1

here

2

My usual answer to this is 'can you prove that HE doesn't exsist?'. This will give you a wide range of answers to work from should they choose to answer. This reverse also provides a quick understanding as to how much 'the party in question' might be in thier walk if at all...

3

Actually,the "can you prove god exists" drivel is more of a strawman routinely used by religionists of the christian cult then an argument used by non christian. A more interesting twofold question which IS used as an argument against cristianity and has never been given any reasonable or rational answer is this...

-Assuming that there at least one god,what evidence can you present that would credibly demonstrate or at the very least SUGGEST that this god would be the judeo-christian God at the exclusion of all other gods and what evidence is there to demonstrate that the Bible is the only text inspired by your judeo-christian god or any other god?

4

LudVanB, the reason you've never heard a reasonable answer to the question is that you've probably never asked it sincerely. You almost certainly have the same amount of disdain for Zeus, Molech, and Thor as you do for Jehovah. Hence you are only using these gods and mythology as a foil to beat "Religionists of the Christian Cult" over the head with.

We are actually able to present quite a convincing case to classical pagans. They tend to convert to Christ rather quickly. The answer to your question is actually the subject of the Old Testament, Agustine's "The City of God", and Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man". But here's the trick - you actually have to want to understand ancient paganism for what it is, for all its beauty and ugliness, wisdom and folly, before you can effectively compare it with the god of Israel. And you can't do that when you've got your dukes up, and are not really trying to understand anything besides whether a stick is sufficiently firm to beat Christianity with.

5

Wonders for Oyarsa,

LudVanB is French-Canadian. His default setting is sneering cynicism.

6

The answer to the question just posted would open a "can of worms" so-to-speak comparing the entire account given in the Word of God of History, Science, and other areas of study against the known truths that we have from external sources. I read a story about a lawyer who set out to disprove the existence of God. He planned to approach the subject for a legalistic standpoint and was going to weigh the evidence just as it would be weighed in the court of law. After a long time of study the man became overwhelmingly convinced that there was a God. I wish I had the sources for this story, but in the meantime you can just take it with a grain of salt and try to understand the principle that I am invoking on this subject. Thank you all and God bless you! Great post, by the way.

7

IMO, you can no more prove that God exists than you can prove that He doesn't exist. Both "There is a God" and "There is no God" are first principles which are taken by faith. Both result in systems with equal explanatory power although they obviously result in different answers to the same questions. They each have their own set of problems.
What I find interesting, however, is that atheism leads to conclusions that few atheists are comfortable living with; hence, there are very few rational atheists.

8

"the small segment of atheists who truly believe that it is implausible that God exists."

As opposed to, say, the larger segment of atheists who believe that God exists? No, an atheist does not believe in deities, period. And that conclusion isn't the product of a "plausibility structure" calculus as much as it is the simple evaluation of a claim: The believer holds that a deity exists. Believer presents evidence. Atheist examines said evidence and finds it to be insufficient. End of story.

In this post, Joe, you confuse secularism with atheism (again) and so we ought to review the distinction: A secular society - what the Founding Fathers set up for us - is one in which law is determined on the basis of rational concepts. Science, education, and public policy in a secular society are neutral with respect to deity worship. See where you went astray?

And I'd argue that atheism is very much religiously neutral in that the grounds for disbelief in one deity figure are roughly the same for those disallowing the existence of any other deity as well. As Sam Harris puts it, you and I are virtually identical in our atheism, except that I believe in one fewer deity. You, for your part, are an atheist with respect to Brahma, Zeus, etc.

9

Raven -- good comment for stimulating the discussion. I agree that proof is the responsibility of the one who proposes, rather than of the listener. And other commenters would be wise to realize that there is no such thing as a negative proof: one can only prove that something is, never that something is not.

However, Raven, Joe differentiated between two types of atheists: anti-God and without-God. The first -- hard atheists -- say there is no God. The second -- soft atheists -- ignore God as if He were irrelevant: not deists, who acknowledge a remote God, but atheists who act without recognition of a God. The latter are prevalent in the US, and that orientation, Joe observes, dominates discussions in most areas.

Raven, you point out that the founding fathers gave us a secular society "in which law is determined on the basis of rational concepts." If by that you mean it is intended that law is to be adjudicated by rational means, then yes, mostly. But then of course the founding fathers did not establish that laws must be passed only if they met some rational-concepts standard. They left approval of proposals to a legislature which would determine their passage by whatever values they found appropriate.

More to the point, the founding fathers did not establish how science, education, and [executive and non-federal] public policy are to be progressed. In fact, the Bill of Rights set those matters outside of federal law.

Two big areas you did not discuss, Raven, are commerce and entertainment, the latter as in TV and movies. Joe's point is that our society has adopted a soft-atheist attitude regarding commerce and entertainment as well as science and education. If you believe that the founding fathers are responsible for this, you've not made your case. Raven, where you go astray is in writing as if science and education follow from the legal system established by the founding fathers.

The legal system established by the founding fathers excluded the national government from establishing a religion -- a way to worship God -- so that the people could choose the ways they found right. There really is no founding-father requirement that our acts and attitudes reflective of what we believe to be our God's expectations must be excluded from science, education, commerce, and entertainment -- or for that matter, from the formation and approval of laws. If you disagree, Raven, prove that there is.

10

"LudVanB, the reason you've never heard a reasonable answer to the question is that you've probably never asked it sincerely. You almost certainly have the same amount of disdain for Zeus, Molech, and Thor as you do for Jehovah. Hence you are only using these gods and mythology as a foil to beat "Religionists of the Christian Cult" over the head with. "

I do indeed have the same disdain for all man made god figures and ask the same question to all of their believers which none are able to credibly answer...what makes their god(s) THE god(s) to the exclusion of all others. What real world evidence can be presented that shows for exemple " there see,this demonstrate that Thor is real and Vishnu isent" or "See,with this (fill in the blank as best you can) clearly means that Jehovah is true and Allah isent" Which lead to other questions...What evidence is there that god(s) ever intervened to shape events on this world or any other?...What observable characteristic can distinguish the intervention of a god from a naturaly occuring phenomenon? How can one demonstrate that this text is of divine inspiration but that one isent? Questions that can be asked of any religion and it seems are answerable by none. Which leads to the only logical conclusion that can be drawn at this point...that belief in specific gods of specific religious denomination is a purely societal phenomenon as opposed to a spiritual one.

