Interesting Evidence?
I was reading an interesting article by historian Paul Maier today (HT: Between Two Worlds) where Maier is using a wide variety of historical data to to try to come up with an actual date of Jesus' nativity.
During the course of the article, Maier reminds us that historians are able to convincingly pinpoint the date of the crucifixion: Friday, April 3, AD 33.
Later, as the esteemed professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University was providing the evidence for the above date, he shared a fascinating nugget I had not seen before. He references Luke's comment in chapter 23, verse 44-45a where as Jesus died the following happened:
“It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, for the sun stopped shining.”
And then Maier shares this:
Phlegon, a Greek from Caria writing a chronology soon after AD 137, reported that in the fourth year of the 202d Olympiad there was “the greatest eclipse of the sun” and that “it became night in the sixth hour of the day [i.e., noon] so that the stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea.” How intriguing that Year 4 of the 202d Olympiad should be AD 33!
It is a shame that Phlegon didn't give us the exact day of these events that year. It would have been interesting to see people's reactions to that. Although, I suspect in the end, those who reject the existing evidence would continue to do so.
I suspect in these matters when one rejects Christ, it is not on the basis of evidence, but rather on the basis of the will. I recently had a co-worker say to me: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I asked: “How extraordinary? Would a video be enough? If you had a time machine and send video equipment to record the site of the tomb on Sunday, April 5, AD 33, would that be adequate evidence? If you had a video of Jesus walking out of the tomb, would that be enough?”
It took a minute, but the answer was a resounding “no.” A variety of additional qualifications would have to be met. Was it really him or an imposter? Is it possible that the recording could be faked? Etc. etc.
What would be adequate?
***
My coworker held to a position which suggests that Christianity promotes some kind of “club” system where there are two groups of people. He described a theology of those on the inside and those on the outside of the club. I do agree that a superficial involvement in some circles found in Christianity might cause one to think that, but an in-depth study will show that this idea is not found in the Scriptures.
Instead, Christianity is a worldview where Jesus provides an explanation for the reality we live in and He provides an answer to it. Groups? Clubs? People seem to like these types of organizations, but that isn't what Jesus is interested in. Jesus is interested in life and death.
***
When my wife (of nearly 13 years as I write this) and I met, there was an instant chemistry. We fell in love almost immediately and had a short eight month courtship before we married. During this courtship, the key to our relationship was trust. She was the first person I ever trusted with my whole entire being, and for her it was the same way. Only weeks into our relationship we both knew we were going to be together forever.
This type of a relationship is not a superficial “in or out” concept. And, I submit to you that our marriage (which I view to be unspeakably rich) is but a primitive and shallow relationship compared to the one Christ seeks to have with us. He loves us and desires for us to trust Him. He did inform us that there would be those who do not wish to participate in this relationship, but that is their option.
Importantly, the value of a person doesn't change when this rejection happens. Christ has shown us that He will continue to pursue that individual until their final breath. He has shown us that His Love and Grace has absolutely no relationship to our desires or efforts. But, in then end He will invite all people to come home with Him. John writes in chapter 20 of his gospel:
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
posted by Mark Hunsaker on Friday, February 29, 2008
12 Comments:
I don't want to make a big deal of it, but I just have a couple of rhetorical questions this comment raises:
"Christ has shown us that He will continue to pursue that individual until their final breath."
1. If God is all-knowing and knows all from beginning of time to the end, as some scriptures state, then why the pursuit? Doesn't he already know how things are going to turn out?
2. Why is it until death ("final breath")? Why does God stop caring once we die? If we have a soul that exists for eternity, why does God only care about what we do for these 1 to 100 years on Earth? Why is he compelled to make his final decision upon our death and "is forced" to condemn us for the 1 X 10 ^infinity remaining years of existence?
3. If he IS forced, and his hands are tied, and he's powerless to do anything else but condemn us for eternity, (or, strip us of our Greatest Gift of free will and relegate us to heaven,) what's the point of the eternal condemnation? Does he expect our everlasting soul to LEARN something from the eternal condemnation? Why not just blot us out of existence? Does he get pleasure from the eternal suffering he inflicts upon those of us he pursues for 1 to 100 years and then gives up on?
I think this is a sample of the reason why extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We're not talking about the existence of one fellow 2000 years ago. If all you were claiming was a man named Joe Smith existed 2000 years ago, a few references in a couple of old books would be enough proof.
You're making a claim that arguably is the most important claim that can ever be made in the existence of everything: God, God's "son," existence of heaven and hell, sin, salvation, supernaturalism that underlies all of existence.
THAT's the claim that requires extraordinary proof, not whether a man named Jesus existed.
