Ep. 83: Questions for the atheist

[Christoff]

"4) What would happen if you approached Christianity looking for something of value in it rather than looking for excuses to condemn it? "

In a nutshell, this is exactly what I did. And what happened was I ended up taking some good things out of it and incorporating it into my non-religious world-view.

Approaching Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, Atheism, humanism, etc in the light of "looking for something of value", one gets a lot of positive "things" from ALL of them. What this didn't cause, though, was to convert me to any of these "faiths/philosophies of life", purely because a few of its teachings were useful/good.

"Looking for excuses to condemn it" DID push me towards atheism, though. (After being a Christian for 20 years, I've been non-religious for the past 16 years).

My conclusion: no ONE creed or ONE philosophy has the ONE TRUE answer (I don't think such an answer exists). They all DO have good bits though. So use your own discretion, look for the good bits, reject the bad bits, in so doing forming your own philosophy for living a good life.

Note: Rejecting the good bits of Christianity purely on the grounds of one holding an atheistic world-view is as short-sighted as rejecting the good bits of Buddhism, Jainism, etc. on the grounds of you being a Christian. Wisdom ("things of value" in your words) can be found everywhere, you just need to allow yourself to look for them.

Congrats on a well-executed first podcast Mitch.

[AA/PK]

I apologize if I am reading too much into your statement, and if I am please elaborate, but I think it may look something like Dr. Turek's theory of objective reality in that it lies only in the unknowable object god.

Frank Turek was on the show a while back, after some discussion of a book he co-wrote. I'd never heard of him before that discussion, and I have to say I wasn't especially impressed. But according to his web site, which I did check out afterwards, liberal Christians like myself constitute one of the groups he's trying to save people from, so perhaps that's no surprise.

I agree. It doesn't seem to me that he has figured out half of what he says he has. His implication that humans can only react positively or negatively to a given situation because there is this magical object god from which all objective truth comes from is nothing short of a cop-out. He seems to believe that there is some logical connection that because he believes a god exists that god must be the source of objective reality. Although I should note that while I agreed mostly with Hitchens in that debate, I thought he was equally flippant and assuming in his own arguments.

[Exrev]

No that is not all there is to it. People can also, be tricked manipulated and controlled.
There is something called good faith under the law. Board memebers and pastors have not only an ethical obligation, but also a legal obligation not to personally profit or gain from the operation of a non-profit church. Sorry, by placing your wife on pay roll and essentially giving your wife no job duties is an abuse of power and thus corupt.

No what you are talking about is called fraud not corruption, because what I have heard described here has nothing to do with power and government. But even in that case, you need to make a case for fraud in a court of law. But be careful that you have evidence to back up your case or you might find it is you who get taken to court for libel. I certainly have no difficulty in believing that Christian pastors are guilty of fraud, or turning their church into a tool of power and monetary gain. I just have this general policy that for the most part (provided they remain within the law), what other people do with their money or how they run their religious organization is none of my freakin business.

1. I guess you like sitting around spliting hairs all day. Fraud or corruption whatever man ...sigh... that really is getting petty. While their actions maybe fraud i was speaking about what they were becoming.
2. never used their name or the name of the church also, for it to be libel, id' have to write something that wasn't true, and lastly they would have to prove their damages that my comments made. Since this is true and many people have left the church, I think your just trying to look smart but in the end you fail.
3. As to your general policy... ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’. edward burke

[marcuspnw]

No that is not all there is to it. People can also, be tricked manipulated and controlled.
There is something called good faith under the law. Board memebers and pastors have not only an ethical obligation, but also a legal obligation not to personally profit or gain from the operation of a non-profit church. Sorry, by placing your wife on pay roll and essentially giving your wife no job duties is an abuse of power and thus corupt.

No what you are talking about is called fraud not corruption, because what I have heard described here has nothing to do with power and government. But even in that case, you need to make a case for fraud in a court of law. But be careful that you have evidence to back up your case or you might find it is you who get taken to court for libel. I certainly have no difficulty in believing that Christian pastors are guilty of fraud, or turning their church into a tool of power and monetary gain. I just have this general policy that for the most part (provided they remain within the law), what other people do with their money or how they run their religious organization is none of my freakin business.

