As a former (or recovered) theist (Evangelical Christian), I found this piece interesting. I'm currently writing my de-conversation/emancipation narrative. Most likely this will be the prompt that forces me to create a second Substack and YouTube channel.
Christians would have a number of counter-arguments to the analysis you provide above. Mostly, they come down to, "We cannot understand the mind of God and are not worthy to judge or question his plan." This blanket perspective covers a multitude of sins with a simple wave of the hand.
As has been pointed out before, when something positive happens, "God is good" and when something miserable happens, "God is mysterious and we cannot know his divine plan." In this way, Christians absolve God of sins far greater than any they have committed.
I heard the exact same rationale, for agony in this world, in the Jewish faith. We cannot understand G-d's plan. Shortly after Bobby Kennedy was killed, Rose Kennedy, his Mother, flanked by Senator Ted Kennedy and her husband, said the exact same thing : We cannot understand the plans of G-d.
Sometimes, theists say terrible things happen not becasue of G-d. but because people are evil. However when a six year old dies of cancer of the bone in his leg, what evil did he or his family commit.
God does not sin. God’s economy for good and positive versus bad and negative is different than ours. This isn’t to excuse anything, it’s just plain fact. I know many faithful Christians who can still say with joy that “God is good” and that “It is well with my soul” even amongst horrific suffering. God is a mystery, because He is beyond us.
Choosing to not to be deluded about entirely unprovable claims is not sad. In fact, I consider it the opposite. That theists are able to explain away everything with the "God's ways are not our ways" is so so sad. In doing so they allow behavior that we would consider reprehensible of any other "loving father."
And they do so with the most flimsy evidence possible. It is strange - they allow - in this one area typically - all reasonable assessment of what is true to be thrown out the window.
I will always admit that I have not checked under every rock or behind every distant galaxy, to find God. So I remain willing to say that I cannot KNOW or PROVE there is no God. But using the same faculties that we tests other claims of reality, there is NO reason to believe there is a God.
Personal feelings, an anecdotal experience, etc. IS NOT good reason. It is good enough for the "believer" but using that metric, then every religion is equally true - which is absurd. But I know devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and new-agers who have had the same "divine" experience.
And when it is explained, it is the same experience I have had when playing music with my band and everything comes together perfectly - or having sex with my partner - or watching my Dog takes his last breath or living with and taking care of my mother as she died of cancer. Amazing life experiences with incredible "spiritual" and emotional importance.
The biology of the brain, which we can test, is truly wonderful! And it is testable and repeatable. God... not so much.
Also, my sadness for you is that you described yourself as once an Evangelical Christian. I find it sad when someone who knows truth then walks away from it.
Thinking about testability though— unlike other religions, the central claim to the Christian faith is actually falsifiable. If we ever find direct evidence of Jesus’s body, then the claim that He rose from the dead is falsified and Christian belief rests on a lie. Then we will be the most pitied of all people!
That hasn’t happened yet, and while I have confidence that it won’t happen ever (because of other compelling evidence that Christianity is true), there is always the possibility that I am wrong.
So in that way, Christianity is testable. Maybe not an easy test, but testable all the same.
True... if we find a body for a person with scant evidence of existence and no reason to believe sits in a tomb or anywhere else, that would be "proof." But, honestly, that's NOT the test.
Whether you find a body or not does nothing to bolster magical/supernatural claims.
So, when you suggest that THAT is the falsifiable evidence, you've set the standard so low that anything can be claimed.
What behavior? And why do we consider this behavior reprehensible? Where do we get these morals from?
But you misunderstand me, I don’t believe in God because I sometimes have personal feelings about him. I believe in God because I think his existence makes the most reasonable sense of reality. Existence of our universe must have a causer, and I think God fits the evidence as the prime causer better than any other theories out there. In addition, I believe this God is the God of the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, because the preponderance of evidence show the NT writings to be accurate, historical accounts of Jesus. So then, if Jesus is real and really died and rose from the dead, and He had confidence in the OT scriptures, then I can to.