And for that big claim, something a LOT more is needed than evidence from historical documents from an age rife with religions and superstitions.
(And personal experience, as, a stroll through a psyche ward is ample proof that personal experience is not proof of anything except its subjectivity.)
I'd just think if God really existed, and really loved us, and really wanted us to believe, he'd have picked a better way to prove it than through man-written scrolls penned during the Bronze Age. but that's just me, and I don't have the intelligence and wisdom it must take to create all of existence. *shrug*
Mechphisto,
Thank you for posting! I pray this response finds you and your family well.
I see that you are suggesting your questions are rhetorical, but I would like to at least offer some thoughts in response. As usual, your questions are excellent and worthy of good conversation.
1. Your question about pursuit is an interesting one. If God is truly all-knowing and all-powerful then it shouldn’t be a matter of trying, but rather one of doing (I get the feeling that somewhere, far far away, Master Yoda would be proud).
On one hand, I would readily agree with you. The word “pursuit” would be more of an anthropomorphism (meaning that we are using human language to describe something beyond us in terms we understand). So while we might perceive the idea of pursuit, for God it would merely that he does not withhold his Grace at any point, knowing the precise time we would respond.
But on the other hand, there is indeed an aspect of active pursuit within God’s character. I admit that there is mystery here, but in simple terms I think it is a matter of “both / and” playing to us in the form of a healthy tension. I think of Christ’s parable of the Good Shepherd where he describes the picture of the Shepherd leaving the 99 sheep to go look for the 100. This is a rich theological topic to be studied.
2. Ah, God certainly does not stop caring for us when we die! However, the Scriptures teach us that God’s ultimate goal is to create a place where we would willingly live in unison with Him. The life we live here is our opportunity to learn about His plan of redemption and have the freedom to reject Him. His wooing lasts until our last breath because of His great love and mercy, His intense desire to have us know Him as He knows us.
We believe that God is holy and righteous. That means He is “set apart” and that He is just and good. I’m convinced that when we describe something as good, we are using Him as a reference, whether we realize that or not. So your suggestion that He “is forced” into action is a type of category mistake. That is like saying that the color blue is forced to be blue. No, it merely is blue. That is the nature, the essence of blue.
When people reject God, they do so because they reject holiness and righteousness.
Please be careful to understand, however, that Orthodox Christians do not make the claim that they are more righteous or holy than anyone else. Instead, we teach that Christ makes us righteous when we have active faith (something that HE gives us).
We further teach that all people reject holiness and righteousness. It is Christ’s act of love and grace that imparts holiness and righteousness to us.
3. The point of eternal condemnation is to give the people who reject Christ’s gift exactly what they want (and what we all deserve): eternal separation from God.
Why not blot people out of existence? Another category mistake, I would submit to you. Why can’t He make a square circle or a married bachelor? These are logical contradictions and so is annihilation. It is unjust, and that is not possible for a just God.
I’m convinced God will only experience pain because of eternal condemnation.
***
Liam, I would challenge you to bring your final statement to God Himself. Honestly. Seriously. Take five minutes, set your disbelief aside and ask Him honestly to show you the evidence you need. If you are sincere, and really want to see, I testify to you that He will give you what you need.
I believe His promises not just because of the historical evidence, not just because of the content of the message.
I believe His promises because He has KEPT them.
Take care,
Mark
(Darn it, this is what happens when you avoid commenting for months. A thesis post. Well, don't worry--I got this out of my system, I won't spew all over your blog again. For quite some time again, at least, anyway.)
"The life we live here is our opportunity to learn about His plan of redemption and have the freedom to reject Him. His wooing lasts until our last breath because of His great love and mercy, His intense desire to have us know Him as He knows us."
Here's the problem I have with that: There would be no need for a Plan of Redemption if there were nothing to redeem us for. Why do we supposedly need redemption? Because of sin, original or otherwise. Why does this "sin" exist? Because God supposedly created us into a world "of sin." A world he created, with conditions he created. Unless you want to argue that God was powerless in the creation of the world, its conditions, "human nature," perdition, pain and suffering, etc. So his "gift" of allowing us to know his Plan is rather absurd, when you consider he created us in the firt place to be prone to sin and temptation and then put us in a world that would play VERY heavily toward these weaknesses. Rather unfair, don't you think? I'm looking at this argument, and I'm not thinking your God is very magnanimous or merciful.
"Here, children. Take this razor blade and do what you will with it. Go play with it in that tilting room full of sharp edges. Play with it however you like! You have complete freedom to do so. But only so long as you do so according to my rules.
Now, if you fail and get cut, or you cut someone else, don't blame me! This is a gift I've given you.
