Ex Christian Says Christians No Better Than Atheists

Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania

Ir, just a quick thought, though. That passage in Matthew “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect .” It refers to “perfect” in the sense of being “complete”, not “without flaw.” (Can’t remember the greek word, my lexicon is at my office, and right now I’m at home…)

I don’t think that changes the whole course of your agrument or anything, but it’s just a thought for you…

Comment by: Bruce Lofland

Before I was a believer a lot of people thought that I was a Christian. I guess that it was because they thought I was “nice”. Compared to some others around me, I suppose I was. After I became a Christian, I became more aware of and concerned about vices I had that other people could not see. Those around me may not have been able to tell much difference except that I started wearing a cross after a while. The basic idea for me was that I am more than just another animal and this is what spirituality of any sort is about. I think we sometimes try to deny our animal nature in order to embrace this spirituality. This goes beyond just being “nice”.

I guess I am just saying that outward appearance is not the only criteria for judging the value of religion.

Comment by: TXatheist

Tom,
I hope you will sway your opinion somewhat. I don’t worship god and I only worship myself in the same manner you do. I want to be a good person, love my neighbor and treat humans better than I did yesterday in improving myself. I guess I hope to show I don’t do whatever pleases myself as I see my choices as a way to worship humanity, the good for all including me.

Comment by: Ir

djchuang wrote: in my limited experience, when I’ve come across someone who is zealous and joyful in sacrificing time and energy to serve others and to do good, I find a little more often that a Christian faith is the underlying motivator than other faiths (or non-faiths.)

Do you think one reason you find the Christian faith to be a motivator of such things more often than otherwise is that you know more Christians than people who aren’t Christians?

Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania

Ir, YES! It is a hard scripture. I see it this way. The “completeness” or “perfection” that a follower of Jesus has (in Christ) is “positionial.” This means, because of Christ’s sacrifice, we are MADE perfect in God’s sight… we “borrow” Christ’s perfection. Seen in that light, this quote is NOT supposed to be a comfort, but instead, a source of “holy dissatisfaction”. I guess you could put it this way: The Xian has had perfection appropriated for him, so he should strive to actually ACT that way… which speaks to this issue. (Incidentally, the ideas I just presented are not entirely my own, I got them out of a variety of commentaries.)

So, “being perfect” as the Father is should be evident to the world by my life… Sadly, too often it isn’t…

Thanks, Ir, your comments are always FASCINATING!

Comment by: Ron

Ir,

I have been sort of sitting on the backburner for a couple of days but this one got me going. There are a couple of questions that I have so bear with me.

I’m not trying to say, “Oh the church isn’t perfect,” but as I read these posts for the life of me I don’t understand why atheists judge God based on people? I understand exactly what you are saying about the Holy Spirit must not be real because Christians are not any better than atheists but then I ask, Who is the Holy Spirit? He is a…helper, not an atainer. Maybe it is the Arminian in me but I think there has to be an element of choice in everything. To say that we have achieved perfection here is to take away the element of choice. “Everyone who is a Christian will be perfect.” Where is the choice in that?

Now by this next thought I mean no offense to anyone, but Ir you have been very provocative at times so please allow me the same courtesy. I think that Christians are better than atheists even if it is an internal betterment. Early in the blog the question was asked what do you miss most about being a Christian? Someone I forget who said, “The peace I used to have when I prayed.” This is not a condemnation on anyone but in my opinion, Christians do posses something that atheists lack and it is not a capacity. [By that I mean to dispell any argument that someone would say, "oh Christians have a greater capacity for love." We know that is balderdash.]

My final question is this, What purpose is there for an atheist to strive for betterment? I sense the answer to that question to be “it is better for society.” I find that incomplete because we know that society will eventually cease to exist. Even if by the time the sun was ready to explode and society was advanced enough to move to a different planet in the Universe. We know that the Universe is growing from the Big Bang eventually it will begin to collaps and shrink back down to what it was. Society will cease to exist and my point is that if we are striving only for the betterment of society, it is ultimately in vain.

Comment by: Cully

Why does the eventual collapse of society make it something not worth working towards the betterment of? You’re talking billions of years here, just until the sun dies, even more if you are waiting for the collapse of the universe. The human lifespan is far far shorter than that, not to mention the untold trillions of people who will be born in that time. Why shouldn’t we work to better society for just a few of those people? Your house is eventually going to be torn down, does that keep you from mowing the lawn? Painting the shutters?

Why do Christians work for betterment? If not for the betterment of society, which you argue is futile, then purely for the betterment of self? Do you do good works purely for the hope of eternity? Is societal betterment merely a fortunate side effect?

Comment by: Ron

Cully,

Why does the eventual collapse of society make it something not worth working towards the betterment of?

Because what is the point?

Why do Christians work for betterment? If not for the betterment of society, which you argue is futile, then purely for the betterment of self? Do you do good works purely for the hope of eternity? Is societal betterment merely a fortunate side effect?

This is a great question and I can’t speak for every Christian but me personally, No I don’t do it for a hope for eternity or a promised Heaven because you are absolutely right that would be completely selfish. I do it out of sheer devotion for a God that I love as a way of giving Him an everlasting thank you.

Comment by: Cully

The point is the people who are here now. The people who will follow in 50 years. The people who will follow in 100 years! I have to say Ron I am astounded by your position on this. Are you just playing devil’s advocate with this line of reasoning?

Apply it on a more human scale. Everyone will eventually die. There’s no way around that either. Why read books, or listen to great music, or see art, or theatre? For that matter why take medicine? Why study? Anything you learn will just be forgotten when you die.

If everyone threw up their hands and said, “What’s the point?” where would we be? There are a million reasons to give up… There are just too many people to help. No one thanks you. For every one person you feed thousands still go to bed hungry. No one cares. No one else is doing this difficult work. No one is listening to what you say. No one is recognizing you for what you do. They are going to die anyway, why prolong the inevitable?

Comment by: TXatheist

Ron,
I’ve asked this before and based on your wording I’m asking again. If we died on the same day and went to meet god and he said “I can only take one of you, Ron decides who”. Your answer?

Comment by: Ron

Cully,

Apply it on a more human scale. Everyone will eventually die. There’s no way around that either. Why read books, or listen to great music, or see art, or theatre? For that matter why take medicine? Why study? Anything you learn will just be forgotten when you die.

For a Christian there are obvious answers to these questions and many more. But if atheism makes any sense at all, then no I am not playing the devils advocate. It dosen’t make sense, there is more to life. I truely hope that we can agree on this.

Look I have been reading this blog for a long time now and one thing I have realized is that a lot of atheists aren’t Christians because they have questions that they haven’t found the answer to in the Christian faith. That is all that I am doing is giving an example of questions that I have that atheism can’t explain.

Comment by: Nutrideath

Um, I’m going to stay out of this Ron-Tx conversation, except to add a small (but what I think is very interesting) point about the universe:

Nowadays scientists don’t think there will ever actually be a “big crunch.” The universe is expanding at a tremendous rate. But, the speed of expansion is not slowing down. The expansion of the universe is actually accelerating.

I know, I know - that doesn’t have anything to do with the price of tea in China. So, I’ll be quiet now. Unless I think of something useful to add.

Comment by: Daz

Ron,
For one thing don’t assume that all atheists are nihilists. There are some that believe that our consciousness survives death but that this process is quite different from how traditional theistic theologies teach it.
Ultimately reality is what it is, regardless of what anyone of us like about it or not.

Comment by: Daz

From what I’v read the universe will keep accelerating to a point a few billion years from now where these forces will become so great they will tear apart the fundamental matter of the universe. Not sure what happens after that :-)

Comment by: Ron

Daz,

I don’t understand that line of atheistic thought and so I don’t feel that I can fairly comment on what you are talking about. It doesn’t make sense to me.

TX,

I will answer your latest question next.

Comment by: TXatheist

Nutrideath,
Could you please cite a source? I’ve always thought we were expanding and accelerating but it will collapse.