So belief in God is no delusion, it’s what I think fits the evidence the best. Some think that the idea of a multiverse fits the evidence for the existence of our universe better, and they could be right, but I find that explanation lacks very much them to describe why the Bible is so darn reliable then.
So no, I am not using my personal feelings or anecdotal evidence to come to believe in God. I have looked at all the evidence and trained what fit the evidence the best.
Also, since Jesus did fit every single prophecy from the OT perfectly, is this not a type of testability that he passed?
Ahh.. that is the standard, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" / "The Case of Christ" light apologetic.
I'll respond more completely when I finish with work. Suffice to say, if a father said to a child, "You are reprehensible - from day one - NOT because of what you did but what your great, great, great, great... grandfather/grandmother did several thousand years ago. I'm going light you on fire and torture - keep you magically alive while I do it - unless you bow down to me."
"Wait dad... How do I know my ancestors did this and why are you making me guilty of that?"
"How dare you question me? I can confirm - without showing you - that some people saw it and told other people who told other people who told other people - and then someone wrote it down. And besides, you are in no place to question me. To the pit with you! Oh, I love you more than you know.
Now, I have to deal with your slutty sister. Turns out she slept with someone before her marriage so I have commanded the neighbors to come over and kill her on the door step. Because, morality - can I get an amen!
Oh.. watch out in the pit because I'm tossing her down there too."
That's some solid parenting right there.
We'll get to the other fallacies this weekend. FYI: I taught and did apologetics research for some large churches. I was offered to have my tuition paid to Talbot Theological Seminary due to my work in this area. I have a son who studies biblical languages from one of the MOST conservative Christian colleges in the country.
For graduation he got rationality and atheism - which many of the students leave with. Probably 30 to 40% of the professors are, as well. But a man's gotta make a living.. They revealed what they "really" think about the "solid evidence" of the New Testament. Don't dive deep into that study from a rationalistic and skeptical standpoint. It doesn't go well.
Mind you, none of this will matter to the "true believer" - they are very careful about how they assess information.
But we'll talk more this weekend. Have a good rest of your Friday.
Wait, wait, wait. So you have studied some apologetics, and yet you assert that believing in God is a delusional belief without reason?
It’s fine if you did not find apologetics evidence compelling enough to believe in God, but that does not discount that evidence for God exists. As you should know— so either you are deliberately straw-manning to say that there “is no reason to believe in God” while alluding only to personal experiences, discounting the objective evidence we do have, OR your studying apologetics was severely lacking.
But it’s concerning that you want to claim some authority in apologetics and yet your answer to me is simply an emotional response to a God you don’t like. Nothing you said about God being a supposedly bad father (by your standards) actually discounts the truth of his existence— you just seem to not like him. That’s not a good reason to not believe something is true. You think I believe for some feeling-based experience of the divine, and yet you reveal that your lack of belief rests purely on emotions of what you dislike about God. Well I don’t like that gravity keeps me from being able to fly, but that don’t make gravity untrue.
So you don’t like God because you think he is somehow a bad father, and you don’t like his morals around sex? Is that it? You don’t seem to think people are inherently sinful— you seem to say that “how horrible God is for finding me his enemy when I haven’t sinned but have only inherited sin from my ancestors! It’s not fair!” You really think you yourself, irregardless of your ancestors, have not disobeyed God?
God is more than just a parent, so trying to apply human standards of parenting to the Most Holy God of the Universe seems a bit naive, don’t you think?
But as far as the cross, it is exactly falsifiable. Not sure why you don’t see that— if Jesus bones are found, it exactly disproves his claim to be supernaturally raised from the dead, which brings to doubt his claim of being God. It may not discount a God of sorts, but it certainly would falsify the Judeo-Christian God. No other religions has a central supernatural claim that can be falsifiable like this. Which is telling.
