The Extraordinary Story Behind True Reason

“reason was the New Atheists’ weakness, not their strength”

Tom: I’m an atheist blogger. Do you ever debate? I would like to find someone with whom I can have an online debate–same basic structure as a face-to-face debate except not real time.

Is this something you’d find interesting? If not, can you point me to a Christian apologist who might be a better fit?

Thanks,
Bob

Bob appeared on Don Johnson’s* podcast a number of months back.

http://donjohnsonministries.org/discussion-with-atheist-blogger-and-author-bob-seidensticker/

*Not to be confused with the Miami Vice guy

Really, Flying Spaghetti Monster! Anyone who utters those words should be officially banned from being taken seriously. Now, if I could just find the right official.

You had to go there Steve 😉

Anyway, while Bob mentions the FSM (the most delicious of all gods) in the discussion and is utterly baffled by the notion that “Why?” questions might not always be descriptive, he is respectful throughout.

Bob, is there any evidence for God?

Bob S.,

Show me why the comparison is inappropriate.

Because the Flying Spaghetti Monster would just be another physical being among beings therefore the evidence appropriate to show it’s existance would be the same as any other physical thing. God is not like that as we can tell by the type of evidence put forth for his existance. I’m presuming you’re familiar with that evidence so you should have grasped yourself the problems with the comparison.

I agree with what Melissa has said @ #10.

In Philosophy 101 I learned that what theists define as God is an ontologically self-existent or self-contained being. The FSM, Zeus, Thor or “Sky Fairy” as they are described or defined are not ontologically self-contained being(s). Indeed, I can still have a meaningful discussion and/or argument simply talking about what an ontologically self-contained being is– the term God in a philosophical context is actually superfluous. IMO using an alternate name (without a proper conceptual understanding of the conceptual framework that theists use when talking about “God”) is simply a fallacious attempt to use ridicule, to not just to undermine the theist’s argument, but to demean his character. However, that tells us more about the skeptics ignorance and ethics than anything else.

Tom,

I am writing this morning to express my gratitude to you for sponsoring this forum. After a brief and disappointing foray into Bob Seidensticker’s website Patheos after seeing his request to you to debate, I have a renewed and deepened appreciation for the “disciplined debate” format and your careful and thoughtful monitoring of this forum through the Discussion Grounds. The key word and concept here is respect. You are respectful toward the participants here and you require us to be respectful of each other. I have been reminded that respect is sadly lacking in some, perhaps many, other debate forums. Thank you for modeling the openness, reason and respect that Christ teaches us in your blog.

I got my copy of True Reason yesterday and have started reading it. It’s great! Thanks for this respectful and reasoned treatise on reason. God bless your ministry.

JB

Melissa:

the Flying Spaghetti Monster would just be another physical being among beings therefore the evidence appropriate to show it’s existance would be the same as any other physical thing. God is not like that

1. The FSM is supernatural.

2. When God dips his toe into our reality to cause a miracle, that affects our reality. That’s a physical change that, in principle, is scientifically testable.

JAD:

The FSM, Zeus, Thor or “Sky Fairy” as they are described or defined are not ontologically self-contained being(s).

You have a stunted view of the FSM, my friend. The FSM has whatever properties he needs.

demean his character

I think you’re a little more thin-skinned than necessary. My own use of the FSM is as an illustration. If I offend, it’s inadvertent.

And it’s odd to complain about the FSM and not about Scientology, Mormonism, or a dozen nutty cults. I can’t compare the FSM against Yahweh, but I can with Xenu?

As far as Pastafarianism and its god, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we might consider the significance of the reality that atheists have had to invent a non-existent religion for worshiping the non-existent god of their faith.

IMO, an invented, non-existent “religion” created for the purpose of mockery and ridicule is a red herring, a straw man argument, and not worthy of serious discussion on this site. If thinking atheists can’t engage with existing world religions and worldviews in their discussions with thinking Christians on this website, there are many other websites available on the Internet where they can post comments.

Alternatively, we Christians can treat Pastafarianism as what it is: idolatry.

Hi Tom,

“Thanks for the question about email notification. That feature was turned off for reasons I don’t remember now. It probably had something to do with troubleshooting some long-ago problem. I’ve re-enabled it.”

Thanks so much for that.
Shane

Melissa:

So?

Uh … so I’m rejecting your demand that the FSM be “another physical being.”

science requires repeatability, the ability to control other variables etc etc.

One of the big science stories for 2014 was the Chelyabinsk meteor. Not repeatable, darn it. Still a very important big of science.

I warned you all that taking Bob seriously was going to be a mistake. It’s no use being rational with someone who is putting forth arguments about God based on foodstuffs. I know this is a very informed and reasonable group who want to share their knowledge in a good way. However, we’ve been there done that with this crowd. Remember, the “magical wish granting friend” or the talking mule or Robert?

