Now Narsil is famous

[Emery]

Hey everyone,

If you've ever wondered what Narsil sounds like, you can listen to him on the latest show. I thought the discussion was very interesting, I think I finally understand what Narsil believes concerning the reason God created us.

Let us know what you think. Does Emery go on and on and on? Is Narsil too hard to pin down? Or is Emery just asking the wrong questions (he does ask a lot of them)? What would you like to have seen more of in Narsil (or Emery's) answers?

I think this is possibly one of the most in depth shows we've had, or one of the most boring, depending on your perspective. But it was great having Narsil as a guest, he did a bang up job, and I hope he comes on again.

[spongebob]

Hmm, definitely not one of the best shows.

Observations:

Good question from Emery: why can't Emery "just believe". Narsil seems to have no answer, and it's clear why. It's easy to "just believe". Just turn off the lights and believe, just do what they tell you to do, drink the kool-aid. This falls well into place with my argument that some people are just "wired" to believe, and others are not.

narsil makes the comment that "god" has been more than fair to us. Isn't this just a wild assumption. He went out of his way??? How so? I totally disagree with this, as Emery did. One's imagination cannot contain the many combinations of better ways god could accomplish its supposed goals, but somehow a confusing, contradictory book and crazy stories of magic is god being "more than fair"? Of course, any and all of these other options I could come up with are easily explained away by the slippery Christian.

I don't know what church narsil goes to or what brand of Christianity he's into, but down here in the deep South, I can assure everyone on this forum that little has changed in Protestant Christianity. Better music, more AV and far more intellectual speaking are about the only differences. I do still attend services from time to time, and if what narsil and Norton say is true, then they are not representative of the larger group of Southern Christians. Look, I has a couple of guys come to my door to witness a few weeks ago and they didn't tell me anything I didn't use myself, lo those long years ago. There's just nothing new there; the message is the same. It might be presented in a nicer way, but it's still the same message. I suspect that the more educated and slick speakers can account for a large degree of the popularity of Christianity. Most churches around here have very aggressive and active youth programs with very hip and educated youth ministers, which is very different from my youth of 30 years ago. At the core, it's about indoctrination, and Christians have done very well in figuring out how to tell children what is essentially a dreadful and backward way of viewing the universe in a soft and friendly kind of way, in the hopes of not scaring them off.

The nicest thing I can say about narsil's overall philosophy on god and existence is that it's a very smug way of looking at things. Basically, if you are careful enough in concocting your definition of how you believe the universe works, then you can justify any sort of logical construct that will fit it, regardless of evidence. I hate to sound insulting, but it just seems that narsil has found a convenient way of escaping reality by burying himself in what he believes. Hey, that's fine. That's why we have he establishment clause. But as a convincing argument, it fails miserably on many levels.

And I can't say this often enough, but I really wonder why this idea of post modernism keeps resurfacing. I'm still not certain I completely understand the position of the postmodernist, but from what I can discern, it seems amazingly exaggerated by theists (on this forum) who buy into it. I think on the average, at least in my neck of the woods, this idea is far too high-minded to get any real traction. In general, it strikes me as nothing more than old time religion draped in intellectualism. In simpler words, it's just nonsense talk that sounds intelligent, when in fact it's nothing more than old time "woo woo" dressed up in new clothing. Not much different from homeopathic remedies that promise "energy" that can "cleanse" your body and "enhance" your immune system.

I'm sorry to sound so negative on the show, but I really found far more value in the conversation between Emery and Scott, which seemed to be more about people of two different mindsets understanding one another. This sounded too much like a Christian just trying to convince an atheist that he's wrong, based on a set of flimsy, old arguments.