But again, your can say that you find the evidence for Jesus and God uncompelling, but just because you don’t find it to be “enough” does not meant that it does not exist. So don’t pretend like Christians have blind delusional faith when you know better— there is plenty of evidence. The only thing you can say with accuracy is that you ultimately did not find this evidence to be enough to justify a belief, but others have. That’s all you can say.
Hmm.. throwing out terms like "straw-manning" in the context provided is a misrepresentation of the term... at best.
Oh.. I sent you an email - to your substack feed email.
It seems you've misunderstood my analogy about God as a father.
I don't dislike God at all. The analogy was to point out how a thoughtful scrutiny of the type of God portrayed in the bible does not comport with what I consider a reasonable father to be. I don't dislike God in the same way I don't dislike leprechauns or Sauron.
I don't believe in said God... dislike does not seem a rational response.
Because I don't believe in such a God, I don't think anything about his morals about sex. Again, I'm simply pointing out that a loving father, calling for the neighbors to kill his daughter for "bad behavior", sounds like a sociopath.
And look, if you are cool with a father doing that, you can make the case for that being a reasonable standard. We will disagree but that's your standard of fatherly love. It's not mine.
I don't make the claim that such characteristics, in and of themselves, speaks to God's existence at all. To suggest that is you making the straw-man argument.
I was responding your question to me "what behavior?"
In regards to being deluded. I will admit that I, and I suppose, you - or any human - can be deluded.. Both by others and by self. There are many reasons I modified my belief from, what I consider a willing self-delusion on bad evidence to a more skeptical position.
And look, if you've found a way to never be mistaken or self-deluded, THAT is pure gold. Teach that course! You'd make a mint.
Regarding me applying human standards to judge the God of the universe being naive: Placing a God you've not proven above analysis - by simply claiming one should not - is begging the question.
God would have to show that he/she/it exists and that he/she/it is above scrutiny.
If God does exist and has given us the ability to scrutinize - in fact, commanded it - I refuse to put an artificial mental gate on what and who we should scrutinize. It is naive to suggest I, or any human, should cease scrutiny without warrant.
Again... it isn't something I would do to my children.
In fact, when my youngest came to live with me at around 13 she said, "Dad.. please don't ever use the, 'because I'm your dad!' reason for rules or controlling behavior." Fortunately, I had parents who never leveled that excuse on me, so her request was easy.
If God wants to make the case that having your daughter killed on your doorstep is amazing parenting, let him make it! Otherwise, that is a ludicrous "moral" position.
Again, it doesn't disprove God but it does make the God, as portrayed in the bible, appear to be very human and tribal - similar to the pettiness of Greek and Roman gods.
Also, I don't have to disprove God. In fact, I'm not attempting to disprove God, at all. I only assess the likeliness of any god. And for specific claims - ie: God of the bible - they become easier to dismiss when the writings "inspired" by said God appear so incredibly human.
As suggested in my email to you, I would be happy to create some type of limited debate or periodic topical debate... Meaning, one that has a topic to discuss and a limited set of rejoinders/responses. Not because it will conclude the conversation... it won't. Simply as a pragmatic matter of allocating time to any discussion.
*Sigh*… it’s easy to attack a Straw-Man Christianity. How thoroughly you misunderstand it. No Christian delights in the fact that the Jews killed Jesus, and those that did in the past, or attack Jews for it, were wrong and misunderstood the Scriptures and the purpose for Jesus dying. His death is not an ends justifies the means situation— His sacrifice as exactly a scape goat for our sins was God’s plan from the beginning. It’s a way for God to satisfy both his justice and his mercy. No man can atone for all his sins and misdeeds— the payment for sin, even just one, is death. Are you willing to pay that? Jesus is a substitute atonement— it’s not people getting off scot-free for their sins. It means that God took the judgement He would have for them, for me, and put it on Jesus instead. That means when I meet my Lord one day and am asked to atone for my sins, I can show my “already paid in full” slip that points to Jesus. But the Bible makes it clear that this gift of grace from God does not give us the excuse to keeping sinning—- contrary to your Texas friend, if you have Ben forgiven and you know murder is wrong, you won’t knowingly commit murder just because you think you are assured of heaven. No, the Christian takes great care to live a life that is worthy of God, after being saved from the penalty of sin. Of course, until we meet our Lord, we will still sin, because we are not made perfect this side of heaven. But it’s about our hearts being orientated towards seeking Jesus and his commands and away from sin. So a person who truly seeks the Lord will not delight in sin, and therefore won’t use any kind of “the ends justify the means” justification for sin. But I don’t suspect you to understand this. I do tire of so many really, really bad straw-man Christianities that get put out there though.