1. I guess you like sitting around spliting hairs all day. Fraud or corruption whatever man ...sigh... that really is getting petty. While their actions maybe fraud i was speaking about what they were becoming.
2. never used their name or the name of the church also, for it to be libel, id' have to write something that wasn't true, and lastly they would have to prove their damages that my comments made. Since this is true and many people have left the church, I think your just trying to look smart but in the end you fail.
3. As to your general policy... ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’. edward burke

I would certainly encourage your parents to ask questions and insist on proper disclosure and reporting. When organizations implement GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) and hold themselves to a high standard of accountability, everyone involved benefits and the entity runs efficiently. It is ,of course, a matter first for the board and ultimately for the church to decide so I see Mitch's point. Sorry you two seem to be struggling with split ends!

[marcuspnw]

By the way, here are my notes I made in preparation for the podcast


First you wanted me to express my criticisms of atheism and then you asked me to come up with 4 questions against atheism. This I will try to do, but I have to make it clear at the outset that I am not critical of atheism per se.. for I do not believe there is anything inconsistent with either theist or atheist positions. As I recently explained on the forum, all such positions are defensible because there is no objective means of deciding between them.

But ok, here are 4 questions challenging atheists, and to bring it down to earth a little, I also want to suggest some specific topic that the question might be applicable to.

1) Is it true that the difference between atheist and Christian can really be legitimately characterized as one between rational and irrational?

2) Does the fact that religion has no value in your life necessarily mean that it has no positive value in the lives of others?

3) In science we can separate the principles of science from any erroneous conclusions that scientists may have had at one time, so why can't we do the same for Christianity and seperate the ideals of Christianity from various irrational beliefs and behaviors that Christians may support at the moment or in the past?

4) What would happen if you approached Christianity looking for something of value in it rather than looking for excuses to condemn it?

Nice job, Mitch. Here are my responses.

1.) I think some atheists/Christians are more rational than other atheists/Christians but I don't see how anyone can remove all aspects of irrational thought or behavior and still remain human. It seems you would turn into a machine.

2.) I wouldn't say that religion has no value in my life as many fine works of art and literature spring forth from religion. And also, there are the indirect benefits that I receive from others who are religious. Do these values compel me to return to the faith? No.

3.) You can try but I think any improvements would be limited. Science utilizes a self-correcting mechanism to analyze new data/discoveries and formulates a better explanation to the prior one. Eventually, one theory carries the day. Can you really do that with theology which is traditionally based on revelation? How do you decide which view, Catholic or Protestant, is the better explanation for church organization or is more theologically accurate?

4.) I don't look for excuses to condemn Christianity. It's seems to be doing a good enough job of that on its own.

[marcuspnw]

About 1/4 of the way through the podcast, Mitch and Emery were talking about the Garden of Eden and the sin of Adam and Eve. Mitch stated that he didn't identify sin with mistakes or disobedience but rather with bad habits such as blaming others for your actions rather than accepting responsibility and the unwillingness to recognize and learn from them.

First of all, did I transcribe that correctly? Secondly, if so; I'd be interested to hear from other Christians whether they agree with this definition of sin. Also, I don't quite understand why Jesus had to be crucified in order to break this cycle of bad habits.

[mitchellmckain]

As to your general policy... ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’. edward burke

Yes I am sure the anti-abortionists and everyone else who seeks to impose their own personal morality on other people say exactly the same thing.

Can you really do that with theology which is traditionally based on revelation?

YES. Since this is not a matter of objective observations of matters of fact where what you want is irrelevant that no it does not lead to singular answers any more than evolution leads to a single species, BUT YES there is definitely some selective principles operating in theology which discards things which are less effective in terms of explanation and leading a spiritual life.

How do you decide which view, Catholic or Protestant, is the better explanation for church organization or is more theologically accurate?

This is not purely a matter of objective considerations but also a matter of preference and what is suitable to you personally. It is when people start acting like the answers which they find should be everyone's answer that religious people become the blind guides that do more damage than good. Uniformity works well when we are talking about things where human choices are irrelevant, but one thing that we should learn from biology, is that it is diversity rather than uniformity that is the character of life - I would even say that it can be called the fountain of life itself.

About 1/4 of the way through the podcast, Mitch and Emery were talking about the Garden of Eden and the sin of Adam and Eve. Mitch stated that he didn't identify sin with mistakes or disobedience but rather with bad habits such as blaming others for your actions rather than accepting responsibility and the unwillingness to recognize and learn from them.