[narsil]

Well, like Emery said it was probably a love it or hate it dialog, I think I see which side you fall on SB. And I was going to talk a bit more about how I think churches have changed and how culture has changed, but I think Emery said it pretty well,it's the message and not it's delivery that he has issues with, and that really hasn't changed at it's core. But still, SB, I promise there is much more than fluff going on with the changes from modern thinking to postmodern thinking in our culture, but it's a slower process out in the more rural areas (which I assume is where you are), and I think that Norton and I's churches, being right outside of Atlanta, are seeing it much sooner than you probably will. It's definitely not something that you are going to start hearing less about.

Now with that said, I think I missed anything like an actual response to what part of the arguement "fails miserably on many levels." I'd like to hear more about that part.

[spongebob]

Well, like Emery said it was probably a love it or hate it dialog, I think I see which side you fall on SB. And I was going to talk a bit more about how I think churches have changed and how culture has changed, but I think Emery said it pretty well,it's the message and not it's delivery that he has issues with, and that really hasn't changed at it's core. But still, SB, I promise there is much more than fluff going on with the changes from modern thinking to postmodern thinking in our culture, but it's a slower process out in the more rural areas (which I assume is where you are), and I think that Norton and I's churches, being right outside of Atlanta, are seeing it much sooner than you probably will. It's definitely not something that you are going to start hearing less about.

Now with that said, I think I missed anything like an actual response to what part of the arguement "fails miserably on many levels." I'd like to hear more about that part.

OK, I promise I'll get back to that after I think about it a little bit. One thing I forgot to mention is that I did agree with your assesment on the differences that come out when you combine culture, gospel and church in different ways. I thought that was very accurate. And I would love to hear you or Wonders or someone expound more on what you really think this postmodernism thing is. For now, I truly believe it is just a new spin on mysticism. But maybe you can convince me differently.

[NH Baritone]

(1) I think it's a bit naive of Narsil to believe that atheists' greatest difficulties with Christianity stem from the older styles of worship. That makes us sound like a shallow lot who would prefer listen to hip-hop than Lawrence Welk.

Atheistic thought is not about a rejected aesthetic. I still play old hymns on the piano sometimes simply because they remind me of my childhood, and I sing a lot of religious music in community choirs because of the great artistry in the composition. But that doesn't mean I buy into the mythological underpinnings. And neither is my conclusion that God is nonexistent based on my aesthetic wish never again to hear an elderly soprano (whose vibrato is wide enough to drive a Mack Truck through) sing another rendition of "How Great Thou Art."

(2) The Beethoven analogy: The notion that God created humanity to "oo" & "ah" over its creator paints God as an insecure narcissist, i.e., what we would refer to as mentally ill with a personality disorder. While history suggests that this may have been true of Beethoven himself, it hardly represents a winning characteristic of the Christian God.

A great American composer, Charles Ives, worked as an insurance salesman his entire career, and composed in his off hours, because he was so avant garde he rarely got commissions or had orchestras willing to perform his music. Now that he's dead, and time and tastes have marched further along, his pieces are seeing more of the light of day, but it's hardly realistic to say he composed music for his own glory. I dabble in composition myself, and only a couple of my songs (that number over 100) have ever been performed in public. I don't do it for glory ... I do it because I enjoy the process, the creative outlet, and the pleasure it gives me to play it ... most often alone. In other words, music (or any other art) is no more glorious when it is beheld by millions than when it has an audience of the artist alone.

What's more, I don't think that the evidence in the Bible supports this version of God, although Job's depiction of God certainly contains elements of it. But ultimately, instead of God requiring humans to give him glory, Job's God simply lives in mystery, stating that there's no way for human beings to understand God's purpose, so stop asking.

I've got other things to say, but I'm at work and have to get back to it.

[ScottBarger]

I thought the conversation of God's creativity was interesting.

[spongebob]

OK, narsil, some thoughts on why your argument fails to convince an atheist, and particularly an ex-Christian, atheist.

Firstly, let me restate that if whatever world view you have developed works for you and gets you through the day, then I have no problem with it. I don't pretend to know all the answers and wouldn't try to convince someone to my way of thinking. However, I do find it necessary to point out fallacies and weaknesses in a person's argument. I feel morally compelled to do this because I feel that this is the right thing to do.