Kris, I don't have time to respond to all of your points, but I will address the first one.
I did not say Christians are glad that Jesus died. I am saying they are glad because they are saved. And they wouldn't be saved if Jesus hadn't died for them.
This can encourage the belief that guilt can be expunged by transfering it to another party.
I think it would be better for all of us if we agreed that guilt can only be expunged when the guilty party does good works to rectify the harms he has commited. I actually complimented Catholicism for believing in the necessity of doing works. I criticized Protetantism for contending that good works was irrelvant for salvation.
Thank you for clarifying your stance about Christian’s being glad of their salvation. There comment below, form your article, did not initially sound that way:
“ Because they are glad that Jesus’s death guarantees them salvation (provided that they accept Jesus’ divinity), I am sure they are just a little bit delighted that we evil Jews allegedly killed him.”
— This comment seemed more like you thoughtful Christians are gleeful about “evil” Jews killing Jesus, rather than being glad of their salvation. But our gladness in our salvation is rooted in the fact that we recognize that Jesus gave himself up willingly to be a substitute atonement for our sin, and not because Jews killed him so we can just go to heaven. See the difference? (Which is part of the reason that your argument that Christian salvation is an ends justifies the means doesn’t work, but we can address that later.)
Your ideas about guilt is why I believe you misunderstand Christianity. Biblically, good works do not counteract any harms done, they don’t rectify anything. Because God is all righteous and all holy, sin is destroyed in his presence, He makes it clear that he does not abide any disobedience to his commands, which is sin. The payment for sin is not an accumulation of good works, the payment for sin is blood— death. In the Old Testament, rather than killing everyone because everyone keeps sinning, he created the sacrificial system to have animals’ blood spilled in place of the people. Hebrews 9:22 tells us that: “ without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”
But even this isn’t good enough, the Bible tells us that “ For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” (Hebrews 10:4, cross-reference Ps. 40:6-8.) This animal sacrifice system was a way for God to forgive His people before Jesus came and credit the payment ahead to Jesus. Once Jesus came, his death was a substitutionary atonement, one and for all, which ends the sacrificial system. It fufills God’s requirement for blood for sin, such that no more blood needs to be shed. This is much more than just shifting guilt. This is forgiveness with someone else paying the price.
Another thing, the payment for sin must be a perfect sacrifice, with blemish. The animal had to be without blemish to be as close to “perfection” as possible, but clearly it was never going to really be perfect. Which is why the sacrifice to end the sacrificial system had to Jesus as God, because only Jesus was totally without sin. No good works would earn any person to be completely and utterly without sin to be enough to even be the sacrifice required to pay for sin, let alone to rectify their own sin! (The priests in the Old Testament had to continually sacrifice more for their own sins to be as pure as possible when sacrifice for the people’s sin.)
The Bible makes it clear that good works are to be done in response to being forgiven of our sins and in response to receiving the gift of right standing (and therefore salvation) before God. We can’t earn our way anywhere, because good works don’t pay back the cost of sin. The Catholics have added good works onto salvation, which I would argue is a fundamental misrepresentation of what the Bible clearly teaches. Isn’t this arguable a better motivation for going good? Not as a means to earn one’s own salvation, but as a gift to others given in joy?