"We are actually able to present quite a convincing case to classical pagans. They tend to convert to Christ rather quickly."

Indeed most pagans converted willingly to christianity but it had more to do with the quality of the sales pitch than with the actual religion itself. Pagan divinities were often incorporated into christianity as saints as well as some pagan celebrations to convince pagans to join christianity. And it is noteworthy that the pagans who held firm to their beliefs were mnost of the time viciously persecuted for their refusal to convert,a phenomenon which lasted until well into the 18th century. Christianity was never a religion of tolerance but rather a cult predicated on having some external evil to vanquish.

"The answer to your question is actually the subject of the Old Testament, Agustine's "The City of God", and Chesterton's "The Everlasting Man". But here's the trick - you actually have to want to understand ancient paganism for what it is, for all its beauty and ugliness, wisdom and folly, before you can effectively compare it with the god of Israel."

I am familiar with "the city of God" and while the question i posed is somewhat adressed in it,it is certainly not given any answer...rather ,it is quietly pushed aside.

"And you can't do that when you've got your dukes up, and are not really trying to understand anything besides whether a stick is sufficiently firm to beat Christianity with."

And here we have yet another variation of "you cant see evidence for christianity until you want christianity to be true"...i was wondering how long it would take for this conversation to degenerate into circular arguments.

11

LudVanB, if your questions are more than rhetorical and you are not just putting your dukes up, and if you would truly like answers to the questions you posed, the information is more than readily available. Just in passing, a few answers are:
-the Bible was written by 40 different people over a period of more than 1600 years and maintains a consistent message; comments and predictions made in the Old Testament can be seen as echoed and true in the New;
-more than 19,000 manuscripts and fragments have been found that also have consistent teaching and writing, more than any other historical document-
-compare to Homer's Iliad, of which there are 643 supporting manuscripts, containing 743 disputed lines of text, whereas there are only 40 in all of the New Testament, none of which change any piece of doctrine; compare this also to the Quran, whose oldest manuscripts have been found to be mostly nonsense and have had to be re-worked over the years to create a clearer message.

Many of your other questions are predicated on an assumption that God does not exist, and therefore ask for evidence for things like God's having acted as opposed to a simple natural phenomenon having taken place- is it not possible that a natural phenomenon is created by a supernatural being? An example of some more abstract evidence for God's existence is that people perceive moral goodness and badness, on the assumption that one can be judged by the other. But if there is not determining agent, which would be God, all judgments of good and bad are subjective and cannot be applied to others, making statements such as "viciously persecuted for their refusal to convert" morally neutral. If there is no agent outside of the situation to determine a *real* wrong from a *real* right, "vicious" becomes simply a neutral or utilitarian statement.

As I said, if you are asking these questions in honesty, look up the topic. Try:

http://www.allabouttruth.org/Origin-Of-The-Bible.htm

http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.php?p=JT&v=detail&id=860
-this website has a lot of short audio clips answering questions like yours.

12

Now, however, if asked I have a more nuanced reply: I can certainly provide rational arguments for God's existence -- whether they are convincing on an individual level is another matter. I've come to realize that the problem lies not with the arguments but with the nature of belief itself. Belief in God, like almost all beliefs, can be rationally avoided. Skeptics can always find reasons, however implausible they might be, for refusing to concede that God exists.

CK Chesterton had an interesting passage in The Everlasting Man where he wrote that whenever he would speak to an audience of hardened atheists or sketpics he would ask them if they had any minor fetishes such as holding a rabbits foot or always following some set of motions in the morning (or something like never walking on the cracks in a sidewalk). He found that almost everyone does and he argued that this was an expression by the human mind that maybe logic and rationality are not enough to explain the complete story.

I would ask Joe if maybe he is guility of trying to contain God and then is frustrated when sensible people point out that God will not fit in the container he is trying to make for them.

Plausibility structures can prevent us from forming beliefs that are inconsistent with experience and evidence. But they can also have a negative impact, preventing us from forming true beliefs about reality. This appears to be the case within a broad segment of modern science. By accepting a plausibility structure that is limited to purely naturalistic explanations, many in the scientific community have imposed self-limiting and irrational criteria for explaining reality

Imagine you stumble upon a chess game left in a city park. You could analyze the board and make lots of statements about which side appeared to have been winning before the game was stopped. But there's a lot of things that you can say nothing about. You probably couldn't tell just by looking at the board if the players were men or women, children or adults etc. You couldn't tell if they had jobs or were street bums who liked to play chess. Such questions would be outside the scope of what you could analye by just looking at the layout of the board.

Now if you were a newspaper reporter what would you do? If your assignment was to write articles about chess then the board might yield a very interesting little article. If your assignment was to write about people who play chess in the park then you couldn't do your job unless you find the people who were actually playing chess.

If you tried to write up a story about the people who play chess simply by looking at the board they left behind your editor would laugh at you. If you then tried to explain to him that his 'plaubibility structures' were inhibiting him from seeing how your article was accurate about what type of people play chess in the park he'd properly fire you for being an idiot who spent too much time tossing around $5 words from a $0.99 brain.

I think here the scientists are the ones that are being humble with what Joe calls 'soft atheism'. They are happy and content to learn as much as they can about the matter they study but they do not presume to believe all knowledge can be contained in the periodic table or the mechanics of physics hence they are silent. The chess writer is not a fool because he would write a long article on the positions on the board that was left in the park and never once ask who had played such an interesting game and why they left at the point they did.

I would put forth it is Joe here who suffers from an inhibiting plaubility struture. He would agree with the statement that God is beyond the infinite or that God is beyond human comprehension but then he would turn around and act as if the opposite was true...as if God could be 'trapped' by mathematically analyzing 'complexity' in life forms or trying to figure the 'odds' that a planet like earth could have come into being.

13

As a Catholic I am thrilled that Chesterton keeps coming up on an evangelical website!

