Ep. 93: Conversion

[mitchellmckain]

What could possibly create such a religion that turns cowardice into a virtue?

How is it cowardice? You mean because we don't feel the need to stand up and thumb our nose at authority?

The man who comes into a public building with a gun and says everyone has to do what he says is a criminal not an authority. Trying to rule other people with fear is not authority. The guy may think you have to do what he says because he has a gun, but is it true? No. He is deluded and his logic that you make him shoot you by not doing what he says is a lie. The gun does not give him any right to tell others what to do, at all. No. Authority does not come from power, I refute that completely. Authority comes from responsibility or knowledge not from threats. So the religion of the crime boss who says that those who don't thumb their nose at his "authority" are the "good" people, is a religion that makes a virture out of cowardice. A person with the real authority that comes from knowledge or responsibility would not have to use such arguments unless he is dealing with two year olds who cannot understand such concepts. I suppose you could argue that those of your religion are incapable of understanding resonsibility and knowledge and thus have to be ruled by fear, in which case the atheists are simply the ones who have decided to grow up.

The human race is changing and the atheists can see it. However much people in the past demanded to have someone doing their thinking for them, like the Israelites in 2 Samuel chapter 8, what God really wants is for us to grow up. And so responsibility and knowledge will become something that many people want to embrace and as that happens they will reject the infantizing religions and so atheism will grow. But they are wrong if they think that is the end of the story and religion is doomed, because the infantile religion isn't the summation of religion. You and I know that God really exists, and that He will achieve what He seeks to accomplish. His children will grow up, past the age of the toddler that has to be ruled by fear, and past the age of the teenage rebellion, to what God has always looked for and that is a people who have the law written on the hearts to do what is good for its own sake -- a people who understand knowledge and responsibility -- a people who embrace the challenge of life to seek the truth, to learn from mistakes and to do what it takes to make the world a better place. And that is when the child looks back on the parent with understanding and really loves him.

But trying to brow beat atheists with this logic of the crime boss to accept an infantile religion just isn't going to work.

It doesn't matter what you do but only what you profess to believe!

That isn't what he says Mitchell

I agree that that this Gnostic legalism isn't what Jesus and Paul are saying at all. The Christianity they teach isn't about making sure you believe the right things any more that it is about doing the right things. They condemn this idea of salvation by good works and it does not matter whether we are talking about works of the body or works of the mind.

his argument is such that he says that if you want to be judged fairly, that is exactly what you will get if you rejected God. However, if you accept Him and His sacrifice on your behalf, then you will not be judged fairly, but given mercy where it was not deserved.

Yes the man with the gun tells you that if you do what He says then you will be all right. That is the doctrine of salvation by works.

Are you telling me that if you were a judge and you came down off the bench to pay the fine for someone and they stood up and gave you the finger and said, "NICE RACKET YOU GOT GOIN HERE YOU CROOK!" You telling me you would be cool with that and still pay it for them? Now, that would be absurd.

Sorry but that just isn't Biblical. The Biblical parable is that the judge forgives your debt and then sees you going around to other people and ruthlessly demanding that they pay their debt. That is what the righteous judge does not forgive. Yours is the parable of the crime boss who has to protect his pseudo-authority because if anyone is allowed to question it or speak the truth then his racket falls apart. As for the judges in our justice system they do indeed rule by intimidation and threats. The power of government is based on controlled violence. That is the way of the world. But athough you may believe in the god of this world, that is not a god that I will worship.

What you believe isn't a matter of control, but of responsibility. It is up to each person to open their eyes look at the world and use their brain to make sense of it.

What is the difference - besides semantics? Isn't taking responsibility a matter of exercising control over one's own selfishness to do otherwise?

The difference is between deciding what you believe because you have a gun pointed at you telling you to believe it or die, and deciding what you believe because that is what you see all around you in the world that you live in and thus know to be real. It is the difference between intellectual honesty and the cowardice of a sniveling worm.

Couldn't someone say the same thing about your view, Mitchell? Couldn't someone just say, "HEY!! I never asked for this "responsibility" why is it fair to force me to accept it or else I am subjected to living out some "self-imposed hell"?

Yes people can and do say this. Nobody asks for life because that would be an impossibility. You cannot be asked if you want to be alive until you are already alive. So while people can and do say this, it is completely irrational. You can only choose whether to embrace life or reject it, and this is in fact the fundamental choice that God has put before, and so He says, "I set before you life and death therefore choose life." If you choose death the only thing He can do is mourn for the loss of His child, but He cannot live for you because that isn't life. This is why the possibility of evil is inherent in life and free will, because it always includes the possiblity that you will do this irrational thing and choose against life itself. To this there is no answer and this is why universalism is wrong. It is an unavoidable part of life, free will and love that the one to whom you offer these things can reject what you offer.

And thus it is upon this logically irrefutable foundation that I base my understanding of Christianity, so don't have to believe in a crime boss god obsessed with his own authority, power and glory, but a rather a God of love who simply offers his love to us for us to either accept or reject.

I could throw out a bunch of blasphemies to illustrate that point, about what kind of God would do that but... well I just can't see a point in it, even if I am only playing devil's advocate just for the sake of the question.

I am sure you can throw out a lot of meaningless rhetoric just as the crime boss would to justify what he does, saying that its all about family and how he loves and cares for people. But nobody is fooled by it. The logic of the crime boss and the man with a gun, who seeks to rule by fear and crushing independent thought remains clearly distinguishable from authentic authority that doesn't have to defend itself with threats because the knowledge and responsiblity it is based upon is sufficient. The coward obeys the crime boss out of fear, but the sensible man, no matter how courageous, will obey the person who know what he is talking about, because in one case it is only the threats of the crime boss to worry about and in the other case it is about how reality works. I am reminded of that scene in "Schinder's List" where the jewish woman engineer warns that they are doing the building wrong. The Nazi shoots the woman for daring to speak, but follows the woman's advice anyway. The woman had real authority, and the Nazi's authority was a lie.

So again we come back to the basic question? Is something right because God commands it or does God command it because it is right? In the answer to this question is the difference between the God of heaven and the god of this world. Which is the one that you believe in? Is he the one that tells you what to do because he demands obedience and will seek revenge like the crime boss if you dare to disobey, OR is He the one that tells you what to do because He knows what works and that if don't do it then you will destroy yourself. Is he the jewish engineer or the Nazi? By now it should be clear which is the God that I believe in.

[tonyenglish7]

Scomsjw,

Do you think that most christians have arrived at their faith after much earnest thought? Or have a lot of them never thought to question the faith they were brought up in? Do you think that earnest thought is a cure for atheism? Do you really think you can control what you believe? If you read and think about something don't your beliefs simply emerge as a result? What if the belief that emerges differs from the christian view?

I think people desire to believe what is actually true deep down. Some things are known via a primarily basic way. Some read the bible and it rings true with the guidance of the interpersonal relationship with the Holy Spirit who opens their eyes to the actual truth of the events and the meaning behind them. I do believe that honest thought can lead one to the truth of Theism and is in effect a cure for atheism, as you say. But a person believes what they believe is actually true. This is the reason I think apologetics is a valuable enterprise. It is a defense of the primarily basic belief that the scriptures reveal truth. But belief in theism is not enough. The devil believes in theism... An interest in knowing God is where salvation is found.