First of all, did I transcribe that correctly?

YES. Sin is defined in various ways as that which separates us from God and which leads to the death of the spirit. I don't see mistakes doing that, because mistakes is how we learn. An inordinate effort to make no mistakes like the fearful servant in the parable Matthew 25:14-30 who buries his talent to keep it safe, is actually an example of the kind of bad habit in ones approach to life that should be identified as sin. Mindless obedience is another such bad habit which has led to some of the worst events of history.

If we are to take seriously the idea that the relationship between God and man is that of parent and child, then can really believe that mere disobedience would destroy the relationship? That sounds more like the relationship between a robot machine and its designer who will will see any action by the robot that is not following its instructions as a malfunction and thus as a reason to fix it or scrap it -- but in that case, the question of responsibility lies solely in the hands of the designer. But a child learns by making mistakes and requires the parent to respond to mistakes by helping them to see what they did wrong and why. But a child can make a habit of responding to not only their mistakes but to the parent in ways that keep them from learning anything and thus make the parent-child relationship an ineffective one.

Secondly, if so; I'd be interested to hear from other Christians whether they agree with this definition of sin. Also, I don't quite understand why Jesus had to be crucified in order to break this cycle of bad habits.

I will have to get back to you on that one because dinner is ready....

[mitchellmckain]

Also, I don't quite understand why Jesus had to be crucified in order to break this cycle of bad habits.

It clearly wasn't a matter of breaking the cycle of bad habits any more than it was making it so that human beings don't sin any more. Does even the Christian suddenly become immune to either bad habits or sin? No.

What Jesus was all about was restoring the relationship between God and mankind as parent and child. What Christianity promises is not a sudden transformation into a perfect person who never sins and has no bad habits, but a restoration of a personal relationship with God, who can heal us and give as a way to overcome those bad habits and thus to change into a better person. This is what that whole formula of, not saved by good works but saved unto good works, is all about -- that by a thriving relationship with a living God we can be motivated to do good things for their own sake rather than to do things that we think will get us brownie points which so often rings with that hollow sound of a self-righteous person ringing his own bell.


But the first question is, how was that relationship broken in the first place? Can you imagine that ANYTHING can possibly break the relationship between a parent and a child? goooood question, right?

WELL.......... how about this...

What if something happened that made the parent's presence in his child's life something that did more harm to the child than good?

If the parent really loves the child then under such circumstances, would they not withdraw themselves from the child's life?

I am claiming that Adam started a habit of thinking about God that made His presence in the lives of His children something that did more harm than good. The habit I am talking about was one of blaiming God and even the good things -- the very best things -- that God did for what went wrong in his life even when the truth is that what really went wrong was his own fault and his own mistake. Eve was in fact one of the best things in Adam's life and yet when it came to facing the fact that he did something wrong, he chose instead to accuse God for giving Eve to him. This was so totally upside down and backwards -- such an utter refusal to be responsible for his own actions and a willingness to make the omnipotence of God into liability that made him the ultimate scapegoat. Under such circumstances all the advantage of having God in his life to guide him was turned into the disadvantage of having a convenient excuse to avoid learning from his own mistakes.

Make no mistake here, however, the "eating of the fruit" was no trivial thing, and certainly no pointless test of obedience. (That last just makes me laugh because its like -- ok lets test whether these are robots or children and ok right they disobeyed not like robots ever would but like children always do so OOOPS you mean we actually succeeded in creating CHILDREN? eeewwee back up rewind yuk disgusting little children, NO we wanted perfect robots not children so we got to stomp on these things who have deluded themselves in to thinking they are children, crush their spirit and creativity and teach them to behave like the proper mindless robots that they are supposed to be.) No the commandment was regarding something of critical importance to all of mankind, and it was important for them wait regarding that one aspect of their lives so that they would do that only when they were ready for it. So there were indeed devastating consequences of that disobedience - of that there is no doubt. But that is par for the course in a parent-child relationship -- where the parents are always cleaning up after the enormous messes that their children make of everything. So I cannot think that this mistake and disobedience was the real problem here.

[marcuspnw]

Thank you, Mitch for commenting and expanding upon your remarks to Emery. I like much of it and want to respond but I have some business to attend to first. Hopefully, later today.