But don't worry, I offer a plan for you to be forgiven for using my gift incorrectly! If you don't accept my plan, though, I'll make you suffer. (Think of it as a second Gift!) And to make this more fun, because I love you SO much, I'm going to make my forgiveness available to only a few of you who are lucky enough to hear of my plan! Because I love you all! And I'm going to make it so that there is SO MUCH confusion and uncertainty and doubt about the existence of my Plan, that for most of you, you'll find the wrong Plan or think it's completely reasonable that there's no Plan at all!
Because I love you, SO MUCH! Worship my love and mercy.
Now, enjoy your gift of your own razor blade in a room full of other children with razor blades!"
Excuse me if I don't find your idea of God's "freedom" and mercy very compelling.
Especially when this whole Jesus' death-for-our-sins thing as a path to forgiveness is also absurd, and not a little morbid, masochistic, and sadistic. Especially when God could come up with any manner of paths for our redemption that don't feel like some ancient blood-lust myth borne of a primitive Middle Eastern cult. I mean, this is a god who created all the universe and is supposed to be more wise, intelligent, creative, than we can possibly comprehend...and this is the best he can do for a path to forgiveness? (Don't forget, for actions he made us capable of in the first place, in an existence prone to sin and suffering that he created.)
"We believe that God is holy and righteous. That means He is “set apart” and that He is just and good. I’m convinced that when we describe something as good, we are using Him as a reference, whether we realize that or not. So your suggestion that He “is forced” into action is a type of category mistake. That is like saying that the color blue is forced to be blue. No, it merely is blue. That is the nature, the essence of blue.
When people reject God, they do so because they reject holiness and righteousness."
Hmm, I have an entire Old Testament of actions performed by God and his followers that we would today consider horribly immoral and unjust and revolting. If this god is the perfect reference for what is good and righteous, then I better go start advocating for slavery, murder, genocide, rape, selling daughters, offering family members up for rape and murder, killing innocents, stealing women from the unrighteous if they're virgin, discriminating against those with deformities, racism, etc ad nauseum. The NT god is marginally better as far as his actions and those of his followers go, but he's still a reference and example for discrimination, slavery, pride and arrogance, irrational hatred and wrath, hating one's family, and insulting other people. Great role model.
When people say they should act godly, or use God as an example, or do what Jesus would do, I find their examples of behavior to model is VERY selective!
"The point of eternal condemnation is to give the people who reject Christ’s gift exactly what they want (and what we all deserve): eternal separation from God.
Why not blot people out of existence? Another category mistake, I would submit to you. Why can’t He make a square circle or a married bachelor? These are logical contradictions and so is annihilation. It is unjust, and that is not possible for a just God."
I see. The argument of rapists and perpetrators of all kinds of mystic healers and psychics. It's never the fault of the rapist or the psychic, it's always the fault of the victim. The victim was asking for it. Or the person who still got sick despite the laying on hands, or application of crystals, or the chanting of incantations--didn't believe enough, or have enough faith.
In this case, evidently God loves us so much, he'll make us capable of sin, put us in a place filled to brimming with sin and suffering, and make the universe act exactly how it should act if there were no god--and then when we come to sin and not be guilty enough about it, are exposed to the wrong religion as we grew up, or examine the evidence he's crafted for us and decide there is no god, he loves us enough to give up on us, because that's what WE want.
Nice bit of rationalizing.
This might work for the father of a miscreant, drug saturated, incurably delinquent child, because the human father can't literally change the human child.
But you believe in a god that can harden and soften hearts. Can alter the rigid and clockwork precision of the physics he created in order to allow miracles to happen. Can, well let's not put too fine a point on it--created an entire bloody universe from nothing! But this god also has so much mercy that he'll give up on us believing in him, when he put us in a world that makes it nearly impossible to believe in him?
See, if your omnipotent and omniscient god existed, and can see my mind and my heart, he would see that for half my life I believed in him, until the evidence became too great. The evidence found in his creation is too compelling to disregard, and has led me to see no other reasonable and logical conclusion than his non-existence, using this little brain he gave me to think and reason with.
But in his infinite wisdom and love and mercy, he's going judge what he does to my infinite soul based on this worldly conclusion?
See, that's a god of myth and humanism (ironic, no?)
If god can create universes with laws of relativity and quantum physics, and cosmic background radiation and star birthing super novae, I think he's capable of making a square circle and the color blue into orange. Why is he not capable of contradictions? His only documented proof of his existence is filled with them?
And finally:
"I would challenge you to bring your final statement to God Himself. Honestly. Seriously. Take five minutes, set your disbelief aside and ask Him honestly to show you the evidence you need. If you are sincere, and really want to see, I testify to you that He will give you what you need."