If you come up with an honest defeater of the Christian faith, it is incumbent upon the defender of Christianity to defeat the defeater. But a Christian who knows God, will, even in the face of a defeater which he/she cannot defeat, still will be justified in holding faith, since they actually know the person of God directly. It would be like being accused of a crime for which you know you were innocent. Even if the evidence was overwhelming that you are guilty, and the jury is forced to convict you beyond a reasonable doubt, you are still justified in believing in your own innocence. There is always the chance that you are self deluded and you did actually commit the crime, but you have a completely different memory that is real to you. So, there is always the chance of self delusion. Yet this is true on either side of the issue.

Therefore the discussion of what is actually true based upon the evidence, the material world, logic and philosophy is a worthwhile discussion. There are two types of people, those that just float through life, satisfied with their default view and unconcerned if it corresponds to reality. Then there are those who honestly want to know if what they believe is true and are willing to change if confronted with the evidence. Just because someone is a floater, doesn't mean they are wrong, they may be right, even though they didn't agonize over the issue.

Now, someone may say, "I am justified in being an atheist in the same way". Yet by definition, there is no primarily basic way to know that atheism is true. It is something that must be studied, theories applied and materialism must be accepted a-priori to knowledge. When looking at the effect, you must first remove one possible cause to end up with materialism, and this is by blind faith alone.

So in this way, you are choosing to believe something without any evidence. If you allow the possibility of God from the onset, and then analyze the evidence within the effect, you can freely choose to believe or reject theism, and be justified at the same time because of the evidence. In my experience, atheists will always choose materialism, even when the chances are 10 to the 10 to the 123 against it.

[Ryan]

The man who comes into a public building with a gun and says everyone has to do what he says is a criminal not an authority.

Here is the difference between your analogy and mine, God isn't coming into a public building with a gun. All things are His, so to put it into perspective using your analogy, it would be more akin to a man going into His own house and finding someone harassing, abusing and murdering his family. The man has authority because it is his house and his family whom he loves and he is well within his right to defend them, up and to death.

Authority does not come from power, I refute that completely. Authority comes from responsibility or knowledge not from threats.

Authority comes from position. Responsibility comes from a combination of power, knowledge and authority. Does the President have authority in the United States because he has knowledge or because he has the position? He has knowledge (in the form of privileged information) and power because he has authority which comes from his position. That is why he has a responsibility to the people. How do you get responsibility or power without already having authority? That is incoherent. Your definition of authority is in terms of what one knows as in "he is an authority on the subject" but the Biblical definition of authority is as of a king. To very different ideas. But, by way of implication, I would say God has Authority on both counts.

11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
Rev 19:11-16 (ESV)

Please tell me, how do you square the above passage with your interpretation and idea of who God is?

The human race is changing and the atheists can see it.

Most people see it Mitchell.

I agree that that this Gnostic legalism isn't what Jesus and Paul are saying at all.

You missed my point. I meant that isn't what J. Warner Wallace was saying and it isn't what I or Tony and others have been saying either.

They condemn this idea of salvation by good works and it does not matter whether we are talking about works of the body or works of the mind.

As does J. Warner Wallace, myself and Tony (from what I hear we are in agreement) salvation is a gift of grace through faith. But sanctification is a process which requires participation.

his argument is such that he says that if you want to be judged fairly, that is exactly what you will get if you rejected God. However, if you accept Him and His sacrifice on your behalf, then you will not be judged fairly, but given mercy where it was not deserved.

mitchellmckain wrote: Yes the man with the gun tells you that if you do what He says then you will be all right. That is the doctrine of salvation by works.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Are you saying that this statement is salvation by works? I certainly don't see it that way.

Are you telling me that if you were a judge and you came down off the bench to pay the fine for someone and they stood up and gave you the finger and said, "NICE RACKET YOU GOT GOIN HERE YOU CROOK!" You telling me you would be cool with that and still pay it for them? Now, that would be absurd.

mitchellmckain wrote: Sorry but that just isn't Biblical. The Biblical parable is that the judge forgives your debt and then sees you going around to other people and ruthlessly demanding that they pay their debt.

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. In the analogy, the judge would be God, coming down off the bench to pay the debt through His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ for your sins (hence you would be the defendant). You believe that is not Biblical?

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 3:21-28 (ESV)

"propitiation" means where mercy is found it is "an atonement or an expiation." It means that sins have been paid for by the suffering of another, Jesus Christ.
It is basically the same idea as atoning... not to just forgive without cause and just eat the debt, but to forgive another person's debt by receiving payment from another party. If God forgives without payment, what then is the death of Christ for?

Also, notice he says "faith apart from works" as in as a separate issue to while James (James 2:24) says "and not by faith alone" as in not exclusively. They aren't contradictions, but separate issues. One talking about justification in terms of salvation, the other talking about justification in terms of sanctification.

19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
James 2:19-22 (ESV)

To use his wording earlier in that same chapter, "faith without works is dead". Salvation by grace through faith leads into sanctification involving active works... one is not complete without the other.

The difference is between deciding what you believe because you have a gun pointed at you telling you to believe it or die, and deciding what you believe because that is what you see all around you in the world that you live in and thus know to be real. It is the difference between intellectual honesty and the cowardice of a sniveling worm.

Oh, I see, its between being prideful and humbling one's-self... obviously that isn't what you were saying, but since I reject your analogy of a "criminal with a gun" because it is in no way similar to what I am saying, I am curious if you will re-answer it using what I have said about what I believe and not some straw-man about a crime boss.

Couldn't someone say the same thing about your view, Mitchell? Couldn't someone just say, "HEY!! I never asked for this "responsibility" why is it fair to force me to accept it or else I am subjected to living out some "self-imposed hell"?

mitchellmckain wrote: Yes people can and do say this. Nobody asks for life because that would be an impossibility. You cannot be asked if you want to be alive until you are already alive. So while people can and do say this, it is completely irrational. You can only choose whether to embrace life or reject it, and this is in fact the fundamental choice that God has put before, and so He says, "I set before you life and death therefore choose life." If you choose death the only thing He can do is mourn for the loss of His child, but He cannot live for you because that isn't life. This is why the possibility of evil is inherent in life and free will, because it always includes the possiblity that you will do this irrational thing and choose against life itself. To this there is no answer and this is why universalism is wrong. It is an unavoidable part of life, free will and love that the one to whom you offer these things can reject what you offer.

Speaking as a devil's advocate again... What you have said skirts the issue and doesn't answer the question. What gave God the right to put me in a position where I have to make these fundamental choices whether I want to or not? Why do I have to suffer in a hell of my own making because God decided to plop me into existence and put this choice in front of me? How is that any different than your analogy of a criminal with a gun? Why must I choose life or death? Isn't that what the person with the gun in their face is being given a choice of? Yes, its impossible to choose without being given the choice... but what gave God the right to make it possible in the first place and thus make us choose?

And thus it is upon this logically irrefutable foundation that I base my understanding of Christianity, so don't have to believe in a crime boss god obsessed with his own authority, power and glory, but a rather a God of love who simply offers his love to us for us to either accept or reject.

