition God is his own standard, there is no higher authourity, his will is supreme and ultimate. What are burned heretics when compared to the glory of God?

As predicted all you have said have satisfied the above definition of nonsense. You are not God. You claim to disagree with the Bible about certain things. But which ones? On what authourity do you pick and choose? Did the flood happen? How about the ressurection? To disagree with any is to stand in judgement of God, are you claiming to be a diety?

You put forward "Helping people is good... that's not nonsense." as if it is some brilliant revelation, or obviously accepted fact. But it is so vague and without supporting evidence that it cannot even be understood.

You will have to do better than this.

49

Ken:

I wrote two fiction books that were published and in my mind, my characters spoke for me and through me.

Having said that, I humbly acknowledge your correction, I apologize, you are quite accurate, I was not.

Mr. Campolo quoted the character Ivan Karamazov.

I have read The Brothers Karamazov, it was awhile ago, and I appreciate you taking time to clarifying and correct me. Thank you.

50

Ooops…sorry, I meant #31 which was your response to #10.

> Doesn't mean you're going to hell, doesn't mean you're a bad person, but you do come off a little bit like a pompous Pharisee. Sorry!

I know you mean this well, but no apology is really necessary. “Pompous Pharisee” is exactly how I would expect you to view someone who means to respect the entire word of God rather than chase after my own blind opinion. My guess is that you feel there is nothing more worthy of your allegiance than opinions based on the few scant years of human experience you happen to have accumulated. And I certainly don’t expect to convince you that something infinitely better exists, based on a few anonymous internet posts. I had merely hoped you might consider the possibility of viewing your own subjective conscience with the same kind of skepticism with which you ask me to view scripture. Won't be the first time I've failed in such an endeavor though.

51

As a christian, I believe the bible is God's word to us and I'm glad we have it. Can I declare I know all the truth based on my interpretation of the bible? No, I am merely a human being, just like everyone else. Campolo is just being honest.
If it weren't so sad, I would find it amusing that many people that claim to know everything because of their "bible-based" world view accuse people that disagree with them of being moral relativists, while at the same time they whole heartedly support the Bush administration dispite all the evil it has spread throughout the world these last few years. And they claim that his detractors are just Godless Bush haters...they just can't see the evil that is clearly there.

52

"How thankful I am that God is not always just, for His amazing grace has saved a cosmic traitor like me."

Romans 1:17 - "For a righteousness from God is revealed in it from faith for faith, just as it stands written 'and the righteous one will like from/out of/by faith.'"

It is because God is just that you are redeemed.

53

Scott,

You should be embracing someone who says "Help people, don't hurt people". You shouldn't be accusing him (me) of spouting nonsense.

If this is your interpretation of how theology and moral debate works, then you are a living, breathing advertisment against the Bible.

By definition God is his own standard, there is no higher authourity, his will is supreme and ultimate.

I understand your objection to my alleged lack of an objective basis, but my beliefs have just as much objective basis as yours.

Just asserting that God is his own standard is not really an objective basis for dealing with people who deny your assumptions. What you are so convinced is objective is actually just a particular way of looking at it.

When I say "help people, don't hurt people", most people can agree with that without sharing all or even most of my own idiosyncratic assumptions. My morality, in this sense, is more general and objective than yours, because it corresponds better to a larger variety of belief systems. It has more flexibility to adapt to different frames of reference, even ones very different from my own, including theistic ones.

That doesn't prove that my morality is right, or that yours is wrong. But it does mean that particular objection doesn't hold water.

Kaffinator,

I had merely hoped you might consider the possibility of viewing your own subjective conscience with the same kind of skepticism with which you ask me to view scripture.

I view my own conscience with a lot more skepticism than what I am suggesting you try with the scripture. I never assume that I am the font of all wisdom, and I listen to everyone who has something to say.

If you have some reason why "Helping people is good, hurting people is bad" is inferior to your own morality, I am happy to hear you out.

At least you're not defending the Sunday school teacher anymore. Maybe that is some new common ground between us.

54

Matthew: "I don't go around gratuitously condemning the Bible. But if someone holds the Bible up as an infallible moral guide, I will raise a very forceful objection."