Comment by: TXatheist

Fair enough, thanks. I cherish the values called courtesy and respect. I was taught that and that’s why I do what I do. I wasn’t taught to be completely selfish. That’s how I view my outlook on how and why I behave this way.

Comment by: Ron

TX,

Please don’t take offense to this but I think that you would make a brilliant Christian. I really appreciate your thoughts and attitude. Even though you aren’t a Christian, I really respect you and your insights.

Comment by: Cully

Ron, I can’t see how making a child’s life better is futile. Someone I feed today cares nothing about the end of the universe, they care about how their life is in the here and now. I am not working for MY benefit, I’m working for theirs. Yes, I may not be here to benefit from the better society I create, but other people will. Can’t you see the good in that?

Comment by: Ir

Ron wrote to TX: Please don’t take offense to this but I think that you would make a brilliant Christian.

A lot of atheists would. I’m tempted to say God must be kicking himself - but that would be a little disrespectful.

Ron, I will respond to #13 later when I have more time.

Comment by: Ron

Cully,

Ron, I can’t see how making a child’s life better is futile.

I totally 100% concur.

I am not working for MY benefit, I’m working for theirs. Yes, I may not be here to benefit from the better society I create, but other people will. Can’t you see the good in that?

Yes I can and that is one reason that I am a Christian. Let me eloborate. Everyone has been very understanding to the provocative nature of my statements and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. If I may, please be patient with me as I push the envelope a little further. Once again, I mean no offense to anyone it is just another thought that I had.

Some have hinted that they want to be the best person possible for the future of their kids and society. I would also contend that very few people know who their ancestors were back in oh, say the year 1137 A.D. If they were the worst person possible or if they were an incredibly good gifted and talented person, aside from genetics what impact did they have on your life today? My real question is, If you are the best person you can be what impact is that truly going to have on your lineage 700 or more years from now? I would propose, that society is what will have the stronger effect on anyone’s lineage. It doesn’t matter what kind of person you are. You may argue that your actions are what is sculpting tomorrows society but couldn’t the evil people say the same? So does it really matter? For Christians it does. Why does it matter for atheists?

Like I said, I am just being provocative.

Comment by: TXatheist

Could y’all please stop saying brilliant and txatheist in the same sentence. My wife thinks I’m arrogant enough now and we already have trouble getting my head thru the front door:)

Comment by: Stephan

I have another thought the throw into this discussion.

Part of the Christian belief is that Satan tempts us in order to pull us away from God. If this is true, then perhaps Atheists aren’t tempted as much as Christians. Why tempt someone who is already separated from God. Instead, focus attacks on those near the edge. Tear down the most visible ones.

Stated another way, in a war, you are not going to bomb areas you already control. You would bomb areas that are either weak or of strategic importance. If there is spiritual warfare (and I believe there is) Satan would not attack those who are already convinced. He would attack those who believe and could either be easily turned or would cause others to fall away if they fell.

This might help explain why Christians aren’t any better than anyone else. Maybe we’re under the attacks of temptation more than anyone else.

I realize that this line of reasoning is probably hard to swallow if you don’t believe in spiritual warfare, but if you try to imagine that it were true you might see the logic in it.

Comment by: Ron

Concerning Jayson’s comments on #42. On the record let me just say to Jayson and everyone else. In my heart of hearts I mean no offense to anybody period. No ifs ands or buts.

TX, I retract the brilliant Christian comment to all of the atheist who are offended. I think that you have a brilliant mind.

I have been moved by the intellectual nature of all of the atheists perspectives in these blogs even when we disagree.

So that I can correct my behavior, help me understand it better. Are atheists offended at the provocation of my thoughts? If so why are Christians not allowed the same courtesy of expressing what it is about atheism that doesn’t make sense to us even when atheists have openly shared that about Christianity? There is no, “I don’t mean to be offensive but” I am just trying to understand what about my questions are truly offensive so that I can refrain from being so insensitive to others?

Comment by: cautious

Jayson B’s comments on god genes lured me out…

My understanding of that idea is that humanity, pretty early, came up with the idea of an afterlife. That people (and sometimes other living things) have another life after this one, either in a purely spiritual manner or in a reincarnated sense. Thus spirit worship, or Earth worship, or ancestor worship, or just meditating on the meaning of it all…is the basal, ancestral form of religion and spirituality in people.

Theism was a later idea, and its subsequent transformation from something that a tribe might believe in as a self-identifying social apparatus (”we all believe that the FSM made the perfect food in his own image”) to religious dogma (”I will kill you for suggesting that noodles are not holy”) seems to be an avoidable step. It’s possible for a society to have theistic ideas without needing to build a temple or other holy place, it all sorta depends on how much one person can interact with the Big Cheese.

Now…just because spirituality and religion are human-made constructs doesn’t mean they’re not necessary. Spirituality is _deep_ inside of people, its something that is almost as much of a human trait as walking upright, having opposable thumbs, or watching tv.

And to say that religion isn’t needed is really daft, and surprising to hear after you go on about whether Ron was trying to be mean or not. Just because you or I don’t “need” religion does not mean everyone else on the planet suddenly doesn’t. Belief in higher powers is not going to go away just because we understand the universe. Partially because we don’t understand the universe. Partially because we probably can never understand the universe.

You know that Percy Shelley quote? “If ignorance of nature gave birth to gods, knowledge of nature is made for their destruction”? There’s some parts of nature that we can never hope to know, even if given billions of years to look. There’s always going to be parts of nature that we are ignorant about, and there’s always going to be the possibility of god(s).

Comment by: Jayson B.

cautious,

But on the same token, just because they want religion and it’s popular doesn’t mean that they need it.

And what you’re talking about is a concept of the god of gaps: as science fills us in with better understanding, religion and theology mere move the marker on God to the things we don’t understand *yet*. If God were so important, would he only exist in the tiny gaps of our knowledge as it progresses?

Comment by: Ron

Cully and Jayson,

Are you in some way implying that the generous acts of non-christians are less worthy than those of christians because we aren’t doing it to “glorify God?”

No. I have even said that I think that all goodness from people is accepted by God.

Comment by: Julie

Why aren’t Christians any better than Atheists is the question, and the author observes that the lack of difference between Christians and Atheist behavior ground away his belief in the Holy Spirit..

When Christians talk about the Holy Spirit, we are really talking about supernatural power. And when we do something in the “power of the spirit” what we mean is we are doing it by God’s power.

With such a power available to us, one would think, yes, we would be markedly different from non-Christians. And we should be. The question of “why aren’t we?” is a valid one. My belief: we aren’t incorporating this power into our daily lives. Say you have a sports car idling in the driveway. Doesn’t mean that’s all it can do is idle; it just means you haven’t put it in gear and punched the accelerator.

I think sometimes Christians liken the Holy Spirit to a sports car in the garage. We have it, we know it, but it’s not our daily driver. We rev it up only when we have a problem we can’t solve on our own power. When “all hell breaks loose” in our lives. Some people are generally more capable than others; they have more ability to solve life’s problems on their own. Some people are born into comfortable circumstances and rare is the situation they can’t fix — or pay someone to fix. Most Americans fall into these categories. A friend came home from a medical mission trip and shared this observation from one of her patients: “You American’s believe in God, but you do not know his power.”

I can think of several situations from my life where I’ve been at the end of my capabilities or the end of my understanding, and have been able to rebuild, and understand, using the power of the Holy Spirit. If all I had was me, my capability, and my wisdom during the darkest moment of my life, I would have been unable to answer the question I had been asking for months “Can you stand the pain one more night?” with a yes. As a nurse on a cancer floor, I had keys to the narcotic box, and I would have used them. My despair was too much for me to handle by myself and I would have, by injecting, by swallowing, and by infusing, emptied that narc box, and found a quiet corner lay down and rest. That was 12 years ago, and I will forever remember the day I came to the end of me and got real with my God. I sat on the edge of my lonely bed, looking out the window at a cherry tree just starting to bloom. I told God I couldn’t stand it anymore; the heartbreak was too much. I admitted that I, the ultimate planner, had no plan B this time. I gave up; I told him, fine…you take these broken remnants if you care to, remake them into something if you can. I can’t. I just don’t want to hurt anymore. I can’t do this one more day. I felt — physically felt — something leaving my body, and on that absolutely still spring morning, that cherry tree started to shake. All of its light pink petals tore loose and drifted to the ground. And I came ROARING back to life. I can’t explain it; always an introverted bookworm, suddenly I was on fire to get out and about and have fun; my sister absolutely loved to go out with me at this time because men literally trailed after me wherever we went. I’ve since simmered down, and am happily married with an adorable 3 year old son (who, btw, is another gift as I carried an infertility diagnosis for 10 years and delivered him at age 41).