Apparently it isn't as irrefutable as you would hope it to be my friend. You are positing a situation that, while different in substance, is no different in essence to that of an appeal to Authority. You are saying that God had the right to put me into existence (authority) and put choices in front of me (the gun) that maybe I don't want (hypothetically speaking). We can recognize it as love once we believe, but why does an atheist have any more reason to accept your answer than mine? Your proposition seems to be missing the first logical piece, what gave God the right to do that?

I could throw out a bunch of blasphemies to illustrate that point, about what kind of God would do that but... well I just can't see a point in it, even if I am only playing devil's advocate just for the sake of the question.

mitchellmckain wrote: I am sure you can throw out a lot of meaningless rhetoric just as the crime boss would to justify what he does, saying that its all about family and how he loves and cares for people. But nobody is fooled by it. The logic of the crime boss and the man with a gun, who seeks to rule by fear and crushing independent thought remains clearly distinguishable from authentic authority that doesn't have to defend itself with threats because the knowledge and responsiblity it is based upon is sufficient. The coward obeys the crime boss out of fear, but the sensible man, no matter how courageous, will obey the person who know what he is talking about, because in one case it is only the threats of the crime boss to worry about and in the other case it is about how reality works. I am reminded of that scene in "Schinder's List" where the jewish woman engineer warns that they are doing the building wrong. The Nazi shoots the woman for daring to speak, but follows the woman's advice anyway. The woman had real authority, and the Nazi's authority was a lie.

Your reply, in light of my initial statement speaks for itself. I think you missed my point entirely.

So again we come back to the basic question? Is something right because God commands it or does God command it because it is right?

Why is it one or the other and not both/and?

In the answer to this question is the difference between the God of heaven and the god of this world. Which is the one that you believe in? Is he the one that tells you what to do because he demands obedience and will seek revenge like the crime boss if you dare to disobey, OR is He the one that tells you what to do because He knows what works and that if don't do it then you will destroy yourself. Is he the jewish engineer or the Nazi? By now it should be clear which is the God that I believe in.

He is the one that tells you what to do because He knows what works... (I won't use the Jewish engineer analogy because it is weak in my opinion because it is going back to that straw-man.) But how does he know what works Mitchell? Just throw in the doctrine of all-knowing or is it because it comes out of His nature and permeates the reality which He created? I am leaning towards the idea that you don't have children (or don't discipline them if you do) because you see warnings as threats. If my child is playing in traffic, I should just let him or should I warn him of the consequences up to punishing him for not listening? Or should I just let him wander around aimlessly figuring everything out for himself the hard way, when some of those ways lead to death? With God, its a little like walking into wind, when you turn your face towards it you can feel it on your face, but when you turn and walk the other way, you feel it on your back... on the face would represent mercy on the back would represent wrath... it isn't that God changed His mind, its that people have chosen the direction in which they walk. Because God gives a warning that when you walk in the wrong direction you will experience the consequences does not make it a threat coming from a man with a gun. How do you explain all the many warnings God gives in scripture with your view that only a criminal with a gun would make threats like that?

[mitchellmckain]

Here is the difference between your analogy and mine, God isn't coming into a public building with a gun. All things are His, so to put it into perspective using your analogy, it would be more akin to a man going into His own house and finding someone harassing, abusing and murdering his family. The man has authority because it is his house and his family whom he loves and he is well within his right to defend them, up and to death.

I am sure many an abuser of children and wives have said exactly the same thing. Whether we are talking about a gunman, a crime boss, a rapist or an abuser in the family, the logic is the same and it is criminal.

Authority does not come from power, I refute that completely. Authority comes from responsibility or knowledge not from threats.

Authority comes from position.

NO! That thinking is real temptation in the fall of man itself. I am talking about thinking that authority and otherwise being like God, who says what is good and what is evil, can be gained not by learning from Him, but simply getting handed to you in some way, like a position where you can dictate it to others however you like. That is what created to whole mess that we are in now.

Responsibility comes from power and authority.

That is demonstrably false. Plenty of people have aquired power and used it to put themselves in the position of authority and acted not only irresponsibly but with every kind of evil imaginable.

Does the President have authority in the United States because he has knowledge or because he has the position?

The presidency is a job with responsibilites that someone is elected to do. We elect him because we need someone to take those responsibilites. That kind of authority comes from responsibility. It has nothing to do with knowledge.

How do you get responsibility or power without already having authority?

Jesus explains this. "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authyority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and give his life as a ransom for many."

Even people in the workplace understand this principle. You get responsibility by serving people -- by doing the work that needs to be done. Only the most childish and sinful minds can possibly think they get authority by having it just handed to them for doing absolutely nothing. It has indeed happened in the past especially in empires and monarchies and the results are typically disastrous if not nightmarish.

Your definition of authority is in terms of what one knows as in "he is an authority on the subject" but the Biblical definition of authority is as of a king.

And yet in 2 Samuel 8 we find God's opinion of kings, which can best be described as disgust.

11 Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. 13 He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. 14 And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. 15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.
Rev 19:11-16 (ESV)

Please tell me, how do you square the above passage with your interpretation and idea of who God is?

You have got to be kidding -- literal interpretations of Revelations. You are really grasping at straws! But no, in general this is not something that I will interpret. I don't do eschatology. Seeing bunny rabbits in the clouds seems more rational to me than that. But no I do not see any great explanations of the character and nature of God in this. I can only speak of some of the symbolism that do understand. The sharp sword coming out of the mouth, for example is a symbol of the truth, not a magical power for combat and genocide, which says that God's method of destroying evil is to speak the truth. As for God's wrath, I have already spoken of this to you extensively and I am not going repeat myself.

But sanctification is a process which requires participation.

Also, notice he says "faith apart from works" as in as a separate issue to while James (James 2:24) says "and not by faith alone" as in not exclusively. They aren't contradictions, but separate issues. One talking about justification in terms of salvation, the other talking about justification in terms of sanctification.

Yep. Salvation is the work of God but it is a work of God in us. Salvation is all about a transformation of who and what we are, because Heaven isn't a vacation paradise that you buy a ticket for. Heaven is something that good people create around them because of who they are.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." Are you saying that this statement is salvation by works? I certainly don't see it that way.

That depends on whether you read this with the eyes of a religious legalist looking for a formula by which he can say that he saved others are damned. John 3:16 is not Jesus' answer to the question of what must I do the be saved (we have the answer to that in Matthew 19:26 which is "with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible). John 3:16 is about what God did and why. The why is not offense or glory but love for us, and what He did was to send His only Son.

In the analogy, the judge would be God, coming down off the bench to pay the debt through His incarnate Son, Jesus Christ for your sins (hence you would be the defendant). You believe that is not Biblical?

Well you may be able to create your crime boss image of God out of what the Bible says but it is little different that the Israelites making a golden calf out the things of the earth which God has made.

If God forgives without payment, what then is the death of Christ for?

Is this magical Christianity where the sacrifice of some special innocent human being has some power to make God forgive us?

It is not literally about payment. You cannot make what you have done go away with payments. That whole propitiation thing was never anything but symbolic. So in the first chapter of Isaiha, God says he is sick of our "propitiations", sacrifices, ceremonies and indulgences, they don't pay for anything. They never had any purpose for him, but only a purpos to help us to change our habits and turn away from evil. The idea that sins can be paid for is just the absurd fantasy of legalists.