[marcuspnw]

My apologies for my delay, Mitch!

If we are to take seriously the idea that the relationship between God and man is that of parent and child, then can really believe that mere disobedience would destroy the relationship? That sounds more like the relationship between a robot machine and its designer who will will see any action by the robot that is not following its instructions as a malfunction and thus as a reason to fix it or scrap it -- but in that case, the question of responsibility lies solely in the hands of the designer. But a child learns by making mistakes and requires the parent to respond to mistakes by helping them to see what they did wrong and why. But a child can make a habit of responding to not only their mistakes but to the parent in ways that keep them from learning anything and thus make the parent-child relationship an ineffective one.

I agree with you but prefer Father/son or daughter or Father/adopted heir instead of Parent/child because a good Father, IMO, wants His children to mature and not continually be a dependent as a child is.

Anyway, I was instructed in the Calvinist tradition that it was Adam's disobedience of God's commandment in the Garden of Eden that severed the perfect fellowship with God. His attempt to shift the blame and avoid responsibility was a response to his original sin. And of course, that was probably a sin, too. In fact, you can probably guess that just about any human action under Calvin is likely to be classified as a transgression. Your background is different having been influenced strongly by your scientific understanding and training. How has your interpretation of the events in the Garden of Eden been received by other Christians?

What Jesus was all about was restoring the relationship between God and mankind as parent and child. What Christianity promises is not a sudden transformation into a perfect person who never sins and has no bad habits, but a restoration of a personal relationship with God, who can heal us and give as a way to overcome those bad habits and thus to change into a better person. This is what that whole formula of, not saved by good works but saved unto good works, is all about -- that by a thriving relationship with a living God we can be motivated to do good things for their own sake rather than to do things that we think will get us brownie points which so often rings with that hollow sound of a self-righteous person ringing his own bell.

Yes, I agree that this restoration has healed believers and allowed them to overcome tremendous obstacles. However, I simultaneously acknowledge that humans can change for the better without being in a relationship with God.

As a son, I am capable of learning from my mistakes, assuming responsibility for my actions and changing my lifestyle without any interaction with my father. It is true that my father played a significant role in shaping my personality and instilling his virtues in me. As I aged, I shaped my own self out of my life's experiences and challenges. The roles we play as father and son change as we mature and this is a healthy situation. Does this process occur in your relationship with God your Father? Is your relationship dynamic and changing? If so, how?

But the first question is, how was that relationship broken in the first place? Can you imagine that ANYTHING can possibly break the relationship between a parent and a child? goooood question, right?

WELL.......... how about this...

What if something happened that made the parent's presence in his child's life something that did more harm to the child than good?

If the parent really loves the child then under such circumstances, would they not withdraw themselves from the child's life?

Yes, this idea has been put forward as a justification for Hell. Hell is seen in this light (He withdraws from us because we can't abide His presence.) as a mercy of God and not His punishment.

I'm not sure I buy this line of reasoning when we are talking about God. Does a child or parent know what is good for themselves in all situations as God would? God is not just our Father but also our Creator so does He not have the capacity to alter the circumstances and should He act in this capacity? (Please don't ask me. I don't know.) If fellowship with God is the best relationship that we can ever experience then how can it be harmful in the long run? Would not the joy be worth the pain?

I am claiming that Adam started a habit of thinking about God that made His presence in the lives of His children something that did more harm than good. The habit I am talking about was one of blaiming God and even the good things -- the very best things -- that God did for what went wrong in his life even when the truth is that what really went wrong was his own fault and his own mistake. Eve was in fact one of the best things in Adam's life and yet when it came to facing the fact that he did something wrong, he chose instead to accuse God for giving Eve to him. This was so totally upside down and backwards -- such an utter refusal to be responsible for his own actions and a willingness to make the omnipotence of God into liability that made him the ultimate scapegoat. Under such circumstances all the advantage of having God in his life to guide him was turned into the disadvantage of having a convenient excuse to avoid learning from his own mistakes.