My point is, we don’t see evidence because we haven’t truly incorporated his power. The Holy Spirit, who lives in all Christians, sits at idle until we engage.

Comment by: Ron

Jayson,

umm, shouldn’t *all* goodness be accepted by god no matter what?

Yes that is my premis. Other Christians have made refrense that atheists are going to burn in hell. I have not. It has been implied that because I was finding reason for the goodness of Christians then I was condeming the goodness of atheists. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I was only challenging how some things made sense to atheists, not the reality of their goodness.

Comment by: Cully

Ron when I asked if you were viewing the acts of atheists as less worthy, I was just probing your line of reasoning. So where has this left you? Do you see now why atheists (at least the handful that have replied here) are motivated even without a god?

Comment by: cautious

Jayson-

Well, sure, I’m not arguing for the continued existence of religion just because a lot of people want it. But I still think that people who share the same faith need places to hang out and do whatever they do to make themselves happy. Religion is, when its nice, a cohesive tool for allowing people to forgive each other of their vices. Spirituality is, in some ways, just a supernatural component to empathy: in that one recognizes another person not just as another person but as another beautiful/wonderful creation.

If religion helps people strive towards being better, and love their neighbors more, and treat other people as good and decent people…then how’s it not necessary? To copy and paste from a Brights email: “Renowned philosopher Daniel Dennett (author of “Breaking the Spell” and an enthusiastic Bright) cites a dramatic statistic: “. . . American religious donations currently total more than $60 billion per year or more than $330 per American over the age of 18.” (p. 190)”

That 60 billion dollars mostly went to helping people in need. …probably. That is a case wherein religion helped out a lot, and I’m not going to hold it against people who help other people partially because they’re motivated by religion.

And …yes I am partially talking about the god of gaps, but… There’s a difference in the theist and nontheist takes on how big these gaps are. Three places where I don’t think there are gaps are:
a) before the Big Bang
b) before I was alive
c) after I’m dead
In that I think there was no “before” the Big Bang since that’s when space and time started, I think that all living things start existing when they start living, and I think that they stop existing when they die.

Theists don’t think that. And since its not possible for us, as a species, to know what happened before the Big Bang, or before we’re born, or after we die, these will always be areas of contention, conversation, argument, and…quite literally, faith. These are tiny gaps in my mind, since I don’t think they’re gaps. But there was a good 12-13 billion years before I was born, that’s a big gap where …I dunno, did I have a spirit hanging around all that time? No one knows, no one can know, and thus faith fills in the blank spots of the canvas.

Comment by: Jim Henderson

Ir

Is this conversation helpful?

Comment by: Ron

Let me clarify,

I have gone back and reread the posts and understand why there is confusion. I am in no way suggesting that the good that anyone does is to be ignored. I was trying to draw a distinction between how I perceived atheists to think and how Christians think. I was not saying one is better than the other in God’s eyes.

The elaboration:
If I were an atheist, I would perceive my good works to go for the betterment of society right?

From a Christian perspective, society has an eventual end and so that could be considered vainity.

That does not discredit the reality of any good that anyone does. All that says is that I don’t understand the atheists reasoning on this topic, that is not to say that I don’t understand the good that they do and so therefore they burn. No No No!

All I was asking in the dialogue is, If society will end someday and there is nothing after, then what is the purpose of doing good?

I do see where that could have been misunderstood into what it probably was misunderstood, but if anyone understood me to be implying anything other than that question then that is not what I meant and I am sorry.

Comment by: Daz

Ron,
What shows up on this thread is the possibly irreconciliable disparity in thinking between theists like yourself and folks like Jayson B. For yourself there is only a point to life if there is a God (and a rather narrow definition of such I feel) and an afterlife. I’ll be rather bold here and suggest that you likely think this way because you have internalized what has been said to you repeatedly over a long time.
For people who don’t share your metaphysics what is wrong with them trying to define a purpose for their life even if the ultimate effect may be minimal or non-exisitent? It doesn’t follow that therefore these folks should just lie down and give up and do nothing with their lives. I think even Jesus would agree with me on that one.

Comment by: Stephan

Ron, I have to side with the Atheists on this one. I really don’t see where you are coming from. I don’t see how the world ending in a billion years negates anything good we do now, whether Christian, Atheist, Muslim or Platypus (they just don’t fit into any group).

I want to go back to something I posted earlier, which no one seemed to get. I believe we are in a spiritual battle. It is Satan’s goal to get people to distrust God or not believe in Him. He does this by tempting people, causing doubt, throwing up barriers between people and God. This is beautifully drawn out in the book of Job. Job was a target specifically because he trusted God. What reason would Satan have for attacking an unbeliever? They are already conquered.

TX, you say you are not separated from God. Do you feel like you have a relationship with Him? Did you feel like you had a relationship with Him when you were a Christian?

Comment by: Jayson B.

I will say this: if the concept of satan and hell and god’s wrath didn’t exist, christianity would be a WHOLE lot easier to swallow, because at least then the leaps of logic wouldn’t be such chasms.

Comment by: Cully

then I don’t understand what this means:

From a Christian perspective, society has an eventual end and so that could be considered vainity.

Comment by: TXatheist

Stephan,
Please walk a mile in my shoes as they say when you read this:) Satan has conquered me as there is no satan. I’m not separated or attached to god or any other fictional character as they don’t exist. I realize it’s not possible and when I did believe yes I thought I was pleasing him when I was good and praised god, imo.

Comment by: Julie

Jayson,

I think Ty Cobb was a great athlete because he was gifted, had the will to train hard, and the opportunity to train well. I do not think his gifting came from his black socks. If he chose to believe it was from his black socks, well that would be his choice and I wouldn’t argue the point.

Comment by: Rick L in TX

Since my brother invited me in #62 to offer perspective that is other than virtual knowledge, I will oblige him. Tom is a guy with extremely well-developed personality and people skills. You’ve already picked up on some of those; he’s a good communicator, and rare is the person who would not walk away from the coffee table feeling warmth for him. We often joke that Tom is emotionally disadvantaged; that’s a playful way of talking about the fact that on the thinking vs feeling continuom, Tom is WAY over on the thinking side - wouldn’t know a feeling unless it bit him on the nose. On that spectrum he is no where close to balanced. I would hasten to add, however, that on the spectrum of an egomaniacal to a self-deprecating sense of self, which I took to be the original issue here, I consider him very balanced. He strikes me as living at neither extreme, but being at a very healthy central point.

And while he might like you to imagine that his 8th birthday was 50 years ago, the fact is that on Friday it will be 51 years ago!

Comment by: Rick L in TX

Just turning off someone’s block quote.

Comment by: Ir

Jim wrote (in #12): Ir,
How does this sound to you?

[Peter wrote] Ir, YES! It is a hard scripture. I see it this way. The “completeness” or “perfection” that a follower of Jesus has (in Christ) is “positional.” This means, because of Christ’s sacrifice, we are MADE perfect in God’s sight… we “borrow” Christ’s perfection

Jim, I recognize it as a classic piece of ‘hardcore’ Christian theology. At the same time it sounds very unreal to me. It makes me glad my days of believing 6 impossible things before breakfast are over ;)

Ok, I will address Peter’s whole post now:

Peter wrote (in #11): Ir, YES! It is a hard scripture. I see it this way. The “completeness” or “perfection” that a follower of Jesus has (in Christ) is “positional.” This means, because of Christ’s sacrifice, we are MADE perfect in God’s sight… we “borrow” Christ’s perfection. Seen in that light, this quote is NOT supposed to be a comfort, but instead, a source of “holy dissatisfaction”.