Deservedly so, I would say. Fundamentalists who emphasize third use of the law tend not to read quote scripture for purposes of the Gospel.

Sorry for double posting... I think Matthew made quite an important point though.

55

Joe writes: To their credit, The Journal of Student Ministries took down the article.

Yeah, I sure don't want people to be reading radical stuff like this:

I still do my best to convince young people to accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, but not because I’m afraid God will damn them to Hell if they don’t. On the contrary, I want the kids I love to follow Jesus because I genuinely believe following Jesus is the best kind of life. Eternity aside, I want them to be transformed by the Gospel right here and right now, for their sakes and for the sakes of all the lost and broken people out there who need them to start living as Jesus’ disciples. After all, the sooner we all start following Jesus by feeding the poor and freeing the oppressed, the sooner God’s will shall be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

56

Matthew

"You should be embracing someone who says "Help people, don't hurt people". You shouldn't be accusing him (me) of spouting nonsense."

But you are. I would embrace you in the sense of asking you to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour as your only way of obtaining salvation.

"If this is your interpretation of how theology and moral debate works, then you are a living, breathing advertisment against the Bible."

Debate is a discussion of opposing viewpoints. You have yet to present a coherent world view to support your claims.

"I understand your objection to my alleged lack of an objective basis, but my beliefs have just as much objective basis as yours."

I still don't have any clear idea what you believe in other than the laughably vague assertion that Good = helping people. Again what does this mean? If I help someone to get something they want does this make me "good" in your books.

"When I say "help people, don't hurt people", most people can agree with that without sharing all or even most of my own idiosyncratic assumptions. My morality, in this sense, is more general and objective than yours, because it corresponds better to a larger variety of belief systems. It has more flexibility to adapt to different frames of reference, even ones very different from my own, including theistic ones."

Give a precise example of how this line of reasoning can produce a non-refutable moral standard. What if by helping one person I am hurting another, am I now good bad or indifferent.

"That doesn't prove that my morality is right, or that yours is wrong. But it does mean that particular objection doesn't hold water."

On the contrary it proves that your so called morality can't be known since you cannot even provide a standard or even clear definitions of "good" "bad" "helping" "hurting"

Again

... in rejecting the bible YOU have no reliable basis on which to make any moral decisions. Anything YOU would say on the subject would be nonsense.

57

I have nothing intelligent to add to this right now other than...how sad. How sad that people can think the way Mr. Campolo's son does. :( Quite heartbreaking.

His patience is the greatest grace we'll ever know, really.

58

This is a really interesting dilemma that Campolo has come to. The statements he makes are powerful, and of course easy to condemn as committed Christians.

I have only read the brief snippet from Joe above, and so cannot be sure the picture is a full one. But if nothing else, Campolo's stance is a tempting one for all of us struggling with the same issues - that of the portrait of God painted by our scripture, doctrine, and experience falling short of what we presume to be perfect justice, wisdom, and mercy. I think most of us struggle with the gruesome annihilation depicted in the book of Joshua - attributing this to absolute goodness. And, though I personally think our doctrine of Hell and who goes there often far exceeds the few verses in scripture that reference it, the notion of millions horribly condemned to utter destruction remains horrific.

So the question is, what do we do with this? I think here we can rightly take counsel from the book of Job. Here is a story of a man faced with injustice at the hand of a just God, and here we see two wrong ways to respond to it.

The first seems to be the way of Campolo, and it is the way of Job's wife. If this is the way God is, than we want nothing to do with him. Let him condemn us to Hell. Curse him and die. But to this Job corrects us. Shall we accept the love and mercy of Jesus without the scriptures that were his lifeblood? Shall we reject what (historically at least) is the wellspring of the very compassion we are using as our weapon of condemnation?

But the second way I see hints of in the above comments. It is the way of justifying the unjustifiable in an attempt to justify God. It is the way of Job's friends - who laud the injustice done to Job in order to make God come out in the right. Against this Job also corrects us. Will God be impressed by our defending something we in our bones feel to be horrible and wicked in order to protect him from liability? Will he praise us for a faith that would follow an evil god as quickly as a good one?