Your argument seems to rely heavily on the postmodernist POV, which I find completely absurd. If I understand it correctly, which is unlikely, it seems to be nothing more than a call to return to mysticism as a source of knowledge and wisdom, to solve our problems. Well, I find this approach to reality to be plain bunk. Mysticism cannot solve problems. Critical thinking and hard work solves problems, and you don't need any form of mysticism for that.

Another profoundly absurd notion I think you have (as a persuasive argument, that is) is this notion that god is good because he is god and god is defined by good. Such circular reasoning just makes my skin crawl and it astonishes me that intelligent people, a group you seem to be part of, cannot seem to see the silliness of this kind of fallacious thinking when there are simply no facts or evidence to support it. I can think of a thousand arguments I can justify and win if only I'm allowed to make such grandiose assumptions. But my skepticism and critical thinking do not allow me such a luxury. This fits squarely in the category that intelligent people can be fooled just as easily as stupid people can, sometimes even worse, because when an intelligent person internalizes a concept, it usually takes powerful logical, critical thinking to change their mind. But this very argument is immune to critical thinking.

Another problem I have with your argument is that you seem to have constructed an elaborate structure to support your core belief, replete with accolades of god's creativity. Again, I'm fine with you believing this, but the only way I think this can make any sense whatsoever is on a completely fact-less notion of faith, and "I just believe" attitude. I consider the manufacturing of and manipulation of supportive arguments, usually based on creative scriptural interpretations to be nothing more than an intellectual game. Oh, it demonstrates your literary ability and imagination, but little else. As creative as your interpretation and your elaborate world view seems to be, I can introduce you to a thousand other elaborate world views constructed by other Christians, none of which are the same. My problem with this approach is that if anyone's interpretation is acceptable, then there is no truth to be told. I can essentially construct my own understanding of it, and I have done just that. To me, my interpretation is as legitimate as anyone else’s. But I'm not about to try and convince anyone else that my version is true and theirs is not.

I enjoyed your Star Trek reference, but sadly disagree with it. Star Trek is a creative outlet, and as such is far reaching in its scope of human improvement. Even so, in recorded history, humankind has made achievements within the scale that Rodenberry defined. His vector may be off on the scale of time, but not on the direction of progress. IOW, the world of Rodenberry is a possibility. And if you pay enough attention, you'll notice that even in Rodenberry's world, humans are still humans and are not perfect, even though they've come a long way. You position is one of pessimism. It says that short of your brand of mysticism, no hope is possible. History proves you wrong on this, narsil, as Emery weakly pointed out. The human vector of progress may wander and veer into dangerous territory (atom bombs, eugenics), but we always seem to experience corrections to our path. Maybe god is the hand that nudges us in the correct path; I'm open to that possibility. But he's not doing it through Sunday School classes and revivals.

All in all, I think your POV seems very similar to Norton's, the invisible one. Norton seems like a nice guy, an intelligent guy. But when presented with facts, he always seems to defer to his beliefs and his mysticism, and that's just a strange way to process reality in my view. Facts are facts and you have to deal with them. We can be wrong about facts, sure enough. But facts seldom just disappear and leave mysticism in their wake. When corrected, facts usually present us with a more accurate view of reality, sometimes radically different than what we expected. The argument I hear from you and Norton and sometimes Wonders is one that puts mysticism ahead of facts on the food chain, one that suggests that facts don't really matter if you only believe hard enough. Well, I know this is going to go over like a lead balloon, but that notion is just delusional.

So those are my thoughts, exhaustive as they are. If your system works for you, narsil, then have fun. But to an ex-Christian atheist, your argument is not even close. And in case you are wondering, I have heard arguments that were close.