Peter, I don’t actually think Jesus was talking about ‘positional righteousness’. I do think he was presenting a challenge to his hearers, which I think is similar to you saying he was inciting ‘holy dissatisfaction’. I suppose you used the word ‘holy’ to show that this is not a ’sinful’ type of dissatisfaction such as coveting, but is rather a good kind because it encourages people to be better.

I guess you could put it this way: The Xian has had perfection appropriated for him, so he should strive to actually ACT that way… which speaks to this issue.

I still don’t see the relevance of positional perfection. Why not simply say Jesus wanted people to be challenged to act the very best they were able? Why bring positional perfection into it at all?

(Incidentally, the ideas I just presented are not entirely my own, I got them out of a variety of commentaries.)

I could have guessed they were from commentaries. Imo, it’s a good illustration why some of the Bible studies I’ve been in have a guideline that the participants are to answer questions without using a commentary for reference until after the meeting where the questions are discussed. Commentaries can stifle original thought. (Peter, just to be clear, I’m not trying to say you lack original thought)

Comment by: Tom in Sacramento

Ir, I don’t know if this will help with the “positional” thing or not. It isn’t real clear to me where the problem lays. But this is an easy concept for me because of my life experience.

We have two kids living in our house. They are in no (biological) way related to me. They are the two oldest kids born out of wedlock to my step-daughter from different fathers. (Try drawing THAT family tree. ;-) ) They have, from a purely biological perspective, no claim on me or anything I have. But I regard them in every sense as fully my children and fully my heirs and I love them profoundly.

To paraphrase, If I, being evil, know how to bestow positional relationship, how much more can our Father in Heaven? So, I hope that might get you down to where you only need to believe five impossible things before breakfast. ;-)

Tom in Sacramento

Comment by: Siamang

Ron said:

All I was asking in the dialogue is, If society will end someday and there is nothing after, then what is the purpose of doing good?

This, to me, is the absolutist thinking that I see in a lot of belief that involves an infinite being.

Either my good works last FOREVER, or they’re WORTHLESS.
Either my soul is ETERNAL or I might as well ANIHILATE myself today.
Either I am SINFUL and DESERVE infinite torture, or I’m washed CLEAN by the forgiveness of God.

It’s absolutism. It’s not the way the world works in my opinion:

Either I have all the MONEY in the world, or I’m DESTITUTE.
Either I SIRE the entire next generation, or I have NO CHILDREN!
Either I have ALL the cars in the world, or I have NONE!

You ask me what my ancestor did in 1137 that mattered. That was about 30 generations ago. In 30 generations, I can basically say that the odds are that almost everyone in Europe who had offspring for a few generations was related to me.

So which of my ancestors helped make the world we live in a better place in the 12th century?

Well, just look at the positive pieces of the 12th century. The birth of Christian Humanism. First european universities are founded. First use of a compass on a ship.

My ancestors fought in the Crusades, which continues to have reprocussions to this day.

So much, SO much that they did matters every day of our lives. I want people to look back at the 20th and 21st century and think that WE did our part to help them. They’re our great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren. We owe them.

Comment by: Siamang

Nutrideath wrote:

It seems that evolution is all about competing for a spot in the gene pool. So, either:

a) You’re right: evolution resulted in the most compassionate reproducing the most often, which eventually out-produced & wiped out all warlike humans. No, wait - that doesn’t seem right. So maybe:

b) You’re wrong: evolution is all about fighting to be the one to mate. Yeah, that would explain all the violent tendencies we observe in humans. Except we have all these darn “compassionate feelings” every now & then.

This seems like a paradox.

It’s not either/or. It’s a balance. Those individuals who know when to fight AND know when to make love, AND can best tell the difference in a survival situation tend to survive and pass those genes on to the next generation.

All war genes, you get races which wipe themselves out. All peace, and you get those which can be wiped out by others.

All BALANCE? You get chimps. Chimps do all those same things. They wage war. They wage peace, love and understanding, too.

Remember, “your” genes aren’t really just yours. They belong to your family too. Self-sacrifice still passes on your family genes if it protects the family as a whole.

Comment by: Cully

Bruce… care to give us the passage in Ecclesiastes that would shed light on this?

Comment by: Bruce Lofland

The entire book of Ecclesiastes is about how everything is in vain, including good works, if you don’t have faith in God.

Comment by: TXatheist

Jayson,
If you see the movie http://www.thegodmovie.com it gives you the references. Luke 12:10 and Mark 3:29. It is unforgiveable by the biblical god to blasphemy against the holy spirit.
Bruce,
I definitely don’t lump all xians together.

Comment by: Ir

Julie wrote (in #57): When Christians talk about the Holy Spirit, we are really talking about supernatural power. And when we do something in the “power of the spirit” what we mean is we are doing it by God’s power.

With such a power available to us, one would think, yes, we would be markedly different from non-Christians. And we should be. The question of “why aren’t we?” is a valid one. My belief: we aren’t incorporating this power into our daily lives. Say you have a sports car idling in the driveway. Doesn’t mean that’s all it can do is idle; it just means you haven’t put it in gear and punched the accelerator.

Julie, thanks for going back to the original topic of this blog and giving the reason why you believe Christians aren’t markedly different in character and behavior from atheists even though Christians — according to what Christian doctrine teaches — have the Holy Spirit and atheists don’t.

So what you’re saying is that Christians have a power that could make them better than atheists but they’re so amazingly bad at using this power that I can’t see it making any difference in their lives whatsoever.

I still think the simpler and more plausible explanation is that the power doesn’t exist. I don’t find it plausible that Christians have a power they are so bad at using that it doesn’t end up making any difference at all.

I can think of several situations from my life where I’ve been at the end of my capabilities or the end of my understanding, and have been able to rebuild, and understand, using the power of the Holy Spirit. If all I had was me, my capability, and my wisdom during the darkest moment of my life, I would have been unable to answer the question I had been asking for months “Can you stand the pain one more night?” with a yes.

Thanks for sharing your personal experience of how God turned your life around. I’m glad you didn’t resort to the narcotics box.

In the part of your post I just quoted, how can you tell the difference between what is the Holy Spirit and what is just your own capability and wisdom?

In my own life I realized I had no way of telling the difference.

Comment by: Ir

Rick L wrote: Re: comment #2, I absolutely do not trust you on this.

How have my atheist friends responded to a Christian believer who, in coversation, suggested that the Christian knew the atheist better than the atheist knew himself? Just a thought.

Rick, I don’t like it when people suggest they know me better than I know myself. Maybe it seems like that was what I was doing, but I didn’t intend my comment that way.

Tom as best I can tell was speculating that if he were an atheist he’d behave much worse. He wasn’t saying “this has happened; this is my experience”. It was his speculation I didn’t trust, not his relating of his actual experience.

It seems to me that I do have actual experience of what is only speculation to him. I have been a Christian and now I am not. I know that that change has not taken away my desire to be kind to others.

It’s not that I was saying I know him better than he knows himself; it’s that I weight actual experience more highly than speculation.

Comment by: Ir

Ron wrote: All I was asking in the dialogue is, If society will end someday and there is nothing after, then what is the purpose of doing good?

Since you asked twice, I get to answer twice ;)

I do it because I want to. Just like you do it because you want to. You want to do it for God; I want to do it for other people.

Comment by: Rick L in TX

I have to confess serious disappointment (and the return of doubt at this blog’s viability as an ongoing place of learning from and listening to those with differing viewpoints) - when posts 91 and 96 mis-characterize Christian belief even when there have been at least 3 posts from Christian believers saying “no, that’s not our belief”. I haven’t seen Christians in this dialogue telling one another “yep, this is what atheists say” even as the atheists are saying “nope, that’s not what we say”. I guess the site isn’t going to become what I had hoped for.