The death of Christ is however about justice. And justice isn't really about payment. Justice is really about facing and accepting the fact that our actions have consequences. Jesus' death on the cross forces us to accept the fact that our sin will destroy everything that is good and it is only by accepting that fact that we can get through the lies and delusions of our sin to make a relationship with the living God.

Forgiveness isn't something that God finds difficult to do or requires payment in order for Him to do it. The problem is that cheap forgiveness will not help us to be responsible and face the destructiveness of our sins.

The difference is between deciding what you believe because you have a gun pointed at you telling you to believe it or die, and deciding what you believe because that is what you see all around you in the world that you live in and thus know to be real. It is the difference between intellectual honesty and the cowardice of a sniveling worm.

I reject your analogy of a "criminal with a gun" because it is in no way similar to what I am saying, I am curious if you will re-answer it using what I have said about what I believe and not some straw-man about a crime boss.

A rose by any other name is still a rose and skunk is still a skunk when you call it by prettier name. You can call your crime boss, father, god or godfather all you want just as the Mafia does. I don't care what you call him, if he uses the methods of a gunman, crime boss, rapist or abuser to rule by fear for his own self-centered selfish pursuits then I will see him for what he is and denounce him. I don't care what pretty promises the devil makes or what terrifying threats, the character of the god of this world makes it clear just what he really is and I will oppose him at ANY cost.

Couldn't someone say the same thing about your view, Mitchell? Couldn't someone just say, "HEY!! I never asked for this "responsibility" why is it fair to force me to accept it or else I am subjected to living out some "self-imposed hell"?

mitchellmckain wrote: Yes people can and do say this. Nobody asks for life because that would be an impossibility. You cannot be asked if you want to be alive until you are already alive. So while people can and do say this, it is completely irrational. You can only choose whether to embrace life or reject it, and this is in fact the fundamental choice that God has put before, and so He says, "I set before you life and death therefore choose life." If you choose death the only thing He can do is mourn for the loss of His child, but He cannot live for you because that isn't life. This is why the possibility of evil is inherent in life and free will, because it always includes the possiblity that you will do this irrational thing and choose against life itself. To this there is no answer and this is why universalism is wrong. It is an unavoidable part of life, free will and love that the one to whom you offer these things can reject what you offer.

What gave God the right to put me in a position where I have to make these fundamental choices whether I want to or not? Why do I have to suffer in a hell of my own making because God decided to plop me into existence and put this choice in front of me?

He did not "plop you down into existence". That is absurd. Before you exist there is no you that you can accuse Him of doing anything to. What God did is create life. Life is a phenomenon of self-organization by which living things create themselves. It is true that the creation of life is not an inherently moral thing to do, because suffering is an unavoidable part of life. So its morality depends on the motivation. To create life for selfish reasons such a glorifying yourself the way that Frankenstien did in Mary Shelly's book, that is a great evil. The creation of life is something that human beings do all the time when they become parents, and its morality depends on our motivation. The only motivation for the creation of life that is moral is that of love, in which is found the commitment to be there with encouragement and comfort through that unavoidable suffering of life.

But the risk remains that you will do the irrational thing and choose not to embrace life but choose death, and the only justice is that you will get only what you choose for yourself.

How is that any different than your analogy of a criminal with a gun?

The difference is methodology. Those who use the methods of a criminal, thinking that they must be obeyed just because they can shoot you, they ARE no different from the criminal with the gun. That is different from the methods of Jesus, who says that real authority coms from service and the responsibility that comes from that service. It also comes from the hard work of a student or scholar who makes the effort to learn proficency in something so that people can see that he knows what he is talking about.

Why must I choose life or death?

You must choose it because you exist as a living organism. It is the nature of what you are. You can embrace life and live or you can die.

Isn't that what the person with the gun in their face is being given a choice of?

No it is not. The choice of someone with the gunman's gun in his face is to obey or not according to the lie that whether they obey or not determines whether the gunman will kill you. Because this very thing demonstrates that the gunman is a liar and immoral, logic dictates that most likely the right thing to do is not what the gunman says to do. The very fact that the gunman says he will kill you for selfish reasons reveals that this is not a person who is trustworthy and so his promises mean nothing. This goes for EVERYONE who uses the same methods. It only proves they are worthy of contempt rather than obedience.

but what gave God the right to make it possible in the first place and thus make us choose?

There is no such right. The creation of life is not something that anyone has a "right" to do. And thus doing it must be justified by the motivation one has for doing so.

I said this before I even read what follows.

You are positing a situation that, while different in substance, is no different in essence to that of an appeal to Authority. You are saying that God had the right to put me into existence

Oops... there goes your whole argument down the drain with your false claims about what I am saying.

So again we come back to the basic question? Is something right because God commands it or does God command it because it is right?

Why is it one or the other and not both/and?

Because both is not a distinct alternative. To say it is both is exactly the same as saying that it is right because God commands it. Either is it right for a reason other than God's choice or it is not. But this is beginning to sound like a two year old's game of repeating "why" to every answer you give to a question. It is childish game.

But how does he know what works Mitchell?

Such a question only has meaning in the context of living creatures who begin microscopically and have to learn and grow to every bit of ability and knoweldge that they have. God is not such a being.

Just throw in the doctrine of all-knowing or is it because it comes out of His nature and permeates the reality which He created?

I am leaning towards the idea that you don't have children (or don't discipline them if you do) because you see warnings as threats.

Incorrect. I have three boys ages 17, 15 and 5. But perhaps you are right that I am not the same kind of parent that you are, because I certainly don't limit myself to the methods of a crime boss or abuser that you seem to think is so great. Like I said before when they are very young and cannot understand things like knowledge and responsibility and the authority that comes from these, then you have no choice but to use power. Are all your children that young or have you continued to treat your children like toddlers even when they are older?

If my child is playing in traffic, I should just let him or should I warn him of the consequences up to punishing him for not listening? Or should I just let him wander around aimlessly figuring everything out for himself the hard way, when some of those ways lead to death?

What you do is warn your child just like God warned Adam and Eve, saying that if they play in the street then they will die. But this is because the danger is real and their are consequences that cannot be fixed. You are giving this command because you know the dangers and not just to test their obedience or throw your weight around with the attitude that right and wrong is whatever you say it is. This way of giving absolute commands is indeed how you deal with a very young child and it is a natural step in the process of teaching them to be responsible and leaning to keep themselves from harm, for just keeping them chained up and out of harms way will never let them learn this. But you give such a command in such an uncompromising way even though you know that the child will grow up and safely be able to go into the street someday. A very appropriate punishment for not demonstrating such a minimal step towards responsible behavior is for a time to again treat them as a younger child whom you would never even allow the possibility of going into the street, in fact, if you know that they are not obeying you on this then it would be irresponsible of you as a parent to do otherwise. However, to tell the truth, I would be very very reluctant to judge any parent about something like this, because each child is so different that the only people (besides God) who know enough about the child to make any kind of valid judgement is these parents themselves.

With God, its a little like walking into wind, when you turn your face towards it you can feel it on your face, but when you turn and walk the other way, you feel it on your back... on the face would represent mercy on the back would represent wrath... it isn't that God changed His mind, its that people have chosen the direction in which they walk. Because God gives a warning that when you walk in the wrong direction you will experience the consequences does not make it a threat coming from a man with a gun.