There are a lot of different ways of going at this question, of what is it that makes the Christian God unique. Yes, there are shadows of Christian teaching and belief throughout the pagan mystery religions, but those systems lack thr real, historical figure of Jesus Christ.

So there I start, as I think you must, with Jesus. It's he whom you must deal with, one way or another. First, you must acknowledge that Jesus was in fact a real person in history. I am not aware that anyone disputes Jesus' historicity.

Look at the Bible record, and examine that against contemporary secular historical records. You'll find those records do not contradict the Biblical account. Sure, they don't believe Jesus was the Messiah-but they don't overturn the EVENTS depicted in Scripture. They merely dispute what those events eman.

The central question is-after the death of Jesus, why did his followers persist? After all there had been many "Messiahs", many prophets. But this one had a unique message...the defeat of Rome was not the goal of the Jewish people, and the world, but the defeat of sin.

And the believers pesisted because Jesus did in fact physically rise from the dead. And so He was who he said he was, the Savior of the World. No one ever produced, or even claimed to produce, Jesus' body. Why?

The people who wrote the New Testament either witnessed these events, or had what they wrote dictated to them by witnesses. Do you doubt that Lincoln was shot? Or that the events of Washington's life can be known?

This is historical evidence, whose reliability we trust. Shall we decide not to trust it here, because it leads to conclusions we don't like? It's critical to keep one's mind and heart open.

14

Christianity was never a religion of tolerance but rather a cult predicated on having some external evil to vanquish.

This is hogwash and slander that I don't intend to dignify with comment... Doh! I just did!

And here we have yet another variation of "you cant see evidence for christianity until you want christianity to be true"...i was wondering how long it would take for this conversation to degenerate into circular arguments.

I never said you have to want it to be true. I said you have to actually want to understand. You have to, in other words, see the words that other people are saying as communication and not simple tools to be used in creating a club to beat someone with.

What I mean is that I would be embarrassed to say the sort of things about the Iliad or the Enuma Elish that you say about the Bible. I don't dismiss paganism or other religions as hogwash like you do. I do desire to understand them, to see what truth they do know, even though I ultimately think Jesus is lord over all the world, and everything that claims to be truthful will ultimately need to pay him homage. But you are using ancient religion as a club to beat Christianity with, despite the fact that you yourself despise the club almost as much as the target.

Ultimately I wonder how I could be expected to show why Christianity fits the world we live in far better than ancient paganism, when you aren't really interested in either, except to insult and mock both?

15

This is interesting as this subject came up recently in several conversations I have had recently. I propose the idea that there are two sets of tools that are both being used for the wrong thing in most arguments concerning the existence of God.

There is empirical logic: the logic of science and “modern thinking”.

There is also classical logic: the logic of philosophy.

When used in the proper context they work wonderfully used in the wrong context it is disastrous. When Classical Logic is applied to science, ideas like the four elements and alchemy take hold. When Empirical Logic is applied to philosophical or theological ideas, nothing can be proven and is everything is quickly disregarded. It is important to remember to use the "proper tools" for the job.

16

"And the believers pesisted because Jesus did in fact physically rise from the dead. And so He was who he said he was, the Savior of the World. No one ever produced, or even claimed to produce, Jesus' body. Why? "

Did anyone ever produce the body of Adam or Eve or Methuselah or Abraham. Hell...can you produce the body of Jimmy Hoffah? if not,does that mean that the most logical conclusion is that Jimmy came back from the dead?

"The people who wrote the New Testament either witnessed these events, or had what they wrote dictated to them by witnesses. Do you doubt that Lincoln was shot? Or that the events of Washington's life can be known?"

Yes but there is also the plausibility of a given claims that we judge based on our own experiences. If someone told you that Lincoln was shot,you examin the claim based on what you know of the world and can resonnably conclude "yes its entirely possible that it occured". But if the claim turns out to be "Lincoln was shot by a 5 legged purple dinosaur using an atomic powered neutron blaster" or "Washington was actually a talking intelligent house cat when he became the first president of the US" you are completely entiteled to say "now wait a minute...first produce evidence of the validity of these extraordinary claims or the discussion ends here"

"This is historical evidence, whose reliability we trust. Shall we decide not to trust it here, because it leads to conclusions we don't like? It's critical to keep one's mind and heart open. "

Yes because as i said,the historical evidence makes no implausible claims that contradict what we know to be true. If history books told you that Washington was a talking housecat,you would reject the claim out of hand and completely ridiculous because A: as far as you or anyone knows,house cats dont speak any human languages and B: No american of that epoch (or probably any other) would follow a house cat into battle or elect him president of the country,no matter how well he spoke engligh. Now you apply this level of critical thinking to most claims but somehow,the claims of christianity are exempt from it...why?

17

"What I mean is that I would be embarrassed to say the sort of things about the Iliad or the Enuma Elish that you say about the Bible. I don't dismiss paganism or other religions as hogwash like you do. I do desire to understand them, to see what truth they do know, even though I ultimately think Jesus is lord over all the world, and everything that claims to be truthful will ultimately need to pay him homage. But you are using ancient religion as a club to beat Christianity with, despite the fact that you yourself despise the club almost as much as the target."

But dont you see thats the the point i m making....both the club and the target,to use your analogy,share the same logical failings...they depict gods with human like traits. weather it is anger,desire,autority,need,wants,sorrow,laughter...allof these things exists in humans as a direct result of being imperfect. They could never exist in a perfect allpowerfull entity. So any religion that makes the claims that their god is angry can be rejected as false. any religion that makes the claim that their gods laugh or cry can be rejected as false...and so on and so forth...and espcially,one of the most illogical claims ever made by any religion...that humans are made in the image of a god is so utterly absurd that its confounds the mind how anyone can actually believe that a perfect and complete enrity would ever produce an image of itself that is imperfect and incomplete. Perfection and imperfection are not the two opposite ends of a given spectrum,with a line that can traverse from one to the other...they are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE SETS OF REALITIES that cannot co exist.