You do realize that this is like asking me to sincerely pray to Zeus for evidence of his existence, right? "Mark, I know you don't believe in Odin. But I would ask you to sincerely pray to him and ask him for guidance."
Someone once said, "Once you understand why it is you (as a Christian) are an atheist in regards to the 2,499 other gods humans have created, you'll understand why it is I'm an atheist regarding one more." Or something like that.
You're also assuming that I've not already done this.
I didn't wake up one day and decide I was an atheist. It was a LONG and angst-filled process. I was an ardent believer from age 0 to 18. I proselytized, evangelized, spread the Good News. Then when I entered that terrible world of college and encountered the terrible idea that my beliefs weren't the only ones that people believed in with all their sincere heart, I became a liberal Christian after years of praying and study.
And I was a praying Christian with a belief in a (liberal) personal God for many years. Until the evidence of his non-existence started to not be so easily dismissed. And oh how I prayed! Daily, for guidance and understanding.
And of course I would find evidence! Coincidently appropriate scripture would come to my attention. Events would occur that I was sure was providence. But those eventually begun to look like the coincidences, and cognitive biases (e.g. "confirmation bias" and "remembering the hits") that they were as the reasonable and logical evidence on non-existence grew. And it was extremely painful for me to contemplate the years of self-delusion this must mean, and the wretched disappointment this would be to my wife if I pursued this path--so I prayed fervently for guidance many, many times.
Until finally, I realized I was praying to a god that wasn't there. But I didn't give up on him! I simply decided god must be the god of our country's Founding Fathers, and must be the god of Deism. There, but uninvolved. Set things in motion. Well, long story short, that out was no longer good enough. And while much of the phrasing I've used in this reply assumes an existence, I do so out of illustration, not belief. It sounds like I'm angry at god or something--that comes from being assertive in my argument; you can't be angry at something you don't believe exists.
So, you're rationalization, coming from an a priori belief in the existence of a personal god, must be that _I'M_ at fault for not having him in my heart to begin with. Me and countless other former believers, including many many priests and pastors and preachers as well, because the implications of what it must mean if it ISN'T our fault, is too much for you to contemplate. You have to assume that "God is giving me what I want in my heart" because the alternative is anathema to you. Either of the alternatives: that god doesn't exist, or if he does, he's fickle and cruel or utterly uncaring.
Here's a poser: assuming god exists, and he really is as loving and merciful as you say, wouldn't it be cruel to base our eternity on these scant short mortal years filled with conflicting messages and godless temptations and strife and suffering? Wouldn't a merciful god that really loved us, upon death and the release of our soul, fill us with True Knowledge? He wouldn't even have to change our hearts or minds, just imbue us with True Knowledge. If it existed, even the worst person would be compelled to believe and break down and ask for forgiveness and desire his love, no? Then god can have a heaven filled with ALL his "children" and no one would have to be turned away or damned or whatever the current anti-heaven belief is. He wouldn't have to feel the pain you think he'd feel, and all his children could bask in his mercy and glory, and heaven would truly be heaven, no?
So, why the unfair crucible of this world followed by judgment upon death?
Or is it that anthropological drive we humans have to believe that only those of us like us will receive Good Things and those people unlike us or not part of our tribe or who do Bad Things against us, will not receive the blessings of the god we worship?
Liam,
You've shared a great deal here that I would like to chew on and digest slowly. But rest assured, I like your thesis posts! :-)
I'm thinking of sharing a great article by William Lane Craig that could provide additional explanation regarding my position.
But before I do that, I need to spend more time with your words, which I value.
Take care,
Mark
Liam,
After chewing on your thoughts some more, I finally have to ask this question: How do you define grace?
Well, ask me 20, 10, even 5 years ago, I would have told you "grace" the noun is a state of communion with God. To be filled with the Spirit, and given the courage and conviction of your faith.
"Grace" the verb is what God does to imbue one with the Spirit, forgiving of sin, and providing the joy of Salvation.
I no longer believe any of that, but that's how I WOULD have defined it at one time.
Now, I define "grace" as a condition or way of being which is marked with elegance and/or a natural ease with one's surroundings, conditions, environment. To act with grace; to show tact and skill.
Oh, and I have no clue where you're going to go with this, and how you're going to base your response from my answer...just keep in mind that asking me to define my meaning of "grace" is like asking me to define what Santa Claus means to me, or Demeter's sacrifice to Hades and the resulting seasons means to me.
No worries, in terms of grace, I'm not going to talk about nouns, only verbs.
My definition for grace (within the context of our discussion) is:
To love, sustain, care for and provide for one who does not deserve such.