Now you are speaking my language in the same manner that I always speak of the God that I believe in -- the one who tells us things because they are right and warns of the consequences of doing otherwise.

How do you explain all the many warnings God gives in scripture with your view that only a criminal with a gun would make threats like that?

I explain them exactly as you just did, FOR THE FIRST TIME in any of the discussion I have had with you.

[Ryan]

Here is the difference between your analogy and mine, God isn't coming into a public building with a gun. All things are His, so to put it into perspective using your analogy, it would be more akin to a man going into His own house and finding someone harassing, abusing and murdering his family. The man has authority because it is his house and his family whom he loves and he is well within his right to defend them, up and to death.

I am sure many an abuser of children and wives have said exactly the same thing. Whether we are talking about a gunman, a crime boss, a rapist or an abuser in the family, the logic is the same and it is criminal.

You missed the point again... and I am starting to think you do it on purpose. You effectively are saying it is criminal to defend your family against an attacker... or, didn't you catch that part of the analogy?

Responsibility comes from power and authority.

That is demonstrably false. Plenty of people have aquired power and used it to put themselves in the position of authority and acted not only irresponsibly but with every kind of evil imaginable.

Yes... but you have to have it before you can use it positively or negatively. That is like saying that you have no ability to choose before you are given the choice... follow your own logic down the rabbit hole.

Your definition of authority is in terms of what one knows as in "he is an authority on the subject" but the Biblical definition of authority is as of a king.

mitchellmckain wrote: And yet in 2 Samuel 8 we find God's opinion of kings, which can best be described as disgust.

I think you over extend that chapter beyond what it says... in fact that chapter is about God building up a king, King David. How could all kings be said to be described with disgust when God was at work building one up? No, Mitchell, it is the wickedness of the kings that made them disgusting, not their position.

You have got to be kidding -- literal interpretations of Revelations. You are really grasping at straws! But no, in general this is not something that I will interpret. I don't do eschatology. Seeing bunny rabbits in the clouds seems more rational to me than that. But no I do not see any great explanations of the character and nature of God in this. I can only speak of some of the symbolism that do understand. The sharp sword coming out of the mouth, for example is a symbol of the truth, not a magical power for combat and genocide, which says that God's method of destroying evil is to speak the truth. As for God's wrath, I have already spoken of this to you extensively and I am not going repeat myself.

I never said that your interpretation had to be literal nor is mine... I asked you to explain how you square it with your interpretation. You don't do eschatology... then what the heck have you been talking about all this time Mitchell? You have been talking about eschatological things or things which flow from it, for the majority of your posts. You don't see any explanations of the character and nature of God because you "don't do eschatology"... I agree with the symbolism of the sword. The fact that you push the alternate view "a magical power for combat and genocide" says a lot about what you misunderstand or assume about other people without understanding it. I don't know that there is any reasonable interpretation that says that. Yes you certainly have spoken of God's wrath, or actually denied it... but that does not square with the scripture as evidenced by countless passages.

Yep. Salvation is the work of God but it is a work of God in us. Salvation is all about a transformation of who and what we are, because Heaven isn't a vacation paradise that you buy a ticket for. Heaven is something that good people create around them because of who they are.

Heaven isn't a vacation paradise that you buy a ticket for... thank you for pointing out the obvious. Your interpretation of Heaven... well lets just say I disagree otherwise that's going to open another can of worms that you won't like.

He did not "plop you down into existence". That is absurd. Before you exist there is no you that you can accuse Him of doing anything to. What God did is create life. Life is a phenomenon of self-organization by which living things create themselves. It is true that the creation of life is not an inherently moral thing to do, because suffering is an unavoidable part of life. So its morality depends on the motivation. To create life for selfish reasons such a glorifying yourself the way that Frankenstien did in Mary Shelly's book, that is a great evil. The creation of life is something that human beings do all the time when they become parents, and its morality depends on our motivation. The only motivation for the creation of life that is moral is that of love, in which is found the commitment to be there with encouragement and comfort through that unavoidable suffering of life.

Skirt skirt skirt... I didn't ask for a birds and bees lesson. Go back and read some of my analogies, and compare them to what you just said.

How is that any different than your analogy of a criminal with a gun?

mitchellmckain wrote: The difference is methodology.

Hog wash... what was it you said? A rose by any other name is still a rose and a skunk is still a skunk. (remember I am playing devil's advocate here)

You must choose it because you exist as a living organism. It is the nature of what you are. You can embrace life and live or you can die.

And if I die then what... oblivion? Not according to you. Again, not much different than the criminal with a gun thing you keep talking about.

No it is not. The choice of someone with the gunman's gun in his face is to obey or not according to the lie that whether they obey or not determines whether the gunman will kill you. Because this very thing demonstrates that the gunman is a liar and immoral, logic dictates that most likely the right thing to do is not what the gunman says to do. The very fact that the gunman says he will kill you for selfish reasons reveals that this is not a person who is trustworthy and so his promises mean nothing. This goes for EVERYONE who uses the same methods. It only proves they are worthy of contempt rather than obedience.

Apparently, never had a gun in your face huh...

There is no such right. The creation of life is not something that anyone has a "right" to do. And thus doing it must be justified by the motivation one has for doing so.

So God's motivation for doing it justifies that, whether I want to or not, I am forced to live in this world or die... that doesn't sound loving nor very fair nor very just, it sounds like a cop out to me. If I have good motivations and the end result is the same... well like you said, a rose is a rose and a skunk is a skunk. (devils advocate position)

I said this before I even read what follows.

You are positing a situation that, while different in substance, is no different in essence to that of an appeal to Authority. You are saying that God had the right to put me into existence

Oops... there goes your whole argument down the drain with your false claims about what I am saying.

Not exactly Mitchell... you still haven't addressed the issue at its core. Read above. What you are saying is still inconsistent, whether you say its no ones "right" or not... you still have to deal with the fact that as it stands, the motives do not justify the means and the end result is the same. Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to steal if I want money? Is it wrong to steal if I want to feed my family? In the situation you put forth, it would be OK to steal to feed my family because my motivation is pure, but in mine, it is wrong to steal because it is wrong to steal, no matter what your motivation is, there is a right way to get it done. There is an old saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Good intentions mean nothing if they aren't grounded in something. This whole conversation bears witness to that fact, no matter how good my intentions are, the means are not justified by them, are they?

So again we come back to the basic question? Is something right because God commands it or does God command it because it is right?

Ryan wrote: Why is it one or the other and not both/and?

mitchellmckain wrote: Because both is not a distinct alternative. To say it is both is exactly the same as saying that it is right because God commands it. Either is it right for a reason other than God's choice or it is not.

Says, Mitchell... both is a distinct alternative, because it doesn't have to be God's choice, but something that comes from His very being, which changes the whole dynamic. So it can be right because it comes from God (ie. He commands it) it AND it can be right because its the right thing to do. That is not exactly the same.

But perhaps you are right that I am not the same kind of parent that you are, because I certainly don't limit myself to the methods of a crime boss or abuser that you seem to think is so great.

Thats enough Mitchell. Come on guy... now you are bordering on accusations of abuse?