As a former (or recovered) theist (Evangelical Christian), I found this piece interesting. I'm currently writing my de-conversation/emancipation narrative. Most likely this will be the prompt that forces me to create a second Substack and YouTube channel.
Christians would have a number of counter-arguments to the analysis you provide above. Mostly, they come down to, "We cannot understand the mind of God and are not worthy to judge or question his plan." This blanket perspective covers a multitude of sins with a simple wave of the hand.
As has been pointed out before, when something positive happens, "God is good" and when something miserable happens, "God is mysterious and we cannot know his divine plan." In this way, Christians absolve God of sins far greater than any they have committed.
I heard the exact same rationale, for agony in this world, in the Jewish faith. We cannot understand G-d's plan. Shortly after Bobby Kennedy was killed, Rose Kennedy, his Mother, flanked by Senator Ted Kennedy and her husband, said the exact same thing : We cannot understand the plans of G-d.
Sometimes, theists say terrible things happen not becasue of G-d. but because people are evil. However when a six year old dies of cancer of the bone in his leg, what evil did he or his family commit.
Sad for you.
God does not sin. God’s economy for good and positive versus bad and negative is different than ours. This isn’t to excuse anything, it’s just plain fact. I know many faithful Christians who can still say with joy that “God is good” and that “It is well with my soul” even amongst horrific suffering. God is a mystery, because He is beyond us.
Choosing to not to be deluded about entirely unprovable claims is not sad. In fact, I consider it the opposite. That theists are able to explain away everything with the "God's ways are not our ways" is so so sad. In doing so they allow behavior that we would consider reprehensible of any other "loving father."
And they do so with the most flimsy evidence possible. It is strange - they allow - in this one area typically - all reasonable assessment of what is true to be thrown out the window.
I will always admit that I have not checked under every rock or behind every distant galaxy, to find God. So I remain willing to say that I cannot KNOW or PROVE there is no God. But using the same faculties that we tests other claims of reality, there is NO reason to believe there is a God.
Personal feelings, an anecdotal experience, etc. IS NOT good reason. It is good enough for the "believer" but using that metric, then every religion is equally true - which is absurd. But I know devout Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and new-agers who have had the same "divine" experience.
And when it is explained, it is the same experience I have had when playing music with my band and everything comes together perfectly - or having sex with my partner - or watching my Dog takes his last breath or living with and taking care of my mother as she died of cancer. Amazing life experiences with incredible "spiritual" and emotional importance.
The biology of the brain, which we can test, is truly wonderful! And it is testable and repeatable. God... not so much.
Also, my sadness for you is that you described yourself as once an Evangelical Christian. I find it sad when someone who knows truth then walks away from it.
Thinking about testability though— unlike other religions, the central claim to the Christian faith is actually falsifiable. If we ever find direct evidence of Jesus’s body, then the claim that He rose from the dead is falsified and Christian belief rests on a lie. Then we will be the most pitied of all people!
That hasn’t happened yet, and while I have confidence that it won’t happen ever (because of other compelling evidence that Christianity is true), there is always the possibility that I am wrong.
So in that way, Christianity is testable. Maybe not an easy test, but testable all the same.
True... if we find a body for a person with scant evidence of existence and no reason to believe sits in a tomb or anywhere else, that would be "proof." But, honestly, that's NOT the test.
Whether you find a body or not does nothing to bolster magical/supernatural claims.
So, when you suggest that THAT is the falsifiable evidence, you've set the standard so low that anything can be claimed.
What behavior? And why do we consider this behavior reprehensible? Where do we get these morals from?
But you misunderstand me, I don’t believe in God because I sometimes have personal feelings about him. I believe in God because I think his existence makes the most reasonable sense of reality. Existence of our universe must have a causer, and I think God fits the evidence as the prime causer better than any other theories out there. In addition, I believe this God is the God of the Old Testament and New Testament Scriptures, because the preponderance of evidence show the NT writings to be accurate, historical accounts of Jesus. So then, if Jesus is real and really died and rose from the dead, and He had confidence in the OT scriptures, then I can to.