18

But dont you see thats the the point i m making....both the club and the target,to use your analogy,share the same logical failings...they depict gods with human like traits. weather it is anger,desire,autority,need,wants,sorrow,laughter...allof these things exists in humans as a direct result of being imperfect. They could never exist in a perfect allpowerfull entity. So any religion that makes the claims that their god is angry can be rejected as false. any religion that makes the claim that their gods laugh or cry can be rejected as false...and so on and so forth...and espcially,one of the most illogical claims ever made by any religion...that humans are made in the image of a god is so utterly absurd that its confounds the mind how anyone can actually believe that a perfect and complete enrity would ever produce an image of itself that is imperfect and incomplete. Perfection and imperfection are not the two opposite ends of a given spectrum,with a line that can traverse from one to the other...they are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE SETS OF REALITIES that cannot co exist.

What about reason? Would a "perfect" being need reason, considering that reason is something used to deduce knowledge from a given set of premises? This being would already be the end all and be all, hence reason would be an imperfection. What about existence? Is existence itself an imperfection?

Interesting. So what would a "perfect" god be like? And how do you know this? Where do you derive your standard of perfection to rule this out?

I submit that your so-called "logical" failings are actually aesthetic ones.

19

LudVanB,

All these philosophical arguments about proving God and Christianity seem so convoluted and somewhat arrogant. I don’t have much to add to this discussion thread. Existence of God or the validity of Christianity can not be proven in the normal sense of the word. Faith is a personal experience, a knowing that something is real, but it can’t be proven. People with faith should be humble about their beliefs.
I appreciate your honesty. I could see where it would be easy to dismiss Christianity on the basis of it’s follower’s words and actions which sometimes seems to be callous and at odds with basic human concern for others. My advice regarding Christianity: Get yourself an Oxford Study Bible or similar Bible that will give historical context and scholarly information about the scriptures. Maybe start reading the New Testament gospels and if the message touches you at all-try some praying. My favorite gospel is the Book of John. Don’t let the words and actions of some Christians distract you. If the message does not touch you and you can not accept it, my Christian faith says that God still loves you and I am to treat accordingly. We are all just human being trying to make our way through this life.

20

Has anyone here ever heard of Josh McDowell? His professed ambition was to prove Christianity a myth, a hoax, an implausible fantasy unacceptable to intellectual thought. He ended up examining the evidence, becoming a Christian, and wrote "Evidence that Demands a Verdict." (He is not alone in this; Frank Morrison likewise did the same and ended up writing "Who Moved the Stone.") The evidence is there, and although it doesn't prove in a mathematical sense, as the original post argues, it make the truth of Christianity so probable that it takes greater faith to disbelieve.

21

All these philosophical arguments about proving God and Christianity seem so convoluted and somewhat arrogant. I don’t have much to add to this discussion thread. Existence of God or the validity of Christianity can not be proven in the normal sense of the word. Faith is a personal experience, a knowing that something is real, but it can’t be proven. People with faith should be humble about their beliefs.

Perhaps people who are not philosophically inclined should be more respectful of toward those who are. These discussions may seem "convoluted" to someone to whose temperament this type of reasoning doesn't appeal to. But how "humble" is it to brand honest intellectual effort as "arrogance", far inferior to the "personal experience" of the accuser? Perhaps true humility involves an attempt to appreciate other people and what they care about, even if the appeal or usefulness is not initially apparent to ones own temperament or interests.

22

Wonders For Oyarsa,

Whatever.
I wasn't referring to you in my comments.

23

I'm sorry if I was rude there. The thing is, I am interested in the philosophical grounding of what we as Christians believe, and think it more than a little important, especially in talking to someone like LudVanB who thinks we're all just fooling ourselves.

24

"I'm sorry if I was rude there. The thing is, I am interested in the philosophical grounding of what we as Christians believe, and think it more than a little important, especially in talking to someone like LudVanB who thinks we're all just fooling ourselves."

Well,you believe that an all powerfull entity would bother to ask you to do anything and either reward you if you obey and punish you if you dont. I m sorry but thats simply as human-like a behaviour as behaviour gets...the very idea that God would want or need servants is ungodlike...anyone who believes that is,in my opinion,fooling themselves becuase its contraty to logic.

25

"All these philosophical arguments about proving God and Christianity seem so convoluted and somewhat arrogant. I don’t have much to add to this discussion thread. Existence of God or the validity of Christianity can not be proven in the normal sense of the word. Faith is a personal experience, a knowing that something is real, but it can’t be proven. People with faith should be humble about their beliefs.
I appreciate your honesty. I could see where it would be easy to dismiss Christianity on the basis of it’s follower’s words and actions which sometimes seems to be callous and at odds with basic human concern for others. My advice regarding Christianity: Get yourself an Oxford Study Bible or similar Bible that will give historical context and scholarly information about the scriptures. Maybe start reading the New Testament gospels and if the message touches you at all-try some praying. My favorite gospel is the Book of John. Don’t let the words and actions of some Christians distract you. If the message does not touch you and you can not accept it, my Christian faith says that God still loves you and I am to treat accordingly. We are all just human being trying to make our way through this life"

A couple of points...

-Faith isent about knowing something that you cant prove to others...its about believing into something you dont know to be true or false but which you feel touches you in some way or others. And it is never a "first recourse" for anything but rather a last recourse. You dont rely on faith to keep bullets from killing you on a battlefield you keep your head down. You dont rely on faith to feed you or your family you work to earn the means to do that yourself. You dont rely on faith to repair injuries or heal diseases you go see a doctor...Faith is what you fall back on when you ve tried everything else in vain.

-you seem to be under the impression that i am new to christianity....that isent the case...i grew up in it,surrounded by it. I was in a catholic gradeschool for 6 years. I ws always enthusiastic in my participation to the christian life at my school. I sang in the quire of our school church (and was not molested by anyone). I played the part of Joseph 3 years in a row for the christmas nativity play and one of my favority class was bible study when you would hear all the stories about Adam,Eve,Abel Cain and the Israelites...but i was one of those kids who kept seeing the inconsistancies and gaping holes in the stories...like where did Cain's wife come from...what was her name...how old was she when she met cain and why didnt she recongine him by the mark on him placed by God? I always felt that the bilical stories were awfully under developed and short on details and the more i thought about it,the more questions arose...the holes kept getting bigger and the cracks wider. When i left catholic private school,i also discovered something that was never touched upon by the priests ans nuns...the dark side of the christian religion throughout history...the crusades...the inquisitions...the witch hunts...the persecussions...the wars made on other religious beliefs...the systematic attempt to destroy knowledge that was deemed "ungodly". I never ceased to believe in God...but i certainly ceased to believe in christianity as being THE path to God...at least for me.