Now you are speaking my language in the same manner that I always speak of the God that I believe in -- the one who tells us things because they are right and warns of the consequences of doing otherwise.

No, my friend, its the same God I have been speaking about all along, but someone has been having an argument with a straw-man and making assumptions that did not reflect my position at all (ie the gunman routine). More than likely it is because you started answering and arguing with my posts before you read the whole thing as evidenced by your previous post stating as much.

With that, the convo (at least from my part) ends here (for real this time) before I say something that I will regret. Best of luck Mitchell, you will continue to be in my prayers.

[mitchellmckain]

You missed the point again... and I am starting to think you do it on purpose. You effectively are saying it is criminal to defend your family against an attacker... or, didn't you catch that part of the analogy?

No I am rejecting the total nonsensical garbage about us being interlopers in someone else's home. We are here because God put us here, so your analogy doesn't make any sense.

NO! That thinking is real temptation in the fall of man itself. I am talking about thinking that authority and otherwise being like God, who says what is good and what is evil, can be gained not by learning from Him, but simply getting handed to you in some way, like a position where you can dictate it to others however you like. That is what created to whole mess that we are in now.

What???? Saying that God has authority because He created everything is the real temptation in the fall of man itself? God didn't the position handed to Him, it is His by virtue of being who He is.

No I am saying exactly what I said, which is that this idea of authority coming from position is the same kind of crap that the snake was pulling in the garden. If we would become an authority on good and evil then we have to learn the difference and not try to get the authority to say what is good and evil without actually learning the difference. Real authority to speak the truth comes from knowledge not position, and real authority to do things comes from responsibility not power. In other words, story of the garden aside, we find in your ideas about authority the very root of what is wrong in the world -- speaking (or dictating things) without knowledge and weilding power without responsibility.

Yes... but you have to have it before you can use it positively or negatively. That is like saying that you have no ability to choose before you are given the choice... follow your own logic down the rabbit hole.

NO, that is WRONG. You get authority by serving FIRST. Again I say you are like these disciples squabbling over the right to sit next to Jesus in heaven. This comes from the HUMAN obsession with glory, position, power and authority, but considering the god you worship that is hardly surprising. The God I worship cares nothing for such superficial things, his concern is with love, service and doing what is right for its own sake.

mitchellmckain wrote: And yet in 2 Samuel 8 we find God's opinion of kings, which can best be described as disgust.

I think you over extend that chapter beyond what it says... in fact that chapter is about God building up a king, King David. How could all kings be said to be described with disgust when God was at work building one up? No, Mitchell, it is the wickedness of the kings that made them disgusting, not their position.

Israel had no kings at that time. God was not describing any particular kings but warning the Israelites what ANY kings would be like.

Yes you certainly have spoken of God's wrath, or actually denied it... but that does not square with the scripture as evidenced by countless passages.

LIAR. I NEVER said any such thing. I said that God has the wrath of a parent against those who hurt His children and I explained what God would do about it too.

Heaven isn't a vacation paradise that you buy a ticket for... thank you for pointing out the obvious. Your interpretation of Heaven... well lets just say I disagree otherwise that's going to open another can of worms that you won't like.

Listen buster, you speak for yourself only. It is YOU that don't want to talk about it because it is YOU who are afraid that you won't like where it goes.

He did not "plop you down into existence". That is absurd. Before you exist there is no you that you can accuse Him of doing anything to. What God did is create life. Life is a phenomenon of self-organization by which living things create themselves. It is true that the creation of life is not an inherently moral thing to do, because suffering is an unavoidable part of life. So its morality depends on the motivation. To create life for selfish reasons such a glorifying yourself the way that Frankenstien did in Mary Shelly's book, that is a great evil. The creation of life is something that human beings do all the time when they become parents, and its morality depends on our motivation. The only motivation for the creation of life that is moral is that of love, in which is found the commitment to be there with encouragement and comfort through that unavoidable suffering of life.

Skirt skirt skirt... I didn't ask for a birds and bees lesson. Go back and read some of my analogies, and compare them to what you just said.

Birds and bees lesson? You have got to be kidding! That is the silliest thing I have ever heard. To say this can only means that you haven't a clue about what I am talking about. I read your analogies and I explained why they are simply illogical, but you don't seem care about what is logical or rational.

How is that any different than your analogy of a criminal with a gun?

mitchellmckain wrote: The difference is methodology.

Hog wash... what was it you said? A rose by any other name is still a rose and a skunk is still a skunk. (remember I am playing devil's advocate here)

Yes method doesn't matter to you. That fits. You seem to think that you can do exactly the same thing that criminal does but if you have the power then might makes right and that gives you the "authority" to do whatever you please. But methodology does matter to me, NOT power. I don't care how powerful the devil might be, it does not make either what he says or what he does any more right.

You must choose it because you exist as a living organism. It is the nature of what you are. You can embrace life and live or you can die.

And if I die then what... oblivion? Not according to you. Again, not much different than the criminal with a gun thing you keep talking about.

That's right, death is not an escape, it is simply a refusal to do the things that living consists of like learning and growing. It has nothing to do with the criminal with a gun because there is nobody doing anything to you but yourself. Your argument that God plops you into existence is irrational nonsense, not only because before you exist there is no you to do anything to, but that isn't how you come into existence anyway.

Apparently, never had a gun in your face huh...

No, I haven't. But you cannot assume that will respond to that by sniveling like a worm just because you do. Personally I have a VERY good understanding of why people do what they do in crisis situations. There are those who simply don't think about such things and thus go into shock when things don't go like they expect and there are other people who do think about situations over and over again and make plans ahead of time what they are going to do if such things do happen.

There is no such right. The creation of life is not something that anyone has a "right" to do. And thus doing it must be justified by the motivation one has for doing so.

So God's motivation for doing it justifies that, whether I want to or not, I am forced to live in this world or die...

That is right! You don't have a choice before you exist and anyway you didn't just plop into existence, you have been growing from a single celled organism choosing to live and grow all that time.

that doesn't sound loving nor very fair nor very just, it sounds like a cop out to me.

So lets summarize your position here:

You think it is not fair or just for people to get what they choose and ask for, but that it is fair that your invented god tortures other people for daring not to believe what you believe.

If I have good motivations and the end result is the same...

Huh? The only motivations I was talking about is what justifies the creation of life. And yes this applies to you to as a parent, if you have children so that you can sell them into slavery to makes some money then there is no right to create life that can justify you, but if you have children in order to love them, then it is that motivation that makes it right. Yes that is my position, there is no such right to create life -- it DOES depend on motivation.

well like you said, a rose is a rose and a skunk is a skunk. (devils advocate position)

Yes I did, and I stand by it. If he operates like a crime boss, rapist or abuser, getting what he wants with threats and fear, then no calling him god or father makes any real difference here - not to me. I will not worship your skunk whatever you choose to call him.

you still have to deal with the fact that as it stands, the motives do not justify the means and the end result is the same.

The means? What means are you talking about? We were talking about what justifies the creation of life and while you insist that it is some right that someone has to have, I insist that there is no such right, but that the creation of life can only be justified if one has the correct motivation.

Is it wrong to steal? Is it wrong to steal if I want money? Is it wrong to steal if I want to feed my family? In the situation you put forth, it would be OK to steal to feed my family because my motivation is pure, but in mine, it is wrong to steal because it is wrong to steal, no matter what your motivation is, there is a right way to get it done.