So belief in God is no delusion, it’s what I think fits the evidence the best. Some think that the idea of a multiverse fits the evidence for the existence of our universe better, and they could be right, but I find that explanation lacks very much them to describe why the Bible is so darn reliable then.
So no, I am not using my personal feelings or anecdotal evidence to come to believe in God. I have looked at all the evidence and trained what fit the evidence the best.
Also, since Jesus did fit every single prophecy from the OT perfectly, is this not a type of testability that he passed?
Ahh.. that is the standard, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" / "The Case of Christ" light apologetic.
I'll respond more completely when I finish with work. Suffice to say, if a father said to a child, "You are reprehensible - from day one - NOT because of what you did but what your great, great, great, great... grandfather/grandmother did several thousand years ago. I'm going light you on fire and torture - keep you magically alive while I do it - unless you bow down to me."
"Wait dad... How do I know my ancestors did this and why are you making me guilty of that?"
"How dare you question me? I can confirm - without showing you - that some people saw it and told other people who told other people who told other people - and then someone wrote it down. And besides, you are in no place to question me. To the pit with you! Oh, I love you more than you know.
Now, I have to deal with your slutty sister. Turns out she slept with someone before her marriage so I have commanded the neighbors to come over and kill her on the door step. Because, morality - can I get an amen!
Oh.. watch out in the pit because I'm tossing her down there too."
That's some solid parenting right there.
We'll get to the other fallacies this weekend. FYI: I taught and did apologetics research for some large churches. I was offered to have my tuition paid to Talbot Theological Seminary due to my work in this area. I have a son who studies biblical languages from one of the MOST conservative Christian colleges in the country.
For graduation he got rationality and atheism - which many of the students leave with. Probably 30 to 40% of the professors are, as well. But a man's gotta make a living.. They revealed what they "really" think about the "solid evidence" of the New Testament. Don't dive deep into that study from a rationalistic and skeptical standpoint. It doesn't go well.
Mind you, none of this will matter to the "true believer" - they are very careful about how they assess information.
But we'll talk more this weekend. Have a good rest of your Friday.
Wait, wait, wait. So you have studied some apologetics, and yet you assert that believing in God is a delusional belief without reason?
It’s fine if you did not find apologetics evidence compelling enough to believe in God, but that does not discount that evidence for God exists. As you should know— so either you are deliberately straw-manning to say that there “is no reason to believe in God” while alluding only to personal experiences, discounting the objective evidence we do have, OR your studying apologetics was severely lacking.
But it’s concerning that you want to claim some authority in apologetics and yet your answer to me is simply an emotional response to a God you don’t like. Nothing you said about God being a supposedly bad father (by your standards) actually discounts the truth of his existence— you just seem to not like him. That’s not a good reason to not believe something is true. You think I believe for some feeling-based experience of the divine, and yet you reveal that your lack of belief rests purely on emotions of what you dislike about God. Well I don’t like that gravity keeps me from being able to fly, but that don’t make gravity untrue.
So you don’t like God because you think he is somehow a bad father, and you don’t like his morals around sex? Is that it? You don’t seem to think people are inherently sinful— you seem to say that “how horrible God is for finding me his enemy when I haven’t sinned but have only inherited sin from my ancestors! It’s not fair!” You really think you yourself, irregardless of your ancestors, have not disobeyed God?
God is more than just a parent, so trying to apply human standards of parenting to the Most Holy God of the Universe seems a bit naive, don’t you think?
But as far as the cross, it is exactly falsifiable. Not sure why you don’t see that— if Jesus bones are found, it exactly disproves his claim to be supernaturally raised from the dead, which brings to doubt his claim of being God. It may not discount a God of sorts, but it certainly would falsify the Judeo-Christian God. No other religions has a central supernatural claim that can be falsifiable like this. Which is telling.