An example of this would be when my wife forgives me for hurting her. She has no necessary moral obligation to forgive me, I did the crime and deserve to do the time, and yet she forgives me.
I'm guessing that as a married man, you too have experienced such grace.
So in the end, getting back to the context of our discussion, none of your caricatures of God line up with what Christianity proclaims, because we believe, teach and confess that God exhibits grace.
All of your questions presuppose that God (as Christianity proclaims Him to be) is evil.
Why?
"To love, sustain, care for and provide for one who does not deserve such."
Yes, I have fortunately been the beneficiary of this behavior, and I hope I have given it myself.
This is a fine definition. Rather, a fine behavior that has been categorized and given a word to describe it by some people. And it's tangential to the topic. All you need to do is glance through the Oxford English Dictionary to see how the words to give things change radically over time (did you know "harlot" once meant "foolish boy"?) and from region to region.
Back on topic...
"none of your caricatures of God line up with what Christianity proclaims, because we believe, teach and confess that God exhibits grace"
Really? That's not what Fred Phelps would say. Or Jerry Farwell. Or the people who advocated slavery 150 years ago, or segregation 50 years ago. Not what the KKK advocates or other white supremacists. Or the people who burned innocent girls as witches. Or the Inquisitioner. Did I mention Fred Phelps?
My point is this: these people are Christians as well because they claim to be Christians and follow the word of Jesus. Because they don't match up with your ideas of Christianity doesn't make them any less Christian--because all your ideas can be found in the Bible, but so can all theirs!
The Bible is a perfect example of literary schizophrenia. Some of the best examples of love and sacrifice and beauty, and examples of horrendous hatred, intolerance, cruelty, pain and suffering.
Every Christian subjectively selects the lessons they want to pay attention to based on their own personal biases and beliefs of what they think God wants and represents.
You ask me why I think God is "evil," which is silly. Evil is a word we give to what we consider to be cruel and inhuman, mean and vicious. Id this not the scriptural God?
Biblical examples:
God floods the earth killing all but a few men, women, children, including the innocent unborn. As well as nearly every living animal which did nothing but have the bad luck of being born at that time.
This is justified by the world being "wicked", but you have to ask yourself...did God not see this coming in his omniscience?
Instead of changing Ramses heart, or creating a positive miracle that shows glory and awe (such as, I dunno, I'm just an ignorant human, maybe the moon zooming up 4 times in size and opening a mouth like a giant Pac-Man and saying in a booming voice "Ramses! You're a jerk!"), he instead kills innocent children to make his point.
He sends Samson to basically suicide bomb the enemy's palace.
His one and only example of righteous man, Lot, offers his virgin daughters up to a mod that he knows would surely rape them literally to death, and he's not condemned for this offer.
He gave Moses rules that include selling your daughter to her rapist. Killing a woman for not being heard if raped in town. Chopping off a woman's hand if she touched a man's naughty bits. Considering a woman unclean, untouchable, during menstruation. Provides instructions for when to kill your children for disobedience. Advocates and gives rules for proper slavery. Prevents cripples and and the castrated from entering temple to worship, or those of different races. Commands Abraham to kill his son (regardless of if God meant it or not). Allowed The Adversary to torture and destroy Job. Turned Lot's wife to salt. Cursed one of Moses' grandsons (or nephew?) and his entire family line for disobeying. Same with Onan. Rewards the tribe of Dan for slaughtering an entire town of innocent, unarmed people because they had better land to take. Various examples of genocide. Advocates the stealing of virginal girls from a town to give to the Hebrew priests to keep (but it's OK, because they also destroyed that town.) Jesus constantly berates and insults his followers. He curses a tree for nothing other than not having fruit. He's often surly and impatient and mean. He disowns his own family as worthless. He advocates self-punishment and cruelty. He advocates war (whether figurative or literal) between family members.
And this is just a barest tiny fraction of the acts by God, instructed by God, endorsed by God, or condoned by God.
You can justify these things how you like, and you will. Apologists have for centuries. You can inject various personal interpretations that reflect your liberal, kind, loving personal nature to explain away such horrible cruelty by this deity that's supposed to be the example of perfect love, mercy, grace, and morality. (Perfect example of do as I say, not as I do.) But the fact of it is it's all there in the book (scrolls, tablets, epistles....)
But that's just the pedantic begenning. Then there's the whole underlying cruelty, contradiction, and injustice that the entire faith of Christianity rests on:
God, being omniscient and omnipotent, capable of creating any possible universe he would want, with any kind of reality he could possibly wish for, beyond our comprehension (if we can possibly imagine it, God is presumedly capable of creating it--unless he's NOT all-powerful,) creates a universe that is deadly to humans, and we're just a speck in it.