Comment by: Ir

Tom wrote: Ir, good luck with that. God hasn’t answered all my questions and I can guarantee you He isn’t going to answer all your questions. I’d love to know why the avocado pit is so big, for example. ;)

I’ll never get to questions that have that little effect on my life because my list of questions that could impact my life is too long already! :)

You are welcome to live your life anyway that seems to work for you. But, imho, there is no point saying things like, “I want to be open to going back if someone can answer all my questions…”, because the simple fact of the matter is that God is not going to do that for you or anyone else.

Why would I want a relationship with someone who refuses to answer my questions?

The Bible makes it clear that God wants people to come to Him by faith, not by knowledge. I, and I assume you, too, am a polite person. When I want to know someone I accept them on their terms (or not at all if their terms are unacceptable to me) but I don’t go on with any patronizing talk of being open to a relationship if only they come on MY terms. It doesn’t work that way on earth and it doesn’t work that way in Heaven.

So…what God does is ‘patronizing’ talk, then, since he insists we come on HIS terms only?

(I’m just asking ;))

Comment by: Cully

What does God have against knowledge?

I can’t come to him through knowledge, I have to have faith. The whole reason that I have to come to him at all is because 6,000 years ago one of my ancestors sought knowledge. What’s so wrong about me wanting to know a couple things?

Comment by: Jayson B.

If you want to reject God, go ahead, but I don’t believe these scriptures are saying you are irredeemable. It just says that God isn’t going to drag you into heaven kicking and screaming.

There’s two points Bruce. Number one, why are christians so set on trying to convert atheists when their holy book explicitly states its not worth their time? Secondly, why, yet again, does god set about making contradictory rules that simply MAKE NO SENSE. Jesus died for our sins……except for that one.

Bruce, they may not speak for you, but you’re demonstrating something that I see a lot of christians do: something in the bible makes them uncomfortable. It doesn’t jive with what they’ve been told they supposedly believe. So, they either dismiss it, or try to explain it away. The routine favorite is trying to find different definitions for given words so they can use the excuse of “oh, it wasn’t translated properly.” This is the word of GOD……..if it’s not translated properly, something is seriously wrong with it.

There’s no explaining that one away Bruce, and I have to admit, I *do* get pleasure on watching christians try to explain it away, because it fries their brain, and you can see them disconnect because they’re rather ignore than question.

It’s not pardonable Bruce. It’s unforgivable. That doesn’t mean that it’s just harder for me to get in to heaven, that makes it impossible. god says it TWICE in the bible

You have to admit it: god doesn’t forgive atheists. god forgives child rapists and mass murderers, but god doesn’t forgive atheists. That very glaring illogical law is enough to make it obvious to me that he’s a construct of man, because no perfect being would be that stupid.

Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania

Ir writes [I want to be open to going back if someone can answer all my questions but since most Christians don't even seem to understand why their answers don't work for me I don't think it's very likely to happen.]

But actually, do you think that might violate common sense. If God really exists as Xianity understands him, then wouldn’t it follow that as mortals we wouldn’t be able to understand everything about him? Therefore, wouldn’t there always remain some mystery? (I also like what Texan says about relationships. I don’t totally understand my wife… never will… but I love her.)

And Siamang… the three Unforgivable Curses… made me laugh, that is a hoot!

Comment by: Bruce Lofland

Jayson B.:

Comment by: Bruce Lofland

Jayson,
It sounds like you are trying to create the opposing side of an arguement so that you can knock it down. I am not a fundamentalist. I am a Christian and I have never believed what you are opposing. I would not be on this blog if I did.
I also have spent many years studying the Bible before I became a believer because I didn’t trust what people were telling me, so I am not blindly following whatever some pastor tells me. If you want to know more about how I view the Bible, please visit my blog.

Comment by: Bruce Lofland

Jayson, please see my blog for my views on the Bible. Some would say that I have non-traditional views on it and I go into it at great length there. I also have links to other resources that address your question.

Comment by: Ir

Bruce, when I echoed what Jayson said, I wasn’t directing my post to you but to those who agree with the link he linked to. There are Christians who agree with it. If you don’t, then fair enough. I would have other reasons for not sharing your belief - the ones that make it hard for me to believe any concept of God I’ve heard so far.

Comment by: Julie

Ir asked (in #95) how can you tell the difference between what is the Holy Spirit and what is just your own capability and wisdom? Ir, your questions drive right to the heart of the matter. One of the reasons I read this blog is to learn how to ask effective questions, and you are a good teacher!

To answer your question: at the end of the darkest episode of my life, I was truly at the end of me. I had done everything I knew to do and I had brought every skill I possessed to this situation. I didn’t want to be pitiful and broken. When my weight plummeted because I lost my appetite, I didn’t want to be a walking skeleton; I bought ensure and drank. I cared for my patients, I cared for my dog, I managed my business affairs and I managed my divorce proceedings. I began to build new relationships in a new town. I sought counseling. I talked to my family. I read books on rebuilding. I tried to understand, I tried to figure out how this had happened. I used every resource I knew, and I fought with everything I had. That was my power. My power kept me functional: one foot in front of the other: I kept plodding along, but the mud was getting thicker and deeper as the tide came in. The absence of misery was my goal, and I couldn’t reach it. My best was not enough to prevail.

When I gave up and asked for “Holy Help” the transformation was profound, and it was fast. I know myself well, and the power that propelled me over this situation was bold and strong and joyful and it was not my own. Ir, you said in your life you haven’t been able to discern the difference between your power and Holy Spirit power. I hope I can convey my thoughts on that without sounding trite or flippant — I am most sincere when I say, perhaps that is because you haven’t yet faced a circumstance that brought you to the end of yourself, your wisdom, and your capability. I can’t know that, of course, but what I do know from reading your posts is that you are well read, intelligent, honest, and courageous enough to admit you have ideas that conflict with formerly held beliefs. You are not intellectually lazy and you are not a moral coward. I can infer from these observations that these competencies carry over into other areas of your life, and when faced with challenges, you are able to, at the very least meet them capably. But what about the times when meeting the challenge isn’t enough? When meeting the challenge still leaves you in thigh deep pluff mud and the tide is rolling in?

I believe the Holy Spirit, upon my request for clarity, corrected one of my closely held and carefully nurtured ” truths.” For 25 years I held a set of beliefs about my father that were my mother’s beliefs. The influence my mother had over me cannot be overstated — cult like influence is the closest I can come to an accurate description. After I left home I explored Christianity (while home I explored many other spiritualities). With my newfound Christian maturity, I forgave my father his trespasses. (hard to convey on a blog, but that was my attempt at irony). He had become a shadowy, slightly disreputable figure in my life, shuffling in and out of the margins every few years. As an obedient Christian, I held to the “honor your father” commandment and did not eject him from my life entirely. I tolerated his periodic presence and shared my airspace with him. (more irony) About a year after my son was born, my father asked to come visit. It had been over 7 years since I’d seen him, and the last interaction had been a confirmation of my belief that he was all about mooching, from anyone foolish enough to succumb to his manipulations. I decided this would be the time I would confront him; I would explain the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation and lay out my terms for reconciliation, if that is what he desired. And if it wasn’t then I was going to tell him to be gone. The night before he came I prayed, requesting the Holy Spirit to help me with my speech. When I woke up I had the distinct impression I needed to look at the entire situation from a new perspective. What if, rather than trying to punish my mother for leaving him, the custody battles had really been about him trying to protect his daughters from a woman who had sunk deeply into depravity? What if, rather than just seeing a deadbeat dad, I saw that losing those battles bankrupted him…that he had given it everything he had, and it broke him, materially, mentally, and emotionally? That is not the description of a man who deserves to be banished from his daughters’ lives. And it was not a perspective I would have arrived at using my own intellect. But it was a perspective that resonated with distant memories… of a father that enjoyed his children, who was patient, loving, and present whenever he could be. A man who tolerated ridicule from his wife without retaliation.

I presented my father with this perspective the next afternoon, and to my amazement, this almost 7 foot tall giant of a man started to shake and sputter and cry. To finally be understood after all these years overwhelmed him. Where could I get on my own power? To an intellectual decision to forgive and a rigid adherence to a commandment. Where did I go with Holy Spirit guidance? To reconciliation and understanding.