[ScottBarger]

SB, Narsil, Emery,

I have been thinking about the "God is good" thing and have formulated some thoughts, nothing earth-shattering, just observations.

First, it seems to me that goodness is not transcendent, meaning, it is not something that exists outside our reality and is self-sufficient or self-defined. Human context defines goodness. Moral goodness is culturally defined, as is aesthetic goodness (beauty), etc. To a large extent our cultures have told us what is good or bad (it's good to help the elderly, bad to kick your dog), beautiful or ugly (it is beautiful to be slender, ugly to be obese), and so on. Now there are certainly people who deviate from these culturally derived ideals, but most people do not. For most of us we have come to accept a culturally derived system of goodness.

Second, since cultures vary widely, the concept of goodness will also vary. What is good for me may be bad for you (I like Pink Floyd, you do not). Broadening the cultural context a bit, what may be good in my home state of Pennsylvania (sour kraut, scrapple, and polish sausage) may be distasteful to someone from the south (SB can tell us what's good down there). To a larger extent what may be good in the USA (savings accounts and retirement plans) may be seen as immoral in other countries (people from Central Africa Republic would view such behavior as greedy).

Third, since our culture is very different from the culture of the biblical world, we would expect our concepts of goodness to vary to a certain degree, and they do (dietary laws, how women should dress, etc.)

Fourth, there is a kind of "continuity of goodness" that actually does transcend cultural differences. This continuity is probably impossible to see at the micro level (what kind of music I prefer, or how I dress) but easier to see at the macro level (generally speaking, it is good to care for your family, children, the poor, etc.)

Fifth, and this is pure speculation, what if this broader concept of goodness is a mark of the divine? If we encountered a being who was generous, helpful, loving, sacrificial, beautiful, etc. is it possible that such a being would appeal to this continuity of goodness and be viewed as good by many people across many cultures?

What if redemption wasn't as much about fixing our sin as enlightening our perception of goodness?

Just some thoughts.

[NH Baritone]

What if redemption wasn't as much about fixing our sin as enlightening our perception of goodness?

You're sounding more like a Buddhist and less like a traditional Christian, Scott. I thought you were a Calvinist, espousing the "total depravity" theology!

So what then about the concept of "badness" (aka, sin, evil, etc.)? Does that also have some wiggle room in its definition or does the phrase "sin is sin" cover the whole schmeer?

[ScottBarger]

I knew that comment was coming! Others have made the Buddhism comparison before. I will say that if there is any truth to Buddhism at all, then I believe it is God's truth. Now to clarify my previous post...

I was not saying that redemption has nothing to do with the problem of sin, I was just commenting that I felt that it was more than that. We evangelicals tend to make redemption all about our personal deliverance from the consequences of sin. I think the Bible paints a broader picture than that. I was also responding to a conversation that has developed because of the most C&A Podcast, namely, how do we know God is good?

On a side note, I am a far cry from a traditional Calvinist. I am part of a faith tradition that leans heavily in that direction, but I personally think it is a broken system.

[NH Baritone]

I knew that comment was coming! Others have made the Buddhism comparison before. I will say that if there is any truth to Buddhism at all, then I believe it is God's truth. Now to clarify my previous post...

I was not saying that redemption has nothing to do with the problem of sin, I was just commenting that I felt that it was more than that. We evangelicals tend to make redemption all about our personal deliverance from the consequences of sin. I think the Bible paints a broader picture than that. I was also responding to a conversation that has developed because of the most C&A Podcast, namely, how do we know God is good?

I'm aware of the "why God is good" discussion. And the follow-up about "badness" still stands. Are there things that are bad in one context that are not bad in another? For example, is homosexual behavior in the context of temple prostitution and idol worship a bad thing, but in the context of a loving, committed relationship possibly a blessed thing?

On a side note, I am a far cry from a traditional Calvinist. I am part of a faith tradition that leans heavily in that direction, but I personally think it is a broken system.

So which of Calvin's 5 points are you happy with, and which one's are you shying away from?