Good points, BillT.

Why do we continue to get light weights like Bob here? I think it’s because, people like Bob have not have not yet come to terms with their atheism. I have given some thought how I would behave if I were an atheist. The bottom line is that I would leave other people alone. The reason? Atheism is a non-belief or disbelief. In other words, it’s about nothing. Therefore there is nothing to push or promote. Why then is Bob trying to promote non-belief as if it were a belief? I think it’s because as human beings we’re, for some reason, “hardwired” to seek purpose and meaning. If we are just the chance product of some mindless evolutionary process, then our desire to seek purpose and meaning is all an illusion. Why then would anyone want to promote a non-belief as if it provided purpose and meaning? Such a belief is more absurd than virtually any kind of religious belief.

Tom:

Any further attempt to take the FSM seriously, or to use it in any way as a basis for an argument against God, will officially be labeled silly, foolish, inane, wrongheaded, thoughtless, and intellectually incompetent.

One thing that perhaps we can agree on is that its original use in response to the Kansas thing was clever and even honorable. I imagine that we can at least get agreement on that.

Bob,
Let’s just jump to the end point where the FSM is identical to God. Where does your complaint go from there?

This is your bandwidth……

This Is your bandwidth on atheism.

Bandwidth is precious. Don’t waste yours!

@Bob Seidensticker:

Don’t imagine the FSM is material then. Problem solved.

Did I miss an essential property in my definition for the FSM? Thank you for pointing that out. Now it has it.

These are exactly the type of intellectually dishonest responses that, quite unfortunately, is common in a certain atheist population. Is this even worth a refutation? Why should I waste my time with someone who does not even bother to get a minimal grasp of what the opposing party is saying?

FSM.

Nonsense.

[Ultimate Actuality], whatever it is, is without question, One, for, there are not 1.000009 realities. If the Multi-Verse, then “that” just is the Whole. Hawking now agrees with Genesis 1:1 that [Ultimate Actuality] is also Immaterial, just as he agrees that it, whatever it is, is also Timeless. That such a thing must be Unchanging has forced the hand of the Naturalist to posit that all which is our reality, this universe, time, and so on, every bit of it, cannot be real, but must be a mere Hologram. Hawking tells us Time is not ontologically real, whereas, Imaginary Time is ontologically real. Such a desperate move is to circumvent the problem of contingency amid Cause/Effect. A Necessary and Sufficient Cause of [All-Effects] standing amid This-Effect yet not That-Effect speaks of the incoherence of mechanistic determinism, and our eyes see no geography which accounts for this, in the real world which mind perceives, other than within the confines of Intention. But this must be avoided at all costs by the Naturalists, and thus Imaginary Spheres and You-Are-A-Hologram are sought out and dived into, shouting, “No! None of this is real!”

Reason itself, void of intentionality, is sheer illusion, is a Hologram, if materialism, and thus the desperate move to Holograms, lest Cosmic Intention open the door to Reason, all of which leads to God. “No! None of this is real!” is the only coherent move left.

A Necessary and Sufficient Cause of [All Effects] found standing amid This Effect but not That Effect is incoherent, and as such This Effect which is this “universe” (whatever that whole is) must be Not-Real, must be sheer illusion, must be a Hologram, or, there must be Intention, for Intention is the only other end of regress which avoids absurdity.

We find then that [Ultimate Actuality] houses the following:

1) It is One
2) It is Immaterial
3) It is Timeless
4) It is Unchanging
5) It is the Necessary and Sufficient Cause of [All Effects]
6) It stands amid This Effect but not That Effect

We conclude then with the only two rational options:

A) Nothing is real. “This is all a Hologram” just is the end of the matter.

B) Cosmic Intentionality, Will, just is the end of the matter.

Our brutally repeatable experience of intention, coupled with observed reality, brings us, then, to this juncture:

It will be opaque skepticism in some bizarre amalgamation with mereological nihilism, as all is illusion, as all is Hologram, or, it will be that I do in fact exist. If there is I, if i-am, then mereological nihilism is false, and a whole new reality has been stumbled upon.

I exist.

I am.

This startling statement coupled with all of cosmology coupled with all of perception coupled with all of physics brings us, again, back to that Necessary and Sufficient Cause of [All Effects] standing amid This but not That, wherein i-am, wherein Will breaks through the absurdity of the holograms of mereological nihilism with a far more gritty, far more rigorous explanatory power housed within its TOE.

We’ve somehow stumbled upon all that is The-Self, and therein the door into all that is The-Other is wide open, for i-am is not a Hologram, not illusion, but stands intact amid many I’s, and thus the Other, You, is found, also, standing intact, on necessity.