The challenge for me now is to not wait until things are overwhelming or confusing, but to request and incorporate the Holy Spirit’s perspective and power in my daily walk. As I do that, I believe people who know me will see a difference.

Comment by: Jayson B.

nutrideath,

you mind pointing out to me where that verse in hebrews points directly to the unforgivable sin?

Because it doesn’t do that, at all. And, according to your definition, I am devoid of sin, pure of soul. Since I do not believe in god, I could never commit the sins he proclaims to be sins in the bible.

Comment by: Nutrideath

Jayson, in vs. 26: “…there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left.” It is only by the sacrifice of Jesus that any sins are forgiveable.

I wasn’t saying you (or anyone else) are sinless, just not guilty of this one sin - the unforgiveable sin.

Comment by: Jayson B.

Then if that’s the case nutrideath, that scripture simply does not explain away the unforgivable sin. It is clear, very clear, that the unforgivable sin is the exception to all other rules about forgiveness and sin.

Comment by: Ron

Julie,

I too read your story and it is powerful. Thank you.

Comment by: Jayson B.

No nutrideath, that’s not what I’m arguing at all. In fact, you only prove that you are missing the point *entirely*.

I don’t know how to explain it more clearly, because just reading what you just wrote is not only showing a lack of understanding of what I’m trying to say,

but it proves my point entirely that christians will take sections of their holy book that they don’t like that are AS CLEAR AS DAY and desperately attempt to make excuses.

Hebrews does not in any way, shape or form, talk about the unpardonable sin. Nor does it say, at all, that since I don’t believe in god, that I’m excused from it, because it CLEARLY is talking about sin, not one particular sin. The passages about the unpardonable sin are clear. There isn’t any wiggle room there. To deny that is to deny what your god wrote in your holy book. Maybe you yourself like being a blasphemer, trying to rewrite god’s laws?

While I have a problem with xtianity, I have less of a problem with people who don’t make excuses or apologies for it. The xtians who admit that it says what it says, fine. those are the ones who enjoy the idea of me burning in hell anyways.

But I don’t understand, according to your very own faith, how you can waive a magical wand and claim that it isn’t what it says it is, how you can CHOOSE what it means, when it couldn’t be stated more obviously. It’s because what you’ve been told about your book, and what’s the truth about your book, are wholly different things, and in order to reconcile it you have to throw whole passages out.

THAT is the point. Sheesh.

Comment by: Rick L in TX

I thought the point of the site was to listen to and understand the perspective of people with whom we differ…not to interpret someone else’s beliefs for them and tell them that your interpretation of their faith is the only acceptable one. With the openness to listening and learning so clearly and obviously declining (if it ever was there), I think I’ll bow out.

Comment by: Stephan

Jayson, Here’s my take. You really don’t want to believe. You go out of your way to not believe. Any interpretation of the Bible that makes it harder to believe will suit you. Any argument that makes it easier to believe will be rejected. I’m sure you won’t agree with this assessment, but that is how you appear.

Comment by: Nutrideath

Jayson wrote: because it CLEARLY is talking about sin, not one particular sin.

I’d have to disagree. Below is one of your citaions actually quoted. However, I have included the preceding verse also. Read it carefully:

(Mark 3:28-29) 28 Truly I say to YOU that all things will be forgiven the sons of men, no matter what sins and blasphemies they blasphemously commit. 29 However, whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness forever, but is guilty of everlasting sin.”

So, isn’t it apparent that Jesus is specifically making a distinction? In vs 28 he mentions that “all things will be forgiven, no matter what” those sins are, but then begins vs 29 with “However…” followed by a single, specific sin which he is pointing out is the exception - that of blaspheming against the holy spirit.

Jayson, so many people pick specific passages, pluck them out of context, & try to assign meaning. Usually that results in a misunderstanding. Notice the context of the scripture above.

In verse 22 the scribes attribute the powerful works of Jesus, not to God — as they knew was their true source - but to Satan. In the following verses (23-27) Jesus reasons with the listening crowd showing that his power did not originate with Satan. He follows this up with the verses quoted above.

But especially notice verse 30, which explains why Jesus said what he did about the unforgivable sin:

(Mark 3:30) 30 This, because they were saying: “He has an unclean spirit.”

Jesus brought up the unforgivable sin because the scribes were guilty of it. They were in the audience, listening to him. They were trying desperately to discredit Jesus, even though they were well aware of who Jesus was. They had power & influence, and were willing to use it to make sure they could keep it.

Jayson, I think Stephen got it right. You want to be dogmatic about your interpretation of a particular verse, even though you haven’t bothered to understand its context. You want to say it is wrong to use context or even scriptures from elsewhere to better understand a particular passage. That’s not reasonable. “Cross-referencing” information is perfectly acceptable method of gaining better understanding — whether in the Bible or any other field of study.

Comment by: Jayson B.

(Mark 3:28-29) 28 Truly I say to YOU that all things will be forgiven the sons of men, no matter what sins and blasphemies they blasphemously commit. 29 However, whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit has no forgiveness forever, but is guilty of everlasting sin.”

So, isn’t it apparent that Jesus is specifically making a distinction? In vs 28 he mentions that “all things will be forgiven, no matter what” those sins are, but then begins vs 29 with “However…” followed by a single, specific sin which he is pointing out is the exception - that of blaspheming against the holy spirit.

Um, duh. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying. Blaspheming the holy spirit is the unforgivable sin. It’s certainly looking like you don’t have a clue what I’m talking about if you *agree* with me.

Jayson, so many people pick specific passages, pluck them out of context, & try to assign meaning.

Your right, it’s a tactic used by ministers and preachers all over the country.

Usually that results in a misunderstanding. Notice the context of the scripture above.

The context is that all sins are forgiven except for one. Since it doesn’t apply other exceptions, nor does it elaborate, it’s obvious what it means because it says just that: blaspheme the holy ghost, go to hell forever.

the child rapist who found god in jail will be waiving from heaven.

Jesus brought up the unforgivable sin because the scribes were guilty of it. They were in the audience, listening to him.

Yeah, that would constitute blasphemy of the holy spirit. I know where you’re going with this.

They were trying desperately to discredit Jesus, even though they were well aware of who Jesus was. They had power & influence, and were willing to use it to make sure they could keep it.

So, either I’m wrong about your point (that the pharisees are the ONLY ones to be capable of comitting the sin since it has to involve looking at jesus and saying his power comes from satan), or you don’t have a clue what I was arguing about.

If it’s the former, that’s ignorant. Jesus doesn’t say that blaspheming the holy spirit involves having undeniable proof of god and still denying or blaspheming him.

Let’s look at an equal situation: I witness two men murder and rape a woman on the street, holding her down with white twine and putting a bowie knife to her neck.

In their presence, I proclaim, “murder and rape is bad. You are committing both.” It’s a true statement, they are.

The next day another woman is raped and murdered by two different men. They don’t use twine, and they hold her at gun point. But their mother comes around and says “you guys didn’t commit murder or rape because you didn’t bind her with white twine and didn’t hold her with a knife.”

What’s the point? the point is that HOW the act was carried out does not define the act itself. You, and any christian who attempts to change the meaning of it, are simply saying “since you’re not a pharisee who saw jesus do miracles in front of you and you’re not proclaiming said miracles as works of satan, you can’t commit blasphemy.” You are taking HOW the pharisees committed blasphemy, and using it to define blasphemy.

If jesus meant that man wasn’t supposed to interpret obvious works of god as works of satan, HE WOULD HAVE SAID THAT. After all, he was perfect.

You’re going to make my head explode.

Jayson, I think Stephen got it right. You want to be dogmatic about your interpretation of a particular verse, even though you haven’t bothered to understand its context. You want to say it is wrong to use context or even scriptures from elsewhere to better understand a particular passage. That’s not reasonable. “Cross-referencing” information is perfectly acceptable method of gaining better understanding — whether in the Bible or any other field of study

Comment by: TXatheist

Jayson,
When you decided to leave xianity it was your choice and realization right?