Now you are going off on a whole different topic of whether it is simply right or wrong to do a whole bunch of other things. I never asserted that the rightness of any kind of thing was a matter of motivation. Should I then follow your ridiculous tactics and claim that you are saying that all these things are a matter of rights and that it is ok to steal if the government says you have a right to do so. If not, then the fact that your thinking is no more applicable to these examples than mine, makes your tactic of turning to these examples completely irrational.

There is an old saying "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Good intentions mean nothing if they aren't grounded in something. This whole conversation bears witness to that fact, no matter how good my intentions are, the means are not justified by them, are they?

This is a whole different topic of ethics in general and I would love to discuss this topic with you but it has no bearing on this discussion. The creation of life is not like other kinds of activities. You are not doing anything to anyone that exists, but since the result of what you do brings someone into existence then there is a unique question of ethics in it that is not like anything else. For most other things we can ask whether you are doing any harm to another person or another living things, but that question doesn't even make any sense in this case, not even to say that there is no one to be harmed. So that in itself sets this ethical question far apart from any of the others. I am sorry if you prefer to have simple formula answers to all questions but reality isn't like that and such expectations of formula answers is not reasonable.

So again we come back to the basic question? Is something right because God commands it or does God command it because it is right?

Ryan wrote: Why is it one or the other and not both/and?

mitchellmckain wrote: Because both is not a distinct alternative. To say it is both is exactly the same as saying that it is right because God commands it. Either is it right for a reason other than God's choice or it is not.

Says, Mitchell... both is a distinct alternative, because it doesn't have to be God's choice, but something that comes from His very being, which changes the whole dynamic. So it can be right because it comes from God (ie. He commands it) it AND it can be right because its the right thing to do. That is not exactly the same.

No that is just a avoiding the question. If it comes from His very being then we are brought back the question simply by asking whether His "being" is a product of His choice or not and whether His being is that way for reason or not. This makes that rhetoric simply irrelevant to me and I don't really care where it comes from but only whether there is a reason why it is right other than the fact that God has chosen it. To say that the reason is God's nature, is an answer that is devoid of meaning or relevance and you are simply refusing to make any answer to the question. Either there is a reason apart from God's choice or there isn't. Yes I most certainly insist that it is one or the other.

But perhaps you are right that I am not the same kind of parent that you are, because I certainly don't limit myself to the methods of a crime boss or abuser that you seem to think is so great.

Thats enough Mitchell. Come on guy... now you are bordering on accusations of abuse?

No you are the one who made accusations about my parenting. I simply followed the logic of what you said. You were suggesting that my rejection of the methods of a crime boss and abuser meant that I could not be good parent. What other conclusion is there to draw from such a comment? The fact that following your logic (when trying to insult me) reflects badly on you is your fault not mine.

Now you are speaking my language in the same manner that I always speak of the God that I believe in -- the one who tells us things because they are right and warns of the consequences of doing otherwise.

No, my friend, its the same God I have been speaking about all along, but someone has been having an argument with a straw-man and making assumptions that did not reflect my position at all (ie the gunman routine). More than likely it is because you started answering and arguing with my posts before you read the whole thing as evidenced by your previous post stating as much.

Incorrect. You were insisting previously that God had to rule by fear with threats of tormenting those who would not comply with his demands and that is what I have been objecting to. BUT I am glad you see the rationality of my position and you will hopefully work out the inconsistencies in the way you have been expressing yours.

Best of luck Mitchell, you will continue to be in my prayers.

Well I would suggest that you read Luke 18:9-14, before doing so, and thus pray for guidance from God rather than praying to God in self-righteousness.

[Ryan]

Sorry if it came across as an accusation, it wasn't intended as such and I am sorry for the way I stated it.

As I said, the convo is over from my perspective so I will just let you have the last word on all the other stuff (as much as I am itching to respond to some of it), however I did want to apologize for my carelessness in what I said there.

[mitchellmckain]

This conversation may be over, but although this was just a little thing in the barrage of irrationalities, it continued to bother me.

You don't do eschatology... then what the heck have you been talking about all this time Mitchell?

Soteriology.

Soteriology is the study of salvation. Eschatology is the study of the end times or the final moments of human history.

You have been talking about eschatological things or things which flow from it, for the majority of your posts.

No I have not. There are a few small issues of eschatology that I will discuss because there are principles from other areas of theology that have a bearing, but I have no real interest in the interpretation of apocolyptic books of the Bible for prediction of specific events in the future. That just isn't an area of Christianity that I have found any value in.

[Ryan]

No problem, sorry for my lovely wording there, now that I read it again, it sounds very insensitive.

No I have not. There are a few small issues of eschatology that I will discuss because there are principles from other areas of theology that have a bearing, but I have no real interest in the interpretation of apocolyptic books of the Bible for prediction of specific events in the future. That just isn't an area of Christianity that I have found any value in.

All well and good, we have to know where we have been before we know where we are going.

One final final note and question though, since you mention it; when we talk about the final "destination" of the human race, whether it be Paradise, annihilation or damnation (or, whatever view you want to fill in the blank with), we are still talking about soteriology, but we are also talking about a practical eschatology which flows directly out of it and visa versa. So, for this reason, how you can decide what has bearing and what does not, without studying all the aspects of eschatology?

[mitchellmckain]

No problem, sorry for my lovely wording there, now that I read it again, it sounds very insensitive.

No I have not. There are a few small issues of eschatology that I will discuss because there are principles from other areas of theology that have a bearing, but I have no real interest in the interpretation of apocolyptic books of the Bible for prediction of specific events in the future. That just isn't an area of Christianity that I have found any value in.

All well and good, we have to know where we have been before we know where we are going.

One final final note and question though, since you mention it; when we talk about the final "destination" of the human race, whether it be Paradise, annihilation or damnation (or, whatever view you want to fill in the blank with), we are still talking about soteriology, but we are also talking about a practical eschatology which flows directly out of it and visa versa. So, for this reason, how you can decide what has bearing and what does not, without studying all the aspects of eschatology?

Yes there are connections and thus I will talk of eschatology with regards to those connections. But I have no interest in predicting future events, which seems extremely unreliable to me and thus basing other aspects of theology on that seems a very flawed and foolish way of doing theology.

The only other way I can think of responding is to give you another example, besides the one concerning the swords coming out of a mouth. I am, for example, quite convinced that any talk of a new earth and the old earth passing away does not mean that God will in any way destroy this planet and make a new one or in any way alter the natural laws of the physical universe which He made the way they are for reason and that there has never been a single thing wrong with them but that they have always been good in His judgement. The only thing wrong with creation is human kind. Although, as the head and center of the universe, in which the heart and mind of it all resides, that is a devastating thing to be wrong with the world. Thus it is only we that have to be changed. Remove the sin of mankind and it changes everything -- i.e. it will be a new earth, and a new heaven (afterlife in the spirit) as well.

[tonyenglish7]

Mitch,

Roman 8:19 The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. "


2 Peter 3:10-12 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
11 Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, 12 waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn!

What do you think of these verses? And the ones that talk about a new heaven and a new earth?