But again, your can say that you find the evidence for Jesus and God uncompelling, but just because you don’t find it to be “enough” does not meant that it does not exist. So don’t pretend like Christians have blind delusional faith when you know better— there is plenty of evidence. The only thing you can say with accuracy is that you ultimately did not find this evidence to be enough to justify a belief, but others have. That’s all you can say.
Hmm.. throwing out terms like "straw-manning" in the context provided is a misrepresentation of the term... at best.
Oh.. I sent you an email - to your substack feed email.
It seems you've misunderstood my analogy about God as a father.
I don't dislike God at all. The analogy was to point out how a thoughtful scrutiny of the type of God portrayed in the bible does not comport with what I consider a reasonable father to be. I don't dislike God in the same way I don't dislike leprechauns or Sauron.
I don't believe in said God... dislike does not seem a rational response.
Because I don't believe in such a God, I don't think anything about his morals about sex. Again, I'm simply pointing out that a loving father, calling for the neighbors to kill his daughter for "bad behavior", sounds like a sociopath.
And look, if you are cool with a father doing that, you can make the case for that being a reasonable standard. We will disagree but that's your standard of fatherly love. It's not mine.
I don't make the claim that such characteristics, in and of themselves, speaks to God's existence at all. To suggest that is you making the straw-man argument.
I was responding your question to me "what behavior?"
In regards to being deluded. I will admit that I, and I suppose, you - or any human - can be deluded.. Both by others and by self. There are many reasons I modified my belief from, what I consider a willing self-delusion on bad evidence to a more skeptical position.
And look, if you've found a way to never be mistaken or self-deluded, THAT is pure gold. Teach that course! You'd make a mint.
Regarding me applying human standards to judge the God of the universe being naive: Placing a God you've not proven above analysis - by simply claiming one should not - is begging the question.
God would have to show that he/she/it exists and that he/she/it is above scrutiny.
If God does exist and has given us the ability to scrutinize - in fact, commanded it - I refuse to put an artificial mental gate on what and who we should scrutinize. It is naive to suggest I, or any human, should cease scrutiny without warrant.
Again... it isn't something I would do to my children.
In fact, when my youngest came to live with me at around 13 she said, "Dad.. please don't ever use the, 'because I'm your dad!' reason for rules or controlling behavior." Fortunately, I had parents who never leveled that excuse on me, so her request was easy.
If God wants to make the case that having your daughter killed on your doorstep is amazing parenting, let him make it! Otherwise, that is a ludicrous "moral" position.
Again, it doesn't disprove God but it does make the God, as portrayed in the bible, appear to be very human and tribal - similar to the pettiness of Greek and Roman gods.
Also, I don't have to disprove God. In fact, I'm not attempting to disprove God, at all. I only assess the likeliness of any god. And for specific claims - ie: God of the bible - they become easier to dismiss when the writings "inspired" by said God appear so incredibly human.
As suggested in my email to you, I would be happy to create some type of limited debate or periodic topical debate... Meaning, one that has a topic to discuss and a limited set of rejoinders/responses. Not because it will conclude the conversation... it won't. Simply as a pragmatic matter of allocating time to any discussion.
*Sigh*… it’s easy to attack a Straw-Man Christianity. How thoroughly you misunderstand it. No Christian delights in the fact that the Jews killed Jesus, and those that did in the past, or attack Jews for it, were wrong and misunderstood the Scriptures and the purpose for Jesus dying. His death is not an ends justifies the means situation— His sacrifice as exactly a scape goat for our sins was God’s plan from the beginning. It’s a way for God to satisfy both his justice and his mercy. No man can atone for all his sins and misdeeds— the payment for sin, even just one, is death. Are you willing to pay that? Jesus is a substitute atonement— it’s not people getting off scot-free for their sins. It means that God took the judgement He would have for them, for me, and put it on Jesus instead. That means when I meet my Lord one day and am asked to atone for my sins, I can show my “already paid in full” slip that points to Jesus. But the Bible makes it clear that this gift of grace from God does not give us the excuse to keeping sinning—- contrary to your Texas friend, if you have Ben forgiven and you know murder is wrong, you won’t knowingly commit murder just because you think you are assured of heaven. No, the Christian takes great care to live a life that is worthy of God, after being saved from the penalty of sin. Of course, until we meet our Lord, we will still sin, because we are not made perfect this side of heaven. But it’s about our hearts being orientated towards seeking Jesus and his commands and away from sin. So a person who truly seeks the Lord will not delight in sin, and therefore won’t use any kind of “the ends justify the means” justification for sin. But I don’t suspect you to understand this. I do tire of so many really, really bad straw-man Christianities that get put out there though.