Total depravity
Unconditional election
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the Saints

And with such a variety of denominations available, why do you still link yourself to a "broken system"?

[kobodur]

Naril said God wasn't going to be in hell. If Hell is seperation from God, what does the following mean: Revelation14:10-11 "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

[ScottBarger]

I'm aware of the "why God is good" discussion. And the follow-up about "badness" still stands. Are there things that are bad in one context that are not bad in another? For example, is homosexual behavior in the context of temple prostitution and idol worship a bad thing, but in the context of a loving, committed relationship possibly a blessed thing?

I am not sure I understand the question. Are you asking this within the greater context of human cultures or within the more specific context of biblical instruction? Within the broad context of human culture there is obviously many things that are moral/immoral depending on cultural context (and I believe that the Bible allows for this kind of culturally determined moral variation). In terms of Biblical instruction, I think that there are obviously moral absolutes (marital infidelity is bad) but what that looks like might be culturally derived.

So which of Calvin's 5 points are you happy with, and which one's are you shying away from?

I will answer the question based on how the terms are used today, not in terms of Calvin's writings.

Total depravity - Disagree (there is too much emphasis in the Bible on the importance of making good choices)
Unconditional election - Disagree (I think it is impossible to know through what means and by which criteria God predestines anything)
Limited atonement - Ambivalent (and starting to disagree more in light of the epistle to the Hebrews)
Irresistible grace - (kind of redundant I think)
Perseverance of the Saints - Mostly Disagree

And with such a variety of denominations available, why do you still link yourself to a "broken system"?

Because my loyalty lies with the community to which I belong, not to the theological system espoused by our faith tradition.

[NH Baritone]

Because my loyalty lies with the community to which I belong, not to the theological system espoused by our faith tradition.

...and you're not alone. I really think that most people are cultural Christians, because within those communities are their friends and family. Such loyalties are the stuff that make us human. It's too bad that people in leadership, though, suggest that the membership adheres to similar theologies. From your answer above, you sound much more like an Arminian than a Calvinist.

I'm aware of the "why God is good" discussion. And the follow-up about "badness" still stands. Are there things that are bad in one context that are not bad in another? For example, is homosexual behavior in the context of temple prostitution and idol worship a bad thing, but in the context of a loving, committed relationship possibly a blessed thing?

I am not sure I understand the question. Are you asking this within the greater context of human cultures or within the more specific context of biblical instruction? Within the broad context of human culture there is obviously many things that are moral/immoral depending on cultural context (and I believe that the Bible allows for this kind of culturally determined moral variation). In terms of Biblical instruction, I think that there are obviously moral absolutes (marital infidelity is bad) but what that looks like might be culturally derived.

I was asking in the context of your theology. You were using a "situational ethics" approach to the definition of "goodness." I was wondering if you interpret the verses that are often put forward as containing moral "absolutes" as open to more flexible interpretation.

My reference to the context of homosexual behavior was one example. You wrote of marital infidelity. To my mind, that's ethically suspect because it involves breaking a promise and often deception. What of open marriages, though? If both members of a couple are comfortable with non-monogamy, does that fall under your definition of infidelity? (I am assuming that this is truly an agreement of choice, and not one spouse succumbing to pressure from the other spouse.)

[ScottBarger]

NH,

I was not speaking to a situational ethic as much as a cultural ethic. Situational ethics, as the term is used in my neck of the woods, describes a personal ethic that is internally inconsistent. This is probably not the case with cultural ethics.

Regarding your question about verses that are presented as moral absolutes, I guess it would depend on the verse. I think the Bible contains many moral absolutes. I think where most Christians drop the ball is that we have a predetermined idea of what it looks like to follow such moral absolutes and we tend to look at interpreted applications of these absolutes discussed within the Bible as being absolutes themselves (Paul's instruction in 1 Timothy 2 of what it means to dress modestly, for example).