26

LudVanB: do you think you're the first person to ask those questions? I was an atheist for 20 years. Now I'm not. Are you so arrogant to think that someone would make that change without some intellect? The questions you raise are embarassingly simple. If you have any intellectual honesty, look up some answers. I gave you 2 websites and those were from a very quick google search.

27

Read "Eternity in their Hearts" by Don Richardson

28

"LudVanB: do you think you're the first person to ask those questions? I was an atheist for 20 years. Now I'm not. Are you so arrogant to think that someone would make that change without some intellect? The questions you raise are embarassingly simple. If you have any intellectual honesty, look up some answers. I gave you 2 websites and those were from a very quick google search."

Good for you...you re not an athiest anymore...i never was one myself nor am i one now. While i cannot say for certain,i imagine you cease to be an athiest because something about a particular (i ll assume christianity but feel free to correct me on that) appealed to you...you may even have had a "religious" experience of sort. If thats the case,once again good for you. I was born and raised into christianity but i didnt just "stumble out" of christianity by tripping over a question or two that no one seemed to be able to answer to my satisfaction,as you seem to be suggesting. It was a long and painfull process to come the the realization that the path that had been laid down under my feet all my life up to that point could no longuer lead me to God...just to more unanswered questions and pointless frustrations. And thats because christianity requires a narrowness of perception which i believe is not at all reflective of a universe filled with myriads of possibilities. To be a christian,you have to believe that only one road leads to God and that this road is Jesus Christ...thats a belief which my life experiences shown me is simply incompatible with reality. You said my questions are embarassingly simple?...answer it...what was the name of Cain's wife? How old was she when Cain married her? How old was she when she bore Enoch? When did she die?What was she like? Were she and Cain happy together? Were they miserable? Were they faithfull to each other? the list goes on and on...

29

Hi LudVanB,

My apologies to you. Your comments at first struck me as those of a mere bigot - one who had no real knowledge of Christianity and just wanted to bash it to confirm ones own stereotypes. Now I see I was wrong. You seem more like someone who once was in love with a woman, only to find ones love rewarded with lies and broken promises, and is therefore angry and bitter with her. In other words, I see your disdain for Christianity is based on actual knowledge and experience.

My sense, however, is that the Christianity you rejected was not a particularly intellectually robust strain of it. It seems like you were raised in a fairly fundamentalist environment (or the "where did Cain find a wife" question wouldn't be a big deal). Though your claim of reading City of God gives me pause...I admit I only made it halfway through that one! But you don't strike me as someone who has engaged with the great Christian thinkers of the twentieth century: you don't seem to have read much C. S. Lewis (again, you wouldn't assume the Cain question such a crusher if you were familiar with his theistic evolutionary "myth" in The Problem of Pain) - certainly not one who has ever read Chesterton's The Everlasting Man.

So why should you investigate more, if you've already made up your mind? Well, I think your presence on this board indicates that you are open to having your mind changed again, if what we say really does have merit. If Christianity is true, it should be convincing, even up against the most serious intellectual challenges. Not petty rationalizations, not doublethink, not quick-fix damage control, but a rich and full understanding that not only answers the skeptics but makes sense of this wide world we live in. It must be broad enough to embrace the universe in its vastness, but narrow enough to have firm convictions about it that guide us into real insights.

I think robust Christianity ultimately is this and more. I hope you are able to encounter it, and wrestle with it. Even if you hold to the path you are on, you will be better for having sharpened yourself against something real and potent, rather than an easy punching bag.

What I suggest is to recognize that the questions you are asking can lead to something more than unanswered questions and pointless frustrations. I would like to see you reach the point where you can at least say, "I am not a Christian, but what they say certainly isn't shallow and you have to respect them for it". I'm convinced that a deeper search will lead you to that conclusion, if nothing else.

30

LudVanB,

You were right, I did assume you were new to christianity (I just didn't know). Thanks for clearing that up.

I was raised in a fundamentalist christian home and stayed away from the church/Christianity after I left home. I was bothered by a lot inconsistencies and the evil deeds done in the name of Christ throughout history too. Furthermore, I don’t like how some people, who say they believe the bible is the true inerrant literal word of God distort it’s message. For example, the Left Behind series of books and people like Pastor John Hagee and Hal Lindsey seriously distort the book of Revelation and spread a belief in the rapture (which is not in the bible and was cooked up about a 150 years ago and popularized by the Scofield reference Bible). Furthermore, I have difficulty with the current assumption that if you are a real Christian, you are also going to be a right-wing republican.
So, I am struggling with faith too.
Thanks for being honest and sharing your thoughts.

31

LudVanB:

There are many details left out of Biblical accounts because they are not pertinent to the story. True, there is no mention of where Cain's wife came from; details like these are often left out, but silence does not prove ignorance. I don't think you are really concerned with the details of Cain's marital bliss or his wife's faithfulness, so I won't speak to that. You did mention something that I do think is important: that Christianity makes exclusive claims which you find offensive. Fair enough, as long as you apply the same critique to all aspects of thought, yes? Does the offense of claiming exclusivity pertain to all areas of thought, or just the thoughts that Christians have? For example, would you be offensively excluding anyone if you claimed that it was wrong for a Christian to say they knew the way? Is excluding exclusivism wrong?

Also, in case this makes a difference, I had no "experience" that led me to faith. It was a long and difficult and ongoing process of comparing my beliefs about life to other sources of information. I read scientific essays, Hume, Descartes, Kierkegaard, Lewis, Dawkins, and others. I can't think of a more cerebral and real thing that I've done in my life; it was certainly no mere "feeling," and it was most definitely not something I undertook to make my life easier, because it is indeed in many respects more difficult, and yet infinitely more joyful, now.