Make no mistake here, however, the "eating of the fruit" was no trivial thing, and certainly no pointless test of obedience. (That last just makes me laugh because its like -- ok lets test whether these are robots or children and ok right they disobeyed not like robots ever would but like children always do so OOOPS you mean we actually succeeded in creating CHILDREN? eeewwee back up rewind yuk disgusting little children, NO we wanted perfect robots not children so we got to stomp on these things who have deluded themselves in to thinking they are children, crush their spirit and creativity and teach them to behave like the proper mindless robots that they are supposed to be.) No the commandment was regarding something of critical importance to all of mankind, and it was important for them wait regarding that one aspect of their lives so that they would do that only when they were ready for it. So there were indeed devastating consequences of that disobedience - of that there is no doubt. But that is par for the course in a parent-child relationship -- where the parents are always cleaning up after the enormous messes that their children make of everything. So I cannot think that this mistake and disobedience was the real problem here.

So, in summary, God as Jesus made Himself the scapegoat because we insisted on making Him responsible for our actions. Jesus died and shed His blood not because God demanded a blood sacrifice from us to tolerate our being in His perfect presence, but rather due to our erroneous way of thinking which was so skewed that: 1. we were unable to abide with God as we were, 2. we failed to take responsibility for our own actions and 3. could not(would not) see Him as the perfect and loving Father that He is.

[Exrev]

As to your general policy... ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’. edward burke

Yes I am sure the anti-abortionists and everyone else who seeks to impose their own personal morality on other people say exactly the same thing.

True Mitch.. balance is everything. "Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience. - Adam Smith"

[mitchellmckain]

Your background is different having been influenced strongly by your scientific understanding and training. How has your interpretation of the events in the Garden of Eden been received by other Christians?

As I am sure you know, reason isn't the only factor in the acceptance of things by Christians and so it should be no surprised that the reception is mixed. Some are less tied to tradition and more open to reason (and it is usually on internet forums that I find such), others less insistent that such questions must be answered unabiguously will simply see this as interesting idea, while others do have more of a blind faith fundamentalist magical approach where they will not seriously consider a different way of looking at things. Few Christians have the insistence on a rational methodological naturalist approach as I do.

As a son, I am capable of learning from my mistakes, assuming responsibility for my actions and changing my lifestyle without any interaction with my father. It is true that my father played a significant role in shaping my personality and instilling his virtues in me. As I aged, I shaped my own self out of my life's experiences and challenges.

I made no claim that non-Christians are incapable or even less capable of learning from their mistakes than Christians. The bad habits that we have vary considerably. What I will assert is that as finite beings our creativity has its limits and that we rely upon inspiration in order to learn new ways of dealing with things in our lives. Life provides many sources of inspiration both from other people and the natural world. But the promise that Christianity holds out is that of eternal life and that requires a source of inspiration that is infinite and I only see God capable of fulfilling that role.

The roles we play as father and son change as we mature and this is a healthy situation. Does this process occur in your relationship with God your Father? Is your relationship dynamic and changing? If so, how?

I certainly see this in numerous testimonies by other Christians.

But the first question is, how was that relationship broken in the first place? Can you imagine that ANYTHING can possibly break the relationship between a parent and a child? goooood question, right?

WELL.......... how about this...

What if something happened that made the parent's presence in his child's life something that did more harm to the child than good?

If the parent really loves the child then under such circumstances, would they not withdraw themselves from the child's life?

Yes, this idea has been put forward as a justification for Hell. Hell is seen in this light (He withdraws from us because we can't abide His presence.) as a mercy of God and not His punishment.

No this is NOT the same idea. "Can't abide His presence" is not the same thing as "presence does more harm than good". God is NOT concerned with our comfort but only with our spiritual life and development. Furthermore the validity of an idea used for one thing has nothing to do with the validity in regards to something completely different.

I reject this explanation of Hell, because which path we take is NOT about which is more comfortable for us. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the path to Hell is the one that is more comfortable for EVERYONE. I believe that Hell is the place where we find our heart's desire whereas heaven is where we find God's desire for us. So no it is not about which we "can abide" but which we CHOOSE. God is bound by the necessities of life and choice is one of those necessities -- to take away our choice is to take away our life and thus nothing of that sort can be a way to bring us to eternal life.

But in any case this has absolutely nothing to do with the question of what happened to the relationship between God and man in the Garden of Eden. God's presence became something that was detriment to our continued development as living beings, and that is what made the original parent child relationship between man and God an impossibility.