Creates a planet deadly to humans in so many ways.
A planet that is filled with perdition and animal eat animal. Literally. One filled with disease and virus and bacteria.
You know what Ebola does? It literally causes you to bleed to death from every pore and orifice. Nice.
There's a virus that kills you by contracting the muscles in your back so hard that you literally fold backwards, cracking your spine.
Nature doesn't give one care who it kills, from a Hitler to an innocent child. And this is the world God created for us?
You can, and will, justify this by "sin". Somehow, man's sin created this world.
This argument completely ignores the fact that you also believe God is all-powerful and all-knowing. You have to address the idea that God KNEW this world happen. Ergo, he either knowingly and willfully allowed it to happen which is no different than creating it in the first place, or he didn't see it coming which makes him not unknowing and not very smart or wise, or he has no power to prevent it. If he IS all-knowing AND all-powerful, he must not care.
You may argue, he's teaching humanity a lesson--being cruel to be merciful. (Like that's not psychotic.) Sometimes we have to let our children make mistakes so they learn from them, right? Sure!
But here's the proper analogy:
Would you take your children, knowingly and willfully put them at the mouth of a hungry lion's den, at the edge of a cliff, in order to teach them a lesson?
What lesson is the 10 year old with leukemia learning? Dying slowly and painfully as if being cosmically tortured?
And this is just nature. Let's not forget man's cruelty to man. We're capable of the worst horrors we can possibly inflict upon each other.
And the question remains: Did God not see this coming?
If you believe in the garden of Eden story, God's an idiot or he's a deceptive and manipulative bastard. He's omnipotent, but he has some need for a physical Tree of Knowledge???
If so, if he were smart, and REALLY wanted his humans to be ignorant, he'd have placed it on another planet. But the fact he placed it in the Garden, and pointed it out to the humans, shows either he's careless or intended his humans to eat from it.
Which is it?
If he's omniscient, he knew they would, which is exactly the same as if he gave then knowledge (and sin) directly.
Or else, he's not omniscient. Which is it?
Even if the Eden story is allegory and figurative (which, ironically, most Jews believe to be the case,) the problem still exists: God created humans to be capable of the worst evils, or he willingly allowed it to happen, or he had no clue it would happen, or is powerless to stop it from happening.
Which is it?
In almost every answer, God is responsible and culpable for what we humans are and do to each other.
Again, you may argue that the sin we're capable of is to teach us a lesson. What's the lesson that we're to learn that can't be taught to us in some way that doesn't require child molestation and abuse? Rape on innocent people as a war tactic? Kidnapping and torture? Murder (serial, mass, or random?)
Let me ask you, Mark, have you gone through tough times? Sure you have. Gone through periods of material near-poverty, emotional pain, maybe even some physical trials? Probably. Periods of doubt and angst? Sure. And you seem to have come through it a better person, wouldn't you say? Learned your lessons? Grew in your faith?
Now, ask yourself, why can't your level of pain and suffering be the worst we have to suffer to come to God? Hmm? Surely it was enough for you, your family. God his his faithful follower, you have grace, his kingdom is made happier, whatever. And let's face it--you really haven't suffered that much.
Why does God find it necessary then to have a world of horrors he's created (or allowed to happen)? Why does he find it necessary to have humans capable of acts of cruelty you can't even imagine or comprehend?
Seriously.
This is a God that's so powerful, he exists outside the universe and can create reality, and break reality in order for miracles to happen. Is he not capable of creating a world without carnivores? Without disease?
A human without the ability to murder his own species? Without the ability to rape, or with the inability to perceive the act as being cruel, or some other concept we with our teeny tiny minds can imagine? Surely if we can imagine it, God could have made it happen, no?
Now, let's say he's powerless to stop what he's started, didn't expect to go this way. So, some thousands of years after his creation has gone this way, he decides "You know, I guess I should come up with some idea of salvation."
Oh, but not worldly salvation, mind you, but evidently our human pain isn't enough. Our souls, which he created and we have no say in its nature, have an afterlife he's in control of.
And evidently he's set up some rule for himself that when our body dies, he has to find some destination for this soul. Paradise with him, or eternal torment (or annihilation (depending on your interpretation of the only instruction manual we have--that Bronze Age book written in a time and place rife with superstition and multi-cultural myths.)
So he decides our soul (but not our human lives) are so important, that instead of upon death saying "Hey, hid, I know you went through pain and suffering, had bad things happen to you and did bad things--but let me magically clue you in on ultimate truth here, and you can now live with me for eternity," no, he decides everyone is to be by default damned to eternal pain/nothing...unless you save your soul by his rules.