What I wish Tony had said was "Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him. But I will argue his ways to his face." This is the example of Job - a love of God and a confidence in His goodness that endures, alongside an unwillingness to call things good against his conscience and a hubris that pleads for God to account for things. It is this sort of wrestling that the Lord wants from us, though he will indeed humble us when we encounter him. It is this third path, I'm convinced, that we need to take when confronted with these difficult issues.

59

Wow, did I say Tony? I meant Bart. Whoops...

60

God is our Heavenly Father, and we are His children. His want to be worshipped is not insecurity as stated by some of the previous commenters. His desire to be worshipped is not different than a parents desire to be loved by their children, the same children that the parent loves, cares about, and has put everything into so that they may be productive and loving individuals.

61

"God is our Heavenly Father, and we are His children. His want to be worshipped is not insecurity as stated by some of the previous commenters. His desire to be worshipped is not different than a parents desire to be loved by their children, the same children that the parent loves, cares about, and has put everything into so that they may be productive and loving individuals."

The idea that God is a father and that we are his children is itself childish and immature...it is born of our need to attibute human like traits to something that is not human at all...has god has no need to be loved or worshipped and since want is born out of need it is therefore impossible for god to want to be loved or worshipped. Human Parents want their children to love them for the same reason that anyone wants to be loved by anyone else....because human beings are social creatures who's sustained healthy sate of mind require positive input from others around them...God suffers from no such imperfection.

62

LudVanB

"The idea that God is a father and that we are his children is itself childish and immature..."

No this is revealed in scripture.

"it is born of our need to attibute human like traits to something that is not human at all..."

Scripture tells us God created man, not the other way around, we are made in his image.

"has god has no need to be loved or worshipped and since want is born out of need it is therefore impossible for god to want to be loved or worshipped."

How do you know this? Scripture tells us the opposite, that God is love and DEMANDS our worship.

Since you do not believe in the God of the Bible what is your worldview? Rather than making unfounded assertions about Christianity that are easily refuted, present your worldview to us so that we may examine it.

You may begin by demonstrating your explanation of how you know what the meaning of the word "it" is.

63

What kind of father would turn his children over to be tortured because they didn't love him?

Christianity can be boiled down to two propositions.

1. God loves you very much.
2. If you don't love him back, you will burn in hell forever.

64

Once again, ex-preacher can't quit preaching. Purporting to tell us something profound--that God turns His children over to be tortured if they don't love Him--he only succeeds in baiting the ignorant. Well, I'm taking the bait.

We understand, ex, why you no longer believe, if you ever did. But please stop insulting us by preaching to us about something that any thinking Christian has already accepted. Your arrogance is exasperating. You leave the church, slamming the door behind you, and then hang around outside the door yelling "stupid Christian" at every one going in.

YOu claim to be an ex-preacher, but you can't quit preaching. You also claim to be an ex-Christian. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

65

Why is it that when I dispute the tenets of Christianity, the Christians around here feel the need to attack my character? I am not calling anyone stupid. I hate Christianity, but love the Christians.

If you cannot deal with the substance of my critique, jd, you don't need to attack me personally.

66

Oh poor ex, did jd hurt your feelings? Hey Mr. Kettle did you ever notice you are black as well? Basically you are a disgrace and a failure. You attmept to make people feel stupid for their beliefs on a daily basis. And for what? You claim it is to enlighten us poor Christians because we are so misguided and confused. Well I, for one, don't appreciate being told how much my beliefs suck. Especially by some backwoods hick from Arkansas.
It is obvious that there is some pathology at work in your presence here. The only reason someone would continue to mock something he is convincined isn't worth his time is to make himself feel better about how much better he is than those who still believe. That is the very definition of a small person. You must feel the need to get back the part of your life you feel you wasted on Christianity, so you attempt to pull as many people as possible away from faith so your life doesn' seem so empty.

67

Uhhhh, Forsberg???

"Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity, and sound speech that cannot be condemned, so that an opponent may be put to shame, having nothing evil to say about us."

Ummm, yeah...

68

compolo's words sound strangely familiar... hmmm... OH YA! my atheist friends say the same thing: "I can't believe in or worship a god that is such and such..."