[Ryan]

The only other way I can think of responding is to give you another example, besides the one concerning the swords coming out of a mouth. I am, for example, quite convinced that any talk of a new earth and the old earth passing away does not mean that God will in any way destroy this planet and make a new one or in any way alter the natural laws of the physical universe which He made the way they are for reason and that there has never been a single thing wrong with them but that they have always been good in His judgement. The only thing wrong with creation is human kind. Although, as the head and center of the universe, in which the heart and mind of it all resides, that is a devastating thing to be wrong with the world. Thus it is only we that have to be changed. Remove the sin of mankind and it changes everything -- i.e. it will be a new earth, and a new heaven (afterlife in the spirit) as well.

Interesting view considering your interest in science. I agree that there is nothing wrong with them because of God's purpose for them (not to say they will be eternal), but I would have thought you would go the other way since the sun will eventually age, grow, engulf earth and then super-nova... Seems that to make this earth be eternal would be a much greater change in the natural laws of the universe, than it would be to allow the universe to tend towards entropy and undergo heat death. Or are you saying that it will play out like that and that it is figurative and we will live in a "spiritual realm" ? In which case I am curious, what are our resurrected (new/glorified/remade) bodies for, if not living in a new (glorified/remade choose your adjective) earth? Sorry to keep going with this, but now you got me really interested in a new topic (maybe we can count this as a new convo? haha)

[mitchellmckain]

The only other way I can think of responding is to give you another example, besides the one concerning the swords coming out of a mouth. I am, for example, quite convinced that any talk of a new earth and the old earth passing away does not mean that God will in any way destroy this planet and make a new one or in any way alter the natural laws of the physical universe which He made the way they are for reason and that there has never been a single thing wrong with them but that they have always been good in His judgement. The only thing wrong with creation is human kind. Although, as the head and center of the universe, in which the heart and mind of it all resides, that is a devastating thing to be wrong with the world. Thus it is only we that have to be changed. Remove the sin of mankind and it changes everything -- i.e. it will be a new earth, and a new heaven (afterlife in the spirit) as well.

Interesting view considering your interest in science. I agree that there is nothing wrong with them because of God's purpose for them (not to say they will be eternal), but I would have thought you would go the other way since the sun will eventually age, grow, engulf earth and then super-nova... Seems that to make this earth be eternal would be a much greater change in the natural laws of the universe, than it would be to allow the universe to tend towards entropy and undergo heat death. Or are you saying that it will play out like that and that it is figurative and we will live in a "spiritual realm" ? In which case I am curious, what are our resurrected (new/glorified/remade) bodies for, if not living in a new (glorified/remade choose your adjective) earth? Sorry to keep going with this, but now you got me really interested in a new topic (maybe we can count this as a new convo? haha)

Indeed starting a new topic in the General discussion section seems like a great way to proceed in light of recent events, so I will.

[Ryan]

Indeed starting a new topic in the General discussion section seems like a great way to proceed in light of recent events, so I will.

Great, thank you

[Brad]

Finally got a chance to hear this episode and like so many other commenters, found it truly excellent. Thank you, Emery and Scott!

As always, I really appreciated Scott’s forthrightness not only regarding his feelings about the young Mormon "elders," but about all the subjects covered, which brings up my first comment. It’s my experience that this degree of honesty from devout believers in the presence of “non-insiders,” is not that often present.

For a trivial example of the sorts of things I'm thinking of, consider the bogus “survey” that Scott mentioned being uncomfortable with peddling in his earlier life because it was an insincere tactic intended to soft-pedal, i.e., obscure, the real purpose. Christians might hate to acknowledge it, but such surveys and other similar tactics are very much akin to the “personality tests” hawked by Scientologists. Of course, the Scientologists don’t give a rat’s patootie about your “personality,” just as those particular Christians didn't sincerely obsess about the accuracy or results of their "survey," but they - Scientologists - do truly and sincerely want to help you on to “The Bridge to Freedom,” which entails, not coincidentally like Christian dogma, "spiritual freedom" and "eternal life."

More egregious Christian examples, off the top of my head, would range from the pseudonymous writers of various “Pauline” epistles to the blatant dishonesty of the Christian school board members in Dover, PA who tried to force ID into their high school's science classes, to the lies told around the U.S. by the "Christian historian" David Barton.
Dishonesty is often simply not recognized as such when it’s “for God” or for “the cause,” which is to say that they think it’s not really dishonest if it fits their purposes.

Beautifully contra to such examples, is Scott's view that the key is to really care about people first and foremost. And that view, I'd think, has a very great deal to do with his own honesty and forthrightness. The two things - genuinely caring about people and honesty - are surely two sides of the same coin.
I'd only note that real caring is NOT an exclusively religious, not to mention an exclusively Christian, attribute, as anyone with reasonably open eyes can see.

Second comment:
Scott suggested several times something along the lines of one key reason for his Christian beliefs being his experience that conversion to Christianity greatly changed people’s lives for the better. That assertion is an easily demonstrable fact, one which I’ve observed any number of times myself, even after I stopped believing and attending Christian services and events.

However, the same thing can be seen, and the same thing equally fervently claimed, among believers of many other sorts, very decidedly including Scientologists and Muslims, not to mention our Mormon friends.
In short, the actual likelihood / truth value of the dogma doesn’t seem to be too important a factor when it comes to claims that xyz religion or pseudo-religion “utterly, totally, changed my life for the better! Hallelujah!”
People – especially psychologically needy people – can be made overwhelmingly (if sometimes temporarily) happy and have their behavior clearly changed for the better when they latch on to even clearly ridiculous “salvation” concepts of all sorts.
The technical term for this, I think, is “placebo.”
Well, there are other more exacting although crude terms, too, but I’ll skip those in the interest of diplomacy.

In other words, people can do some really great things for some really silly reasons.That would be just fine, of course, and would simply be one of the amusing ironies of life, except that bad reasons eventually and inevitably lead people to some really harmful acts, too. In my view, those bad reasons include much of the text of the Christian New Testament, not to mention the Hebrew texts or the Muslim texts, etc.

Last, to the best of my recollection Scott mentioned several times that if on “judgment day” God mandates eternal torture for folks like Emery (and me and a zillion others, btw), well then, by golly, that must be what true justice is after all, and only-human Scott would simply have been unable to see how justice really works. In that case, it's just too bad for Emery and everyone else who couldn't believe the right "history lesson" and/or couldn't bring ourselves to pretend we did.

In other words, the buck of Scott’s thinking stops flat at the point where he might have to consider that,
1) there might not really be a God, and accordingly,
2) there might not be a “judgment day,” (btw, isn't it later this month? ) and,
3) even if the biblical God does exists his “justice” might be flawed in a fundamental, that is, very unjust, way.

In other words, Scott's willingness to think with his own noggin seems to simply end when it comes to those concepts. They are as much off the table as discussing a personal trip to Mars. I don't say that by way of condescension. If I were in Scott's exact shoes, I'm quite sure I'd be doing exactly the same thing and thinking exactly the same way.
Nevertheless, this demonstrates the really rather profound limits of conversation between “A Christian and an Atheist.”
Bravo to Emery for the skillful way he manages to keep a conversation going while speaking around, under, and over that enormous and distinctly non-Hindu elephant in the cyber-room!