So he creates a way--Jesus, sacrifice, resurrection.
Yeah! How merciful, loving and wonderful, you say, that he would do this for us!
But wait, don't forget, he set us up in the first place! He's responsible for our condition and state of "sin" or ungrace or whatever, in the first place.
It's like thanking the person who stabbed you for giving you a bandage.
But that's not all. So, he set us up in a perditious world, to be sinful, and victims of others' sin, and then gives us a way to save our soul. BUT, ONLY if you hear about this Jesus!
He doesn't provide this One and Only True Way to everyone, no. He provides it for a small group of people in a tiny piece of dust in the Middle East, allowing the other 99.9% of the world to be ignorant of it.
Then, instead of finding some wise and intelligent way of spreading the word, the ultimate truth that will save us from the default fate of eternal pain/nothing, he supposedly tells this small bunch of humans to spread the word by hand and foot. To spread this ONLY proof of his mercy, this text, to the far reaches of the Earth, by hand. And for those people unlucky enough to be born in a time and place to have a Christian reach them...they're just S.O.L.
Ah! Divine mercy and awesome wisdom and intellect!
OK, so why did he make it this way?
Three possible explanations:
He's a cruel and demented, fickle and heartless bastard.
Or, he's clueless and naive and simple and without much power.
Or, he doesn't exist.
What's the simplest, most reasonable answer?
The universe, as it is, the perdition, the "sin," all make perfect sense in a universe without a god. It makes wonderful, beautiful, exquisite sense. I sleep so much better at nights, live so much less anxiety and pain and anguish questioning why is god so cruel and heartless once I realized, he doesn't exist.
When you start with an a priori belief in god, you are forced to make up explanations for the way things are. Make up rationalizations, excuses, create barely logical reasons for the absurdity that has to exist if god existed. But the universe makes perfect sense without god.
Oh, it's not technically better, in that there's still pain and suffering and cruelty in the world--but now we know there's a good reason and more importantly, there are ways we can try to make it end. Disease, social conditions, mental health, etc. We can work to make the world a better place.
With a god, you're constantly under this cloud of magic and superstitious worry...is god cursing/going to curse me? A loved one? Do I have enough faith to convince god to take away my/her/his cancer? Am I praying the right way? Have I gotten enough people to pray to convince god? What if this other person is praying to god for a result that hurts me? The tornado missed his house and hit mine--is he blessed and I'm not? What do I need to do to make god like me enough to save me from earthly harm? What rules am I needing to follow to please god in order to favor me to save me from the default fate he set up (and for some reason has decided not to just do away with altogether) of eternal damnation?
I don't know how you sleep at nights, Mark.
Sorry about all that length, but, you DID ask "why" after all. That's pretty much it. :)
Thank you for answering the "why" question. I think. ;-)
Seriously, though, your conclusions continue to be based on a misunderstanding of the word "grace" as it applies to God. Utilizing the genetic fallacy by calling on Christians who also misunderstand grace does not resolve the issue.
In the end you ask how I can sleep at night. I'll tell you: If I die tonight I know that I'll be present with the One who made me.
I won't receive that blessing because I was a good guy or because I jumped through any hoops.
I'll merely receive that blessing because I didn't throw away the gift that was given to me.
That's it. No superstition. No religious pixie dust. Just active trust. That's it.
The difference in your proposed utopian solution and the solution I confess is that in your universe death is still death.
For you your conclusion is this:
(1) There is no god.
(2) I hate him.
If you really believed that God did not exist, you would move on about your life and build the utopia you speak of instead of trying to come here and declare God to be an evil, cruel being that does not exist.
So, instead, go eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die.
In the mean time, I'll join your efforts to make the world a better place. Not so that I can earn my spot in eternity, but rather because I agree with you that much work needs to be done.
And then, on the day that I draw my last breath, I will be saved by grace alone.
That same grace will always be available to you.
Jesus told this parable in Matthew 20:
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' So they went.
"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'
" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'
"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'
"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'
"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'
"So the last will be first, and the first will be last."
Final comment then I'll go back to my previous silence:
"For you your conclusion is this:
(1) There is no god.
(2) I hate him.
If you really believed that God did not exist, you would move on about your life and build the utopia you speak of instead of trying to come here and declare God to be an evil, cruel being that does not exist.
So, instead, go eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow you die."
First of all, I don't hate god. Why would I hate something that doesn't exist?
I call the Judeo-Christian concept of god cruel. Which you haven't addressed. Your counter to my, I think extremely logical and rational observations of the evidence of Christianity's cruelty and absurdity, is that I'm missing the point regarding a fictional component of it--which doesn't in any way address anything I brought up.