Comment by: Jayson B.

Tx,

absolutely and without a doubt. I was terrified when I first left, because the thought of “my god, what if I’m wrong?” kept creeping into my mind. I was positive that the moment I stopped believing I would be empty inside.

I find it profound that the exact opposite happened.

Comment by: Ron

I have an idea,

To all atheists out there? Have there been any Christians on this site that have made any statement to cause you to doubt your atheism even a little?

To all Christians out there have there been any atheists who have made any statement to cause you to doubt your Christianity even a little?

Lets be honest and open and respectful of others vulnerability.

Comment by: Nutrideath

Jayson, one sentence is a tall order for me - sorry. I’m wordy - and evidently not very coherent. But try to calm down a bit, ok? I’m not trying to antagonize.

My point wasn’t that the scribes & Pharisees are the only ones capable of the unforgivable sin. I was just showing that right in the context of Jesus’ comment about the unforgivable sin is an example of it. You’re right - HOW it was done once doesn’t define the sin completely, but reading about an instance of it does help.

The whole reason I got into the “unforgivable sin” is related to your original point: to show that the Bible is logical. It may not seem so when you pluck a single scripture out of context. But if you dig a bit deeper, most times it becomes apparent.

People like to pick specific subjects like this one or the unreasonableness of a burning hell to try to point out “logic holes” in the Bible. But most times they’re just going by what the generally accepted views on the matter are, rather than getting it from the horse’s mouth - they never open the Bible itself.

For instance, your posts seem to reflect the version of hell depicted by Dante rather than the one found in the Bible. I know — lots of preachers speak of fire & brimstone, the lake of fire, etc. Those words are found in the Bible, but upon deeper study of those passages a person can see that they don’t really refer to the condition of the sinful dead in a literal way. (For instance, see Rev. 20:14, and think about how “hell” could be “thrown into the lake of fire.” Obviously “hell” and the “lake of fire” are symbolic, not literal. Once you understand what they are symbols of, the verse makes sense.)

You’re probably saying right now “He’s still doing it!! He’s wiggling around what the Bible plainly says!!” But taking a closer look doesn’t automatically equate to trying to wiggle around the truth, or explain away hard passages.

Lastly, you obviously know that at least some Christians (myself included) believe that all the books in the Bible are written by God (so they all have the same author). So, using different books of the Bible for cross-reference makes sense.

Comment by: Jayson B.

Jayson, one sentence is a tall order for me - sorry.

Your premise is that the bible is logical. That’s absurd, but that’s your premise.

You’re right - HOW it was done once doesn’t define the sin completely, but reading about an instance of it does help.

What’s your point? If how it was done doesn’t define it, and the pharisees are only an example and NOT a model of it, then how does this suddenly waive the fact that atheists will burn in hell and child molesters given the time can repent and be in heaven?

to show that the Bible is logical.

but you didn’t. You didn’t even make one single point, not one example, showing how it’s logical. circular logic and unplugging one hole in the dam to plug another isn’t how logic works.

It may not seem so when you pluck a single scripture out of context

.

But I didn’t, you yourself admit that I didn’t. And it’s not a single scripture out of context, the entire bible either contradicts itself or simple doesn’t make an ounce of sense. The bible, in the CONTEXT OF THE BIBLE, doesn’t make sense.

But if you dig a bit deeper, most times it becomes apparent.

What is apparent? That the bible is logical? so how is the pharisees blaspheming the holy spirit, which is what atheists do, somehow explain that the bible is logical? how does it excuse that child rapists can still go to heaven but god says atheists can’t?

Are you saying that, according to you, me denying the existance of god and mocking the holy spirit ISN’T blasphemy?

People like to pick specific subjects like this one or the unreasonableness of a burning hell to try to point out “logic holes” in the Bible. But most times they’re just going by what the generally accepted views on the matter are, rather than getting it from the horse’s mouth - they never open the Bible itself.

You don’t have a clue about atheists then. Every atheist that I know has intimate knowledge of christianity, myself included. Heck, studying the bible is what CAUSED me to become an atheist. I couldn’t accept what i was reading as the word of a higher power.

For instance, your posts seem to reflect the version of hell depicted by Dante rather than the one found in the Bible.

You don’t get it. I use that as allegory. Hell is punishment though, period. God wants to see me punished for denying his existance. But he’ll save a child rapist. They’re just misguided in his book.

Lastly, you obviously know that at least some Christians (myself included) believe that all the books in the Bible are written by God (so they all have the same author). So, using different books of the Bible for cross-reference makes sense.

it still doesn’t make sense if there’s no reference to cross! For the LAST time, the hebrew quote doesn’t address unpardonable sin, AT ALL. Nada. Nilch. No way. You can’t cross reference if two things don’t reference the same subject!

Comment by: TXatheist

Ron,
I respect John Spong for trying to bring xianity into the 21st century. I see Bruce as a guy who does that on this blog. I think the rest of the xians are no where close to that.
Respectfully,
TXatheist

Comment by: Jayson B.

I apologize. I’m done arguing with nutrideath, and I should have seen it coming from a mile away. Everything here started as a friendly debate, and in the past week or so it’s changed drastically, and I have fed in to that change.

Comment by: Siamang

Ir wrote:

As I recall, although I’ve never been in AA, AA addresses such things quite well with concepts such as taking a moral inventory, making restitution, etc.

Within a theist framework, I remind you.

Here are the twelve steps of AA

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol; that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

AA recognizes, absolutely the importance of remaking oneself.

Anyway, an interesting issue on an aspect of forgiveness.

Comment by: Tom in Sacramento

Siamang, RE:#152, I think you’re onto something there. And I think there is a reason for that.

Tom in Sacramento

Comment by: Bruce Lofland

Ir, I really liked the analogy you gave way back in post #115. It helps me better understand where you are coming from.

Comment by: TXatheist

Tom,
yes, I’ve heard several atheists say that aa is too religious for them. Belief in a higher power is part of the recovery and many atheists very well could have a problem with that.

Comment by: TXatheist

Siamang,
There is an issue of legality in TX. One of my friends says the way to get around the TX constitution is to say you believe in being supreme. You see, the TX Constitution states one must acknowledge a supreme being to be sworn into office for state officials of elections. Do I think it’s a violation of the US Constitution? Uh, yep but at least I can wiggle around it though I find it ridiculous to have to do that.

Comment by: Texan

Ir,
Well at long last I am replying to your answer to me (way back up there in the 120’s I think?) Sorry it’s taken so long, I’ve really been eager to reply, I’ve just had some things going on this week. Anyways, you had a very good example of an elaboration of a relationship that started good but went bad.
You asked at the end, “Does that help you at all see why I am not rushing back into God’s arms, as it were?”
Coming from the prospective of your example, I can certainly understand why you wouldn’t want to rush back in.
However, let me present this: People can and do change over time, God doesn’t–he’s not human. Sometimes people change for the good, sometimes for the bad,as would be the case of the cheating, alcoholic husband. That is an intrinsic risk to having relationships with people–that possibility for change. I don’t think that anyone can really predict what someone will do in 15 years, it’s too far off. So I don’t think the person on the receiving end of the bad behavior should be saying “Shouda woulda coulda” and regretting things.
Here’s the thing that is very hard for humans to get (because of our nature): God doesn’t change. It may appear that he changes, but we are the ones changing and growing, not him. He shows us new aspects of himself that we may not have been aware of before, but that new aspect did not manifest itself from something else in his character. It was always there.
So I can understand that the wife of a cheating, alcoholic husband would be reluctant to rush back to him, because he is unreliable at best. However, God does not possess this human trait of “change or unreliability.”
If I understand you right, do you feel maybe cheated or misled by this God you believed in?

As always, the thoughts and conversation are great.

Comment by: Ir

Hi Texan,

I understand what you’re saying about how people change, but [as you believe] God doesn’t.