32

"Fair enough, as long as you apply the same critique to all aspects of thought, yes? Does the offense of claiming exclusivity pertain to all areas of thought, or just the thoughts that Christians have? For example, would you be offensively excluding anyone if you claimed that it was wrong for a Christian to say they knew the way? Is excluding exclusivism wrong?"

I m not offended by the claims of exclusivity made by christianity because i feel they are unfair...life its for the most part VERY unfair. But the claims of exclusivity voice by christianity are not reflected in reality. In reality,diversity is the one universal constant...its reflected everywhere you look so to believe that christianity is the exclusive path to God,you have to dismiss everything else and i dont see how anyone can rationally do that because to me,it is completely irrational to believe that God would create an infinite universe where no two things are the same and then require that everything becomes the same...it would be like a painter who draws a huge painting of rich varying colors and then ask every pigment to turn white.

33

Lud, John: Rejection of the beliefs of your parents may indeed be the result of painstaking and sincere intellectual methodology. This is certainly a comforting story to believe if you are in that position. On the other hand, the very fact that this allows you to feel noble, intellectual, and consistent is probably the number one reason you ought to be suspicious of believing it. In fact, often people who start out as young people rejecting the faith of their parents and then later go back to it report that the intellectual front they put up to reject that belief system was really just interesting narrative gloss to avoid the fact that their real problem was a rejection of the claims that those beliefs would put on their personal lives.

Very few people who reject the Christianity in which they were raised report that they did so because it put too many restrictions on the things which they wanted to do. And yet when you look at the lives they lead, they do indeed reject those limitations.

34

"Very few people who reject the Christianity in which they were raised report that they did so because it put too many restrictions on the things which they wanted to do."

That is because these "restrictions" are not the reason they rejected Christianity. Plenty of Christians simply ignore the restrictions or imagine that they are forgiven.

"And yet when you look at the lives they lead, they do indeed reject those limitations."

More unsubstantiated anecdotal "evidence". Provide some data! What evidence do you have that ex-Christians lead less moral lives than Christians, other than your warped perceptions?

If I rejected Christianity to rid myself of "restrictions", I might have made much better use of my freedom. I am married and monogamous, a parent, a taxpayer, a voter, a lawful and responsible member of society. I am not without faults, but who is? My life is virtually indistinguishable from the model held up for Christians except for the fact that I don't believe in gods, angels, or devils. It's easy to cast aspersions on the characters of those who do not share your worldview, but it is much harder to back them up.

35

"If I rejected Christianity to rid myself of 'restrictions', I might have made much better use of my freedom."

Like it's my fault you lack imagination?!? ;)

36

Cheesehead,

I have not rejected Christianity. I'm not ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ-it is very real and I embrace it's meaning as expressed in John 3:16.

However, I have rejected some of the misguided attitudes and beliefs I was exposed to when growing up when they don't stand up to honest scrutiny and conflict with the message of the Bible. My theology is very much in line with tradtional Baptists prior to fundamentalist takeover of the Southern Baptists and the embracing of rightwing politics.

37

John W: So, would that be the Jimmy Carter brand of Baptist orthodoxy?

38

"Very few people who reject the Christianity in which they were raised report that they did so because it put too many restrictions on the things which they wanted to do. And yet when you look at the lives they lead, they do indeed reject those limitations."

Actually restriction is probably the worst possible reason for leaving christianity as it offer one of the best "get out of jail free card" ideology available. all you gotta to is repent...doesnt matter what you did or how long you did it,according to christian doctrine,if you repent,you go to heaven...so my advice is,if you really want to lead a life of debauchery,stay a christian...you know...do it the Ted Haggart way...do some meth,have some gay sex and then sobbingly confess...to tell you the truth,i hear this sort of argument you re making all the time and yet,i ve never heard of anyone who ceased to be a christian just so they could sodomize whoever they want.

39

Cheesehead,

Very perceptive.

I admire the Christianity of Jimmy Carter, who actually had the ability to share his faith with world leaders.

You asked me, so I gave you an honest answer. I am well aware of how this blog may take this, but Jimmy Carter is my kind of christian.

Bring on the insults!

40

LudVanB:
If you believe all paths lead to God, it follows that God either doesn't exist or doesn't care how you think of him. This is a very particular (exclusive, unified, not diverse) view of God.

41

John W: No insults here, just questions.

Do you share Carter's views about Israel?

How about Fidel Castro?

North Korea?

42

Thanks for not insulting. Sometimes I enjoy reading the insults though.
I have not read Carter’s recent book about Israel. I have seen him do interviews about it and agree with him. The Jews are God’s chosen people and I support them. However, just because they are God’s chosen people deserving support and respect, that does not mean that the Israeli governments should always be supported. It is not anti-Semitic to question some of Israel’s policies.
I can not comment on Carter’s book before reading it. I will say that Carter’s support of the state of Israel is more appropriate and realistic than the misguided fantasy based support of people like John Hagee and those people down in Texas trying to breed the “perfect red heifer” (who want to re-build the temple in Jerusalem on the site of a mosque and bring back animal sacrifices in order to usher in the last days).

I am not familiar with Carter's view's regarding Castro or North Korea.

43

"Like it's my fault you lack imagination?!? ;)"

Although you comment in jest, it makes my point: my position has nothing to do with the restraints of religion; I have sufficient restraint without them. My position with regard to a deity is based upon lack of evidence for any. I suspect this is true of nearly all atheists, but I can only speak for myself.

44

Erin

Do you know who cares what others thing of them? insecure people...are you calling god insecure?

45

John W: A quick search turned up these Carterisms which, in my estimation, are exemplars of a pattern which earns Carter the title "Worst Former President Ever." Please review and provide your reaction to each of these quotes.

On Kim Il Sung (late North Korean despot, father of current North Korean despot): "I found him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well-informed about the technical issues and in charge of the the decisions about this country."

On North Korea cir. 1994: "I found the people to be friendly and open."

"...Pyongyang is a bustling city...where customers pack the department stores which look like the Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia."

On Marshall Tito (late unlamented dictator of the late unlamented state of Yugoslavia): "...a man who believes in human rights...a great and courageous leader...who has led his people and protected their freedom almost for the last 40 years."