Your definition of grace requires, a priori, the existence of the supernatural, i.e.: God. Your definition assumes the existence of sin (which assumes a reason for sin vis-a-vis God which you don't address as the creator of sin), forgiveness of sin by a supernatural being, and a reward that involves a supernatural existence post-death. And, it's all based entirely on one thing: The Bible.
Everything you think you know about God comes from that book. All your "personal experience" is colored and filtered through your belief in that book. All the writings of other theologians and apologists are derived from the information found in The Bible.
You fail to accept that if the Bible is nothing more than cultural mythology, everything that comes from it is misguided and wrong. Including concepts of sin, divine forgiveness, grace. Your insistence on "grace" as a fact ignores the fact that it comes from a mythology recorded in a single book. That's superstition and religious pixie-dust.
Exactly as you claim the very sincere and heartfelt belief in Hindu would be. Or Islam. Or Wicca. Or Janeism. Or Zoroastrianism. Or Shinto. Or Buddhism. etc etc ad nauseum. Every single belief in every single other god, has followers that say exactly the same thing you have about their own sincere and certain faith.
Why do you think you're more right than every one of them?
Especially in light of all the evidence I've presented, factual and philosophical, that the underlying beliefs of Christianity are contradictory and cruel, which you chose not to address.
Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
Secondly, I do try to live every day trying to make my world better. I have never been so politically involved as I am now since I gave up religion.
I've never been so interested in charitable organizations as I have been since I gave up religion.
I try to give more of my time and effort to positive tasks.
I work really hard as well on keeping a positive attitude.
(If you'll note, I haven't posted on your blog in, quite a long time...and boy have I wanted to. Something just compelled in this last post.)
The common, over used, over worked, annoying Christian admonition against non-theism, that whole eat, drink thing, is silly. Ridiculous.
A. We're biologically engineered in the first place to care for our own. Our offspring, our tribe. And our species third. It benefits ourselves and our offspring to do so. So even if religion disappeared, there'd be no more human cruelty than there already is. (Which is admittedly a lot, in the face of a supposedly loving and merciful God that supposedly won't give us more than we can handle. Which you ignore.)
B. It's just rationally ridiculous. Since I stopped believing in God I haven't had any increase in interest to be hedonistic or "sinful." It's not advantageous to me or my family. We have social contracts with each other, as a cooperative species which has evolved to learn we work better as a group. Ergo, all cultures have codified what we generally accept as "morality" into laws against murder, theft, etc. It's not the laws that keep most of us from doing these things--it's the fact we don't want to because it ultimately hurts ourselves and our offspring and the social order. And because there ARE social laws, which have nothing to do with religious laws, people are still not going to go around being hedonists without god.
Ever wonder why less than 1% of the US prison population are atheist but more than 4% of the population is? If people w/o god are supposed to be more amoral, wouldn't it follow that there would be a significantly larger population of atheists in prison?
Conversely, why are most Nobel Prize winners atheists?
Hmm?
Anyway, you haven't addressed any of my points of logic and reason regarding why your concept of God created/allowed to exist an unreasonably cruel and dangerous-to-humanity world, when he could easily have made an existence no more terrible than the life you personally have lived.
Have no answer regarding why his only method of salvation from a rule of damnation he set up and could just do away with for a better and more reasonable plan, is so extremely difficult to get people informed about. (The whole one man, Middle East, passed via book by other humans across the world idea.) That is, if he REALLY loved us all.
Why he chose for the only instruction manual about existence, himself, the laws and history (which have been undeniably cruel and psychotic, which you have no answer for), to be written in a time and place rife with superstition and thus rendered quite reasonably by later peoples as highly suspect. Didn't he see that coming?
Every argument regarding all the evidence which shows god either is not omniscient, not omnipotent, or doesn't care in the least--if he is to exist at all.
Instead, you quote from the very same book that is meaningless to me as Bulfinch's Greek Mythology.
You challenged me to pray sincerely to god. I tell you I did, MANY times with great fervor when I started to doubt. (Which I assume your only explanation/rationalization is that in my time of great belief, and extreme desire to keep believing, and pain and sadness at the possibility of not believing, evidently my heart still wanted to not believe and that's why god made it happen so that the I would come to the understanding he didn't exist)...
I challenge you to, as former Christian Julia Sweeney puts it, put on the No God Glasses for a while.
Look at the world for a while as if there were no god. Not a cruel god, a mean god, an unknowable god, but no gods at all. Honestly look at the history of your religion, ALL religions, prayer, earthly "blessings" and "sin/curses" through the eyes of no god.
I'm sure you won't, but I assure you, the world will make a LOT more sense to you if you do.
Bye.
Post a Comment
<< Home