But in my analogy, the husband didn’t actually change. The wife just didn’t see who he really was for a long time. She had a picture in her head of who she wanted him to be and hoped he was and she held onto that for as long as she could before she was forced to face the reality of who he actually was.

If I understand you right, do you feel maybe cheated or misled by this God you believed in?

Not exactly…it’s more like, I had an idea of God for a long time, who I wanted God to be and hoped God was, but one day I became unsure that that God actually existed. In the analogy the wife became sure due to incontrovertible evidence that the picture of her husband she had in her head was wrong. I’m not willing to state my own situation that strongly with respect to God.

For me it’s more like, I had this realization: “I’m not sure I can relate to a God who can still live with himself after letting all those people go to hell”. Did you read my poem God of my Dreams? That’s what I wanted God to be like; and if you read it carefully you’ll see that the God of my dreams didn’t send anyone to hell forever. Which means that the God of my dreams was not the God I was taught was the God of the Bible.

Comment by: Ir

Thanks for the response, Texan.

Why can’t hell be a nice place, just one without God?

Comment by: Stephan

Ir, mixing the pot a bit. Maybe be whole point of Christians being better than non-Christians is misdirected. Maybe the right question is: Are Christians better than they would have been had they not been Christians. Unfortunately it’s not a question we can ever answer. Sure, there are Christians who are awful people, but maybe they would have been far more awful had they not been Christians. Yes, there are non-Christians who are good people, but maybe they would be much better if they were Christians.

I can’t say I have the answers to these, but I think they are intriguing, and maybe more appropriate, questions.

Comment by: Ir

Perhaps for the people who are there, it will seem nice because they chose to be there. If a person lives their life not wanting anything to do with a God and God gives them what they want—eternal life without him- perhaps they’ll like it.

Thanks for your response, Texan. The descriptions of hell in the Bible talk about weeping and gnashing of teeth and torment and fire so it’s hard for me to think that the people who go there might like it. Here’s one reference to it (I think):

Matt 13:41-43 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

I don’t think Jesus would have said there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth there if anyone liked it.

Comment by: Ir

Stephan wrote: Ir, mixing the pot a bit. Maybe be whole point of Christians being better than non-Christians is misdirected. Maybe the right question is: Are Christians better than they would have been had they not been Christians. Unfortunately it’s not a question we can ever answer. Sure, there are Christians who are awful people, but maybe they would have been far more awful had they not been Christians. Yes, there are non-Christians who are good people, but maybe they would be much better if they were Christians.

Thanks for your comments, Stephan. I’m pretty sure I read that argument in one of C.S. Lewis’s books, actually.

Here’s the problem I have with this line of argument: the Bible says that the Holy Spirit conforms people to the image of Christ. That’s the same goal for each person - so I would say, based on that, it is reasonable to compare people with each other.

The Bible simply doesn’t say anywhere that what the Spirit conforms each person to is different depending where they started.

Moreover, if the work of the Holy Spirit is relative to starting places, consider a given not-so-good Christian who is worked on a lot by the Spirit and then dies before he/she reaches the ‘goodness’ level of a given atheist. Doesn’t that imply that that atheist doesn’t need the work of the Spirit at all? (In this life, at least?)

I can’t say I have the answers to these, but I think they are intriguing, and maybe more appropriate, questions.

I agree that they’re intriguing questions. I would say they are different from mine; I wouldn’t say they are necessarily more appropriate. :)

Comment by: TXatheist

Stephan,
I do not need the Holy spirit. I would be worse if I was a xian, imo.

Comment by: Texan

TXAtheist,
I have a question.
You said:

I personally think one of the problems of xianity is that you can be forgiven for your sins. To me it’s a cheesy out for your transgressions.

What would you like to see instead of forgiveness? Accountability?

Comment by: TXatheist

Texan,
Yes. I think the idea that you are forgiven allows a mindset that you can put a transgression behind you too easily. If you take the Lord’s name in vain(pick any sin if you want) then you must acknowledge you made a mistake and learn from that mistake. It’s ok to make mistakes but you can’t have a clear conscience now, just a mindset that you made an error and will try to avoid it in the future. Begging/praying for forgiveness might clear your conscience but working on the error going forward is a better idea than hoping you are forgiven for the mistake, imo.

Comment by: Ir

Stephan, how about approaching this from another angle?

You believe the Holy Spirit is real and in the process of making Christians better. Can you tell me some improvements the Holy Spirit can bring about that can’t be brought about by other means/that an atheist can’t bring about by other means? That might help me believe in the Holy Spirit.

Because at present I can’t say for sure that the ‘improvements’ I see are attributable to the Holy Spirit rather than something else.

Comment by: Texan

Ir,

I don’t think you’re evil.

I think that the reason they may feel regret is because they finally see God and who he is….and they see goodness….something they won’t have a part in and it makes them sad. Sometimes when we get what we want we realize after getting it that it wasn’t so great after all.

Comment by: Stephan

TX, I believe you would be capable of using the Holy Spirit’s power, but have chosen not to do so. I believe it is possible to numb that part of your spirit that can listen to God. I have tried to make that part more sensitive, and that, too, I think is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Comment by: TXatheist

Stephan,
I do not believe in the Holy Spirit and therefore it can’t work through me. I don’t believe the holy spirit works through you but you believe in it and therefore give it credit for such things. We can agree to disagree.

Comment by: Texan

I agree. If someone is forgiven but are not repentant, I’m not sure I see any good from it….but I’ll have to think more on that subject. Perhaps it would just lead to spoiled behavior. Y’know, like kids who know they can get away with murder because they said “sorry” with an impish grin.

Well, if there is no forgiveness though there is repentance, why try to change behavior? For the sake of doing right? Well…..I don’t know. If we act soley for a reward, our motives are not on target. However, if we never are released from the offense with someting positive (forgiveness), we get beat down.

So let me see if I understand. If I was to screw something up and hurt someone, as I can do, if I make it right and change my behavior and there is no forgiveness from my misdeed I fear I will be in prepetual guilt, never free from the thing I’ve done wrong….though I am repentant from it and have turned from my ways.

It’d be flat out discouraging. I’ve worked in a place like that before.
When I was new, I screwed things up a couple of times but then fixed my behavior and got better at my job. The thing was, my supervisor wouldn’t forget the things I’d done wrong, though they were little things not to be remembered that happened a long time ago. He had me feeling like I was the most incompetant, stupid human ever because he wouldn’t let go of my offenses. I had serious self-esteem problems and cried a lot. I hated my job. (Why not quit? well, that’s a different story…..)

The thing is, everyone needs to be released the burden of the offense at some point. To look forward to something better.

Someone once said, I wish I could remember who, that we die slowly and painfully without encouragement. We need it, thrive on it. Forgiveness encourages us to continue down the right path. It’s reassurance when we tremble in our blame.

So I think the two go hand in hand. Repentance, a turning from bad ways, is needed. Forgiveness without repentance will not produce a change, only perhaps - spoiled behavior. Repentance without forgiveness is discouraging and guilt-ridden at best.

I think the two go together “jus’ like peas n carrots.” :-)

Who doesn’t love Tom Hanks?

Comment by: Texan

yeah, it’s much ado about nothing, imo.
But some people think Hollywood is based in reality……sheesh.

:-P

Comment by: Ir

Stephan wrote: Ir, I think it’s a very blurry line. What one person might see as purely natural and coincidental, a Christian might see as the work of the Holy Spirit. What one person might call a conscience, a Christian might attribute to the Holy Spirit. I believe God can (and most often, does) use natural means to bring about His will.

Hmmm…couldn’t you have been more dogmatic so I could have argued with you? What’s to argue with in that? :)

Re: what else you wrote - thanks for sharing some of your personal experience of God’s work in your life, Stephan.

Comment by: Love is the most excellent way · My Story: The Questions Which Didn’t Have The Right Answer

[...] I had the opportunity to discuss this question in the Off The Map Ebay Atheist Blog entry Ex-Christian says Christian No Better than Atheists (thanks, Jim, for highlighting my question by making it a blog entry of its own!) I post as “Ir” on Off The Map. [...]