69

"Since you do not believe in the God of the Bible what is your worldview? Rather than making unfounded assertions about Christianity that are easily refuted, present your worldview to us so that we may examine it."

My worldview is to view it for what it is,not for what some scrolls wrtiien by anonymous authors and VOTED the word of god through a POLITICAL PROCESS tell me it should be. you can place your faith in those scribblings of dubious origin if you like...me,i ll place my faith in God...the real one.

70

LudVanB,

Nice dodge. You managed to answer nothing and still get in a backhanded smear at Christianity! You must be so proud!

Wonders For Oyarsa,

I see your point, but nothing makes me angrier than snarkiness, and some of the little jerks that come here need to be called out. They are not here to dialogue, they are here to mock and decieve. If any one of them would ever just concede a point, then I might make the effort to engage them. As it is a little taste of their own medicine might show them how deficient their mothers were in teaching them manners.

71

Forsberg,

how is that a dodge?...you asked what my worldview was and i told you...christian are fond of dwelling on what their so called holy scriptures tell them what the world was and what it should be...i consider that an exercise in futility...the world is how gone made it...it was never perfect nor will it ever be and i for one am quite content in that knowledge for i cant imagine anything more boring than a perfect world where nothing ever happens. I like thing world,this universe and i think that the many sorrows it contain are necessary for us to appreciate the occasional joys and treasure them. I think that God knew what it was doing when it made the universe that way and for the life of me i cant understand why anyone would want to change it into some bland "paradize" of uniformity,not that they ever could mind you. does that better answer your question?

72

LudVanB,

I guess that made sense in a sort of New Agey platitude filled way. You must be European.

73

Hi Matthew,
> If you have some reason why "Helping people is good, hurting people is bad" is inferior to your own morality, I am happy to hear you out.

I think that’s a very good moral standard, as far as it goes. But as noted elsewhere by myself and others, it fails to answer some rather important questions. You yourself admit that it’s something less than a shocking revelation. Clearly a more comprehensive worldview is required to even interpret that kind of statement. Christianity supplies such a worldview.

Yours? I’m pretty unclear about. Unlike the matrix offered by Christianity, yours seems to lack authority, transparency, stability. You may think a worldview doesn’t really need such things, because many of us seem to get by as “good enough” to be judged by our fellow humans as, at the least, a benign influence if not somewhat positive.

But this is what the study of a Holy God does to you: it makes you realize that first, the bar is much higher than you would like it to be, and second, it is not our peers that will judge us in the end, but God. No one can contemplate this unassailable truth without being filled with a kind of dread, which is why most people avoid thinking about it, and why gospel preachers consistently confront us with it.

> At least you're not defending the Sunday school teacher anymore. Maybe that is some new common ground between us.

It seems to me that the Sunday school teacher affirmed the sovereignty of God. Within my worldview there is nothing wrong with that. Within yours, it is a horrible, dreadful thing to contemplate, because you do not have a savior to rescue you from it (by the way—I know this guy who can help you out with that problem).

I will give a nod to Osayra here and say that if we think something is unjust we should definitely plead our case to God (as Job did). Nor should we think (as Job’s friends argued) that there is really no such thing as injustice in the world. But it would be myopic to expect any different outcome than Job had, in the day we stand face to face with our King: “Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. […] Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes.”

74

Fordberg,

Its neither new age or platitude but rather a logical perspective born of experience as opposed to irrational drivel born of wishfull thinking and self adulation...and i'm French Canadian

75

LudVanB,

Ah, the sterotype of the euro mindset is borne out. I feel vindicated. (Is there even a question that French-Canadians see themselves as Euros who happed to live on the North American continent?)
I'm sure your years of experience are more than a match for hundreds of years of chruch tradition, thousands of years of biblical truth, and the wisdom of an eternal God.
The self-adulation is far more present in your world view that denies God and relies on your small human understanding.

Take care

76

If God exists, he would tell us right from wrong not on the basis of his personal fiat, but on the basis of some objective standard like the ones I keep repeating: Helping people is good, hurting people is bad.

Matthew is looking for some objective standard, apart from God, to which God must conform. There is no such, of course. There can be no such.