Kris, I don't have time to respond to all of your points, but I will address the first one.
I did not say Christians are glad that Jesus died. I am saying they are glad because they are saved. And they wouldn't be saved if Jesus hadn't died for them.
This can encourage the belief that guilt can be expunged by transfering it to another party.
I think it would be better for all of us if we agreed that guilt can only be expunged when the guilty party does good works to rectify the harms he has commited. I actually complimented Catholicism for believing in the necessity of doing works. I criticized Protetantism for contending that good works was irrelvant for salvation.
Thank you for clarifying your stance about Christian’s being glad of their salvation. There comment below, form your article, did not initially sound that way:
“ Because they are glad that Jesus’s death guarantees them salvation (provided that they accept Jesus’ divinity), I am sure they are just a little bit delighted that we evil Jews allegedly killed him.”
— This comment seemed more like you thoughtful Christians are gleeful about “evil” Jews killing Jesus, rather than being glad of their salvation. But our gladness in our salvation is rooted in the fact that we recognize that Jesus gave himself up willingly to be a substitute atonement for our sin, and not because Jews killed him so we can just go to heaven. See the difference? (Which is part of the reason that your argument that Christian salvation is an ends justifies the means doesn’t work, but we can address that later.)
Your ideas about guilt is why I believe you misunderstand Christianity. Biblically, good works do not counteract any harms done, they don’t rectify anything. Because God is all righteous and all holy, sin is destroyed in his presence, He makes it clear that he does not abide any disobedience to his commands, which is sin. The payment for sin is not an accumulation of good works, the payment for sin is blood— death. In the Old Testament, rather than killing everyone because everyone keeps sinning, he created the sacrificial system to have animals’ blood spilled in place of the people. Hebrews 9:22 tells us that: “ without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.”
But even this isn’t good enough, the Bible tells us that “ For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.” (Hebrews 10:4, cross-reference Ps. 40:6-8.) This animal sacrifice system was a way for God to forgive His people before Jesus came and credit the payment ahead to Jesus. Once Jesus came, his death was a substitutionary atonement, one and for all, which ends the sacrificial system. It fufills God’s requirement for blood for sin, such that no more blood needs to be shed. This is much more than just shifting guilt. This is forgiveness with someone else paying the price.
Another thing, the payment for sin must be a perfect sacrifice, with blemish. The animal had to be without blemish to be as close to “perfection” as possible, but clearly it was never going to really be perfect. Which is why the sacrifice to end the sacrificial system had to Jesus as God, because only Jesus was totally without sin. No good works would earn any person to be completely and utterly without sin to be enough to even be the sacrifice required to pay for sin, let alone to rectify their own sin! (The priests in the Old Testament had to continually sacrifice more for their own sins to be as pure as possible when sacrifice for the people’s sin.)
The Bible makes it clear that good works are to be done in response to being forgiven of our sins and in response to receiving the gift of right standing (and therefore salvation) before God. We can’t earn our way anywhere, because good works don’t pay back the cost of sin. The Catholics have added good works onto salvation, which I would argue is a fundamental misrepresentation of what the Bible clearly teaches. Isn’t this arguable a better motivation for going good? Not as a means to earn one’s own salvation, but as a gift to others given in joy?