Does a child or parent know what is good for themselves in all situations as God would?

No....(puzzlement)... relevance?

God is not just our Father but also our Creator so does He not have the capacity to alter the circumstances and should He act in this capacity?

NO! NO! NO! God is our creator ONLY in so far as He is our Father. We are NOT products of design! We are living organisms and life is a process of SELF-ORGANIZATION. Thus we are participants in our own creation and the only way that God or anyone else can "create life" is NOT as a designer but as a participant in the process by their presence in the environment that stimulates learning and growth. Thus when it comes to living things God is NOT a watchmaker but a shepherd, teacher and parent, because watches are not alive.

If fellowship with God is the best relationship that we can ever experience then how can it be harmful in the long run?

More puzzlement... This absolutist aproach to the question that you are taking seems rather bizarre to me -- like something has either got to be one thing or the other all the time -- but it doesn't. In the long run, a relationship with God is ESSENTIAL. Thus the situation in the garden of Eden was a no-win situation. We were never intended to navigate the moral landscape of our lives without divine aid and that is why "none is without sin, not even one." And yet Adam's behavior made this completely upside down and backwards habit of blaming God for his own mistake a part of "human nature" which we all inheirit -- a situation where God's presence in our lives becomes a way to refuse responsibility for our own lives. Thus if God wanted us to ever be more than dumb sheep who relies totally upon the shepherd for all things, then He had to makes us live or die by the consequences of our own actions until we learned that the responsibility for our own lives was something that we could not avoid.

Would not the joy be worth the pain?

Indeed and that is why we should choose heaven rather than hell, for no matter how excruciating it may be to face up to the truth of our own bad habits, changing those habits and becoming the kind of person who people would actually want to be around is worth any pain and discomfort. There is indeed only one heaven and hell that we need to worry about and that is the heaven or hell that we create around ourselves and make our world into.

I am claiming that Adam started a habit of thinking about God that made His presence in the lives of His children something that did more harm than good. The habit I am talking about was one of blaiming God and even the good things -- the very best things -- that God did for what went wrong in his life even when the truth is that what really went wrong was his own fault and his own mistake. Eve was in fact one of the best things in Adam's life and yet when it came to facing the fact that he did something wrong, he chose instead to accuse God for giving Eve to him. This was so totally upside down and backwards -- such an utter refusal to be responsible for his own actions and a willingness to make the omnipotence of God into liability that made him the ultimate scapegoat. Under such circumstances all the advantage of having God in his life to guide him was turned into the disadvantage of having a convenient excuse to avoid learning from his own mistakes.

Make no mistake here, however, the "eating of the fruit" was no trivial thing, and certainly no pointless test of obedience. (That last just makes me laugh because its like -- ok lets test whether these are robots or children and ok right they disobeyed not like robots ever would but like children always do so OOOPS you mean we actually succeeded in creating CHILDREN? eeewwee back up rewind yuk disgusting little children, NO we wanted perfect robots not children so we got to stomp on these things who have deluded themselves in to thinking they are children, crush their spirit and creativity and teach them to behave like the proper mindless robots that they are supposed to be.) No the commandment was regarding something of critical importance to all of mankind, and it was important for them wait regarding that one aspect of their lives so that they would do that only when they were ready for it. So there were indeed devastating consequences of that disobedience - of that there is no doubt. But that is par for the course in a parent-child relationship -- where the parents are always cleaning up after the enormous messes that their children make of everything. So I cannot think that this mistake and disobedience was the real problem here.

So, in summary, God as Jesus made Himself the scapegoat because we insisted on making Him responsible for our actions. Jesus died and shed His blood not because God demanded a blood sacrifice from us to tolerate our being in His perfect presence, but rather due to our erroneous way of thinking which was so skewed that: 1. we were unable to abide with God as we were, 2. we failed to take responsibility for our own actions and 3. could not(would not) see Him as the perfect and loving Father that He is.

No I do not accept this as a summary of what I have said. But I can comment on this if you would like...

We do not need a scapegoat in the sense of having someone else bear the consequences of our actions. What we need is to learn the lesson that our sin will destroy us and everything we touch and that there is nothing that God would not do in order to help us. The truth is that the consequences of our sin cannot be escaped, but if we would not have our sin rule our destiny forever then we must change.