But if you're looking for a simple, objective standard, how about

1. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all your strength, and all your mind.
2. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments.

77

Forsberg

wow...getting a bit personal arent we? French Cadadians consider themselves to be just that...French Canadians. we are proud of our heritage here in america and we wouln't want to be europeens anymore than you do,not that theres anything wrong with that anyway. And my experience has also included study of those thousands of years of "biblical truths" (rather generous term for a collection of mostly baseless assertions). As for the etrnal wisdom of God,i dont doubt it in the slightest,which is precisely why i dont believe most of the bible. The bible was crafted by then hand of man...the world by God...when the bible and the world are in conflict,the obvious choice for which is right is the latter of course. In short,i d rather trust in God then in the "insight" of some anonymous goat herder from the late bronze age.

78

Forsberg,

Your comments confirm my point. Unlike you, I am trying to deal with the important issues at hand. You seem more interested in personal smears and unsubstantiated assertions. If you can't deal with criticisms of your belief system, perhaps you should stick to Christian-only forums (of which there are many) where you will be safely insulated from any skepticism about Christianity.

79

Forsberg -- your comments are indeed personal, and really, for a person on this forum who is supporting a conservative (I believe) evangelical perspective, your behavior is embarrassing...and unChristlike.

I often read here, but rarely post, though I felt in this case, a comment was warranted.

80

Help! Help! The French Canadiens are coming to take away our religious freedoms!

81

jd and Forsberg,

Ex-preacher wrote, in comment 63:

What kind of father would turn his children over to be tortured because they didn't love him?

Christianity can be boiled down to two propositions.

1. God loves you very much.
2. If you don't love him back, you will burn in hell forever.

Both of you took umbrage at his remarks, because you see this summary as mocking Christianity. Furthermore, you don't understand why Ex-preacher doesn't just leave Christianity and Christians alone, now that he has abandoned the faith.

However, for about 1,800 or 1,900 of the past 2,000 years, Ex-preacher's two propositions would actually have been a good summary of Christian dogma and doctrine.

Nowadays, most Christians wouldn't believe in such harsh punishments in the afterlife, but that is a relatively recent development. Joe Carter himself believes that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus as his personal saviour will be condemned to hell in the afterlife.

But even Joe has taken some of the edge off of this doctrine by insisting that this eternal punishment does not involve physical torture, but only the spiritual torture of eternal separation from God.

When I lived in New York City, I ran into people just about every week handing out tracts on the sidewalk or in the subway warning me to accept and love Jesus or go to hell forever.

I think it would behoove good Christians such as yourself to show good manners to people like Ex-preacher and myself who take the time to talk to you about these things.

It may be emotionally satisfying to attack Ex-preacher for his alleged transgressions. But what if someone is dropping by on the internet to check out this discussion, and sees a professed Christian lashing out at a critic in a rude way? Do you really think that leaves a good impression?

But ultimately, civil discourse is its own best justification. Being polite is good, and being rude is almost always bad.

Scott (the Cannuck),

I've been re-reading your comments.

It seems to me that your argument against my "Help, don't hurt" morality is not really what you say it is.

Your argument uses the word "nonsense" repeatedly and claims that you don't understand what I mean by good, bad, helping, and hurting. Of course, you do understand what I mean by those terms, since I've given plenty of examples.

The problem you have is not the meaning of what I say, and probably not even the substance of what I believe to be good and evil (aside from religious belief).

The problem you seem to have is that I don't have, in your opinion, a "coherent world-view". I think you laid it out most clearly in comment 48, when you said:

- how do you know [helping people is good]? how do you define helping? How do you define good? How do you tell the difference? Unless you can describe to me a self-justifying world view that does not borrow from Christianity you can not even begin to make sense of any of the above.

Before I lay out my world-view, here are two general points:

1) Borrowing from Christianity is certainly allowed. Christianity borrowed from the traditions that existed before it, Jewish, Roman, Greek, Celtic, and so on.

Just as people are free to accept or reject Christianity wholesale, they are free to pick and choose from it what they wish.