Speaking publicly to Nicolae Ceausescu (executed former tyrant of Romania and one of the worst monsters of the 20C): "Our goals are the same...we believe in enhancing human rights. We believe that we should enhance, as independent nations, the freedom of our own people."

Speaking to Edward Gierek (Government Secretary in pre-Solidarity Communist Poland): "Our concept of human rights is preserved in Poland."

I could go on, but these should provide ample amusement for those of us who believe the man to be morally bankrupt and ample consternation for those of you who think he is the sort of Christian we should all strive to become.

46

I have no problem with his quotes regarding Korea. Saying that a man is intelligent, well-informed, and in charge does not imply full agreement or approval. As far as his statements to and about the Eastern European leaders, I think that is the language of diplomacy. Easier to catch flies with honey, etc. I think it's not dissimilar to Bush's approach with the redoubtable Putin, who ruthlessly consolidates power through intimidation, if not murder. Bush is similarly deferential to Mexican leaders, despite their failure to address the problem of illegal immigration across our border. I notice, however, that they are doing a bang-up job protecting their own southern border. Somehow, though, I have not noticed anyone accusing Bush of being morally bankrupt with regard to his heaping praise on these questionable characters. It's called diplomacy. If you think your quotes demonstrate the moral bankruptcy of Carter, you are mistaken. I don't think Carter was a particularly effective president in many respects, but I think he is one of the most moral presidents of the twentieth century. I like him much more now than I did when he was in office.

47

RR stands firmly in the morally bankrupt category. Anyone else care to join in?

48

LudVanB:

You completely missed my point.

49

Cheesehead,

You can go ahead and put me in the morally bankrupt category...

Who do you hate more: Carter or Clinton? Who do you think was more morally bankrupt?

I've been trying not to mention President Bush, but I'd like to hear you explain how his christian faith has been reflected during his time as president. I know the presidency is a secular position, but President Bush has indicated he is a born-again christian and Christ is his favorite philosopher (because he's changed Bush's heart), so it must have some influence on how he does his job and makes decisions.

Also, if you think Bush is to be regarded as one of our country's great presidents-why do you think this?

50

John W: I'll be happy to discuss GWB with you after you interact with the quotes from Jimmy Carter.

As to Carter vs. Clinton, I hate neither man. I believe Clinton has the maturity level of an adolescent and demeaned the office of the Presidency by his antics and lack of seriousness. Beyond some missed opportunities he had no lasting impact--his legacy is pretty much nonexistent. Carter led an unmemorable tenure as President which sowed the seeds for many of our current problems (e.g. the Islamic Republic of Iran). However, in his capacity as cheerleader for all manner of tyrants, despots and terrorists, and in working against our national interests and conducting private foreign policy (as opposed to any other of the now-dead former Presidents of either party and the current President's father) he stands out as being far more damaging to this country than Clinton has ever dreamed of being.

So do you care to interact with the quotes of the President whom you have declared to be "(your) kind of Christian," or is that just too uncomfortable a discussion for you?

51

You might as well call me morally bankrupt, Cheesehead, since you have already characterized me as a crank and a moonbat in previous comments. Are you ever NOT in full attack mode? I notice you do not address the substance of my comments; you merely file me under your pejorative du jour.

I'm afraid that vitriol is a poor substitute for reason.

52

Erin

I dont think i did...you see,i dont believe in a god that possess human traits such as love and caring because human traits are predicated on the human condition which which god isent. I dont believe god can care anymore about what others think of IT that IT can be afraid of catching a cold. to believe otherwise is to believe in a god that is NOT all powerfull and perfect.

53

Hey Cheesehead,

I can't respond to those quotes-I don't know where you got them, if they are accurate, or in what context they were given. However, I agree with my fellow morally bankrupt, moonbat, crank, Rob Ryan has to say about those quotes.

Yes, Clinton's blowjob in the Whitehouse was demeaning to the office, but c'mon I'd say Bush's starting a war under false pretenses and pissing on the constitution was much worse. Bush should have listened to his father and Gerald Ford and stayed out of Iraq.

54

LudVanB:

Again, you missed my point. I understand that God does not need validation. But for one to say that all paths lead to God is to believe in a God who does not care how his creation comes to know or be with him. This is, in fact, a very particular view of God. The point here is not whether or not he cares, but that to believe in one or the other is exclusive and particular.

55

Erin

You may think its particular...i simnply think its logical. The god(s) of the christian bible,or of the Torah or the Koran or whichever "holy" text...all depict gods with human traits(love,charity,autority,anger sorrow).. But since gods arent humans,it is illogical for gods to have ANY human traits.

56

John W: Doubt the validity of the quotes from Carter? I, along with others, have had difficulty posting links here, so that is why I didn't post the links. But if you really want to blow my position out of the water by saying I just made them up, just google "Jimmy Carter North Korea Americus Georgia" and you will be able to find all those quotes and more, all in their origianal contexts.

What I hear you and Rob saying is that these were all said in the innocence of "diplomacy"--as if former Presidents should be engaged in private diplomacy! In other words, all these guys are bastards--but they are our bastards!

Sorry, but I don't think coddling the likes of Ceasescu or that execrable terrorist Arafat or Castro with all sorts of validating language of "diplomacy" is morally acceptable. Obviously you do.

Rob: You're contributions to this discussion are quite superfluous. John W is trying to make the point that Jimmy Carter is the sort of President Christians ought to support. Since you are not a Christian, your views are not terribly relevant to the discussion. It would be like me going into a discussion you were having with fellow athiests and telling you what the athiest position should be.

Anyway, I'm honored that you give enough credence to what I write that months later you can still recall me referring to you as a moonbat or a crank. I apologize for hurting your feelings and I will try to be more considerate of you in the future. Seriously, I do not set out to be abusive and I will consider your interpretation of my remarks in that light.

57

Lud: "The god(s) of the christian bible,or of the Torah or the Koran or whichever "holy" text...all depict gods with human traits(love,charity,autority,anger sorrow).. But since gods arent humans,it is illogical for gods to have ANY human traits."