It is not God who demands blood but our own nature as living creatures ruled by our habits that we only change the way we live when it is "too late". It is only when we hit rock bottom and our habits have wrecked devastation upon our lives and the ones we love that we begin to accept the need to change. You can say that this need for blood comes from our own origins in the process of evolution where the species does not change until it is on the brink of extinction -- and so evolutionary development is always an an enormous cost in life.

It had nothing to do with tolerating God's presence but with whether His presence did more harm than good. Jesus offered up His life as a way for the person with a love for God to learn to see God in the right way -- not as a easy way out but as a way of confronting ourselves, where forgiveness can only come through a recognition of the terrible consequences of sin and thus where we are properly motivated to change. Thus the death of Jesus was a direct attack on this habit which made our relationship with God untenable. It showed that there was no limit to what God would do to help us, so we had to recognize that it is our own failings and nothing else that is at fault for our miserable situation and not God.

Rather than being unable to abide with God, the problem was that we were addicted to God in an unhealthy way. Take note that Jesus greatest difficulty and the people He condemned was not with the non-believers but with the most religious people -- the Pharisees. The Pharisees were not unable to abide by God -- they found God rather useful, just as do so many of the religious today -- to make themselves superior in their own eyes to everyone else. Neither was the problem was not that we could not see God as the loving Father. Again the Pharisees had no problem with that, for they were confident that God loved them -- and yet they did indeed have it all wrong. God did not love them because they were good little boys. God loved them even though they were "blind guides" "shutting the kingdom of heaven against men" and making others "twice the child of hell as" themselves.

[humanguy]

What I will assert is that as finite beings our creativity has its limits and that we rely upon inspiration in order to learn new ways of dealing with things in our lives. Life provides many sources of inspiration both from other people and the natural world. But the promise that Christianity holds out is that of eternal life and that requires a source of inspiration that is infinite and I only see God capable of fulfilling that role.

I don't agree. We rely upon learning, we rely upon using our minds. Certainly inspiration comes into it but so does thinking, using our very big brains, brains which have made all of this we now find ourselves living in, both the good and the bad.

Yes, human creativity has its limits, no doubt about that. And yes, life does indeed provide many sources of inspiration. And we, us humans, every one of us is limited. Everything is limited, everything and everybody is limited, limited to what everything and everyone is capable of doing under it or their situation. The whole damn thing is limited. This is life and we're in it for awhile.

Eternal life. Such a strange idea. Such a primitive idea. Such a lonely idea.

[mitchellmckain]

What I will assert is that as finite beings our creativity has its limits and that we rely upon inspiration in order to learn new ways of dealing with things in our lives. Life provides many sources of inspiration both from other people and the natural world. But the promise that Christianity holds out is that of eternal life and that requires a source of inspiration that is infinite and I only see God capable of fulfilling that role.

I don't agree. We rely upon learning, we rely upon using our minds. Certainly inspiration comes into it but so does thinking, using our very big brains, brains which have made all of this we now find ourselves living in, both the good and the bad.

Yes, human creativity has its limits, no doubt about that. And yes, life does indeed provide many sources of inspiration. And we, us humans, every one of us is limited. Everything is limited, everything and everybody is limited, limited to what everything and everyone is capable of doing under it or their situation. The whole damn thing is limited.

Excuse me... so what is it that you disagree with? Once you identify something you actually disagree with, then maybe you can explain why.

This is life and we're in it for awhile.

Such an uninspired unoriginal and useless idea. Such a primitive idea. Such a lonely idea.

[spongebob]

I held off for some time on making this comment (out of respect for Mitch), but now that he seems to have gone on the warpath again I see this a the right time to bring it up. For some reason, Mitch's tone and demeanor on the podcast did not represent his posts on the forum. That was strange for me. He seemed almost as an introvert. It's strange because much of what Mitch posts comes across as arrogant and assertive, even punitive. He rarely misses an opportunity to scorn on the forum, so why did he hold back so much on the podcast? I wonder if he was intimidated somewhat by the format, or maybe just Emery's disarming nature . Anyway, just an observation. I don't expect Mitch to post an honest explanation. At best he will likely just demonstrate what I was talking about, which is too bad because, as I have pointed out, he seems to produce some well thought out ideas, but when those ideas are laced with such vitriol it just dilutes their effectiveness.