2) "Coherence" sounds like an objective criterion, and indeed it can be. But it can just as easily be a rhetorical club with no actual merit, a fancy way of saying, "Please take your blocks and go home now, I don't like the way you play."

So here's my world-view:

There are many objective facts that are available to us. Some of the most reliable ways of learning things are the scientific method, rigid application of the laws of logic, and direct first-hand personal experience. These methods are not 100% reliable, but they are more or less the best we have.

Religious revelation, on the other hand, is much less reliable. In fact, over the past 35 years I have reached the conclusion that religious revelation is actually pretty unreliable as a guide to cosmology and morality, and I have also concluded that there is nothing supernatural in our universe. Specifically there is no God and no afterlife (and no faeries, leprechauns, trolls, or ghosts).

As for morality, there is no supernatural authority laying down laws, applauding some things as good and proscribing others as bad. What is good and bad is what is good and bad for you and me and everybody else.

How do we know what is good and what is bad? Sometimes we don't know, but most of the time it is pretty obvious. The most frequent problem in our daily lives is not figuring the right thing to do, but doing it.

But what about your criterion of "self-justifying"? Let's take a look at how self-justifying your morality is.

If God exists and is good, then he wants us to be good too.

So why should we be good, in your view? Because it is good to be good, or because God wants us to be good?

If someone is a Christian, he doesn't have to be good, because Christians believe in free will. A Christian can choose to be good or bad.

Should a Christian choose to be good because he is afraid of God and of hell, or because he loves God?

If a Christian should be good out of fear, then how is that "self-justifying" -- sounds like the opposite of self-justifying to me. If a Christian should be good because he loves God, then why should he love God? Because God is perfect goodness, and we should love perfect goodness? O.K., well that sounds a lot like what I am saying: we should do good and avoid evil because the good is good and the evil is evil.

Please remember that a Christian with free will can believe God exists, that Jesus died and rose again to save the world again, and still choose to not be good. A Christian can say, "Yes, I believe all that, but I am going to do what I want anyway." And some Christians do!

In my world-view, there are no supernatural sanctions. There is not even any supernatural guidance. A person must do good because he wants to do good. If he doesn't want to do good, he won't. Which is exactly the situation under Christianity.

And why would a person want to do good in my world-view? I think that most of the time he would do so for the same reasons you would: because he wants to help others and not hurt others. Isn't that the reason you do good too?

So let me know what you think, Scott. Have I resolved the superficial obstacles in our path toward mutual understanding and acceptance, or have I descended further into the miasma of nonsense?

Kaffinator,

I think that’s a very good moral standard, as far as it goes.

Thank you. I think it's largely equivalently to what Jesus preached anyway.

For example, here's a passage from the gospel of Mark, chapter 12, verses 28 to 34:

One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, "Which is the first of all the commandments?"

Jesus replied, "The first is this: 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.'

The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

The scribe said to him, "Well said, teacher. You are right in saying, 'He is One and there is no other than he.'

And 'to love him with all your heart, with all your understanding, with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself' is worth more than all burnt offerings and sacrifices."

And when Jesus saw that (he) answered with understanding, he said to him, "You are not far from the kingdom of God." And no one dared to ask him any more questions. [End of passage]

Unlike the matrix offered by Christianity, [your moral standard] seems to lack authority, transparency, stability.

My standard does not have the authority of any church or religious body. It does have my personal authority and the authority of all the people who would agree with it.

My standard is no less transparent than yours.

Your standard has been around for about 2,000 years, mine has been around even longer.

But this is what the study of a Holy God does to you: it makes you realize that first, the bar is much higher than you would like it to be, and second, it is not our peers that will judge us in the end, but God.

As far as I can tell, my bar is just as high as yours. And the primary responsibility for keeping myself on the right path is mine, not my peers'.

Assuming you are correct that God will judge us in the end, let me ask you the same question I asked Scott.

What is the primary motive that you seek to be good? To avoid God's punishment, to express your love for God, or because you desire to be a good person?

No one can contemplate this unassailable truth [of divine judgement] without being filled with a kind of dread, which is why most people avoid thinking about it, and why gospel preachers consistently confront us with it.

I respectfully suggest that no matter how