Your logic is fine. Your premise is flawed. Just because there are characteristics humans possess does not mean that they are uniquely human characteristics. The Bible teaches that man is created in the image of God. Therefore it is not surprising that we share attributes with God. In fact, it would be more appropriate to characterize those traits which we share with God as divine traits which we possess in derivative form.

For example, humans love. God is love and love is from God. Therefore the human trait of love is really a derivative of God's nature, which is full and undiminished love.

58

cheesehead,

I put your Jimmy Carter quotes in the same category as people who can always find bible verses to allegedly support their crazy positions.

What? Are you waiting for some elaborate retort from me to make you concede I am right about Carter? Sorry, like you, I've made up my mind on the matter and dont' bother me with your "facts". You've put some real effort in bashing Carter though-won't you put some effort in supporting the integrity and strong christian moral values shown by George Bush? You know, like give some examples?

Rob Ryan: It's not for me to judge anyone's faith or sincerity, but I hope you will not let our friend, Cheesehead, cloud your judgment about christians.

59

Sorry John, but all you do is come and try to hijack every thread no matter the topic and make it all about how stupid and evil Bush is. While I think President Bush has proven to be the right man for the job, I do not endorse every action he has taken as President. Some of the things with which I disagree with him are on issues where he seems to be basing his decisions partly on his faith. Therefore I decline to be the apologist for everything done by the executive branch for the last six years.

Most especially do I decline to assume that role for you since you display a decided lack of thoughfulness in these discussions. You say Carter is the sort of Christian we ought to emulate. You decline to discuss things that Carter has said which are matters of public record and documented all over the place. Then you want to go back to bashing Bush and impugning anyone who disagrees with you. No thanks.

60

CH: "You're contributions to this discussion are quite superfluous."

Also inconvenient, I imagine. One doesn't have to be a Christian to discuss Christian morality. I'm sure being raised in a Christian home, complete with church attendance, is a sufficient prerequisite.

"Anyway, I'm honored that you give enough credence to what I write that months later you can still recall me referring to you as a moonbat or a crank."

Not credence, just recollection. "Crank" was just a few days ago, "moonbat" a couple of weeks ago.

"I apologize for hurting your feelings and I will try to be more considerate of you in the future."

My feelings weren't hurt at all; that doesn't happen very often since I'm a tough guy. I was mildly offended, and, worst of all, tempted to respond in kind. I appreciate your apology to the extent it is sincere.

John: "It's not for me to judge anyone's faith or sincerity, but I hope you will not let our friend, Cheesehead, cloud your judgment about christians."

Not at all. As I mentioned to Cheesehead, I was raised in a Christian home. I've had too much exposure to fine Christian people to make blanket assumptions. That is why I'm willing to defend Carter, a man I admire as a person if not as a politician. I would do the same for Reagan, to be honest.

61

RR: "Also inconvenient, I imagine."

Not at all. Methinks you engage in overmuch self-flattery.

62

I just got back from church, cheesehead, and I think there was something in the message for both of us. The pastor encouraged christians in the new year to watch how they communicate with others. He said we should strive to communicate in such a way as to draw non-christians to Christ and not slander fellow believers.

63

Lead by example. If that doesn't work, try brute intimidation. ;)

64

"Your logic is fine. Your premise is flawed. Just because there are characteristics humans possess does not mean that they are uniquely human characteristics. The Bible teaches that man is created in the image of God. Therefore it is not surprising that we share attributes with God. In fact, it would be more appropriate to characterize those traits which we share with God as divine traits which we possess in derivative form."

Nope...my premise is the fine and dandy. Love is the result of a chemical interaction that occurs within a biological brain and it serves a very clear evolutionary purpose,giving creatures who possess that trait a clear advantage when it comes to the perpetuation of their species. Loves serves no purpose whatsoever in a being that has no need to perpetuate itself through reproduction and offspring bearing. And the biblical teaching about man being made in the likeness of God is little more then masculine pridefull self adulation and bears little semblance to any logical thinking,since the likeness of an all powerfull,infinite being would necessarely be all powerfull and infinite...it simply cannot be otherwise.

65

Cheesehead,

I don't know if I'll be able to follow the pastor's advice-it sounds good in theory, but I don't know if I can do it. Maybe I'll just try and see what happens. It's really hard though when you read something on this blog that just ticks you off....

John

66

Congradulations! You won a Watchman Award over at The Watchman for an excellent article!

The Watchman Awards

67

Lud,

You started out with a simple question: why think that Christianity, out of all of the religons of the world, is true?

But now the discussion has fragmented in a dozen directions, from Christian morals to Jimmy Carter. You're talking about love as a chemical phenomenon, which is pretty far afield from the original topic.

Were you really interested in knowing what thoughtful Christians for the past 1900 years or so have had to say in response? Or are you just trying to look witty by asking questions and then skipping on to other topics without seriously weighing the reply? I'm not trying to be insulting: I'm asking seriously, because it's an important question and there is a mountain of scholarly work on the topic. If you really want to know and you're ready to stay on topic, you won't be able to outrun the red carpet.

68

Hi everyone. Have you guys on the evangelical Christian side done much reading about secular scholarship on the Jesus Movement? I used to be a Christian, but then I saw the PBS Frontline on From Jesus to Christ series 4 or 5 years ago, and that got me reading all these books by Albert Schweitzer, John Crossan, Bart Erhman, Geza Vermes, E P Sanders, and L Michael White, to name a few. All of them are very accomplished New Testament scholars. With some exceptions, the consensus among them is overwhelmingly that jesus and his earliest followers were an apocalyptic Jewish sect that excepted the Kingdom of God to arrive, overturn empires, cast down the mighty, etc. imminently -- meaning wihtin a generation. After much reading, thinking, and consideration, I accepted this argument as convincing. Of course, if you accept this thesis, you also accept that Jesus was mistaken, which means that he could not have been God, who by definition is omniscient, and probably not even the Son of God.

There are many verses in the New Testament that support this thesis, and collectively, I find the case for it compelling. Even C.S. Lewis half-conceded it. I'm going to stop my comment here for now, but I am more than happy to return here to expound, whether under this entry or a subsequent one. Thanks for writing; this is a stimulating conversation.