But Reality is One. We come then to We, the singularity of unity of the singular-Us, for, as we have seen, Ultimate Actuality is One.

We find but one TOE infused into Mankind’s Consciousness upon planet Earth wherein the landscape of the fully singular, the fully triune [Self-Other-Us] stands as the Ontological End of Regress, as the Uncaused Cause, in Whom the term E Pluribus Unum just is [Ultimate Actuality].

I see only intellectual desperation in pretend Imaginary Spheres and pretend Time and real Holograms and FSMs and Unicorns.

None of them have the explanatory power which is housed, necessarily, within the fully singular, fully triune God, Who is Himself E Pluribus Unum, Who is, on ontological necessity, Love.

Another one of Bob’s comments from his website reveal that he prefers to reject what experts/scholars/historians say about the subjects they study in depth – because, ya know, he knows better.

Bob commented: Why give them any of the gospel story as actual history? From my standpoint, all of it is suspect. If the supernatural elements are suspect (the story is translated through a Greek lens, with all its supernatural baggage), then surely the mundane elements are suspect as well.

Some conspiracy theorists have made more sense than this.

#35. Bob thinks God isn’t falsifiable, well why do we have a problem of evil then? It’s obvious that God can be argued against. If God is immaterial and reductive materialism is true then God doesn’t exist. Moral nihilism is a way to argue against almost every form of Theism. (Deism being the omly exception). Oh, look there is a book written by Princeton philosopher Graham Oppy called ‘The Best Argument Against God’. Strange title to have if God wasn’t falsifiable. That’s just one of many btw, so yeah Bob doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Re: My comment #53

In this comment, I say this: The “mundane elements” of the Gospels are what make the supernatural elements believable.

Allow me to give a personal example of why I find this to be true. On a trip to Israel in 2008, our tour group was in the room in Jerusalem that is said to be the location where the Last Supper took place. the guide was referring to the chapter and verses from Mark that describe how Jesus’ disciples found the house where they were to meet Jesus to celebrate the Passover Seder (a very mundane thing for Jews to do).

Mark 14: 12-13
On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover? So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him.

The guide asked us this question: How did the disciples know which man to follow? All of us were stumped. Then he explained that in Jesus’ time, only women carried water, so to see a man carrying a jar of water would be highly unusual and a good “sign” for the disciples to know who to ask about where to meet Jesus.

This was one of those moments where my faith was deepened because I know that cultural, contextual details of this sort would be absent from accounts of events that were not eye-witness, participant accounts of the events. The “mundane” details in the four gospels of people’s activities and relationships give credibility to the accuracy and truthfulness of their accounts of Jesus’ miracles and his resurrection.

Tom:

1. If you say A, and someone says, “here are several reasons for us to consider A to be false, weak, or in need of re-thinking,” then for you simply to repeat A is to display real rudeness toward someone who took you seriously enough to give you a thought-through answer.

Granted. I missed the clear explanation of where I erred. I was interested to learn why the FSM is offensive and out of bounds. I’ve been scolded many times, so I realize that it is offensive; I just don’t know why.

The penalty is being assessed.

Looks like I’m going to have a hard time hanging out around here. Common sense rules of conduct are great, but I’m so clueless that I don’t even know that I’m breaking them.

Bob,

Atheists, including the inventors of FSM and Pastafarianism, don’t take the FSM seriously. Why do you come to this website thinking that thinking Christians should or would?

Above, you say in regard to religious diversity: “…since that does mean that they’re mostly wrong, that observation does, however, raise the question that maybe they’re all wrong.” How does religious diversity say anything at all about whether or not a religion is “wrong”? I don’t follow your reasoning here. Please explain.

Are you really as puzzled by the reaction you’re getting with these arguments as you claim to be?

….but I’m so clueless that I don’t even know that I’m breaking them.

Now, we’re finally getting somewhere. Stay with this Bob and you may find some answers that shed some real light on your questions.

Hi BillT,

^

Sorry I deleted my above post I scrolled down a long way through the thread to see if anybody had responded to Jenna’s post and didn’t see one. Then just after replying I see that the discussion had continued near the end. Will read what has been said before replying.

Sorry about that
Shane

Jenna:

Atheists, including the inventors of FSM and Pastafarainism, don’t take the FSM seriously. Why do come to this website thinking that thinking Christians should or would?

I don’t. Who would? I don’t take it seriously, you don’t, and no one here does.

That’s not the topic.

How does religious diversity say anything at all about whether or not a religion is “wrong”? I don’t follow your reasoning here. Please explain.

Because religious diversity proves that at least some are wrong. Maybe it’s like alchemy where all approaches are wrong.

Are you really as puzzled by the reaction you’re getting with these arguments as you claim to be?

Yep. I’m happy to be told why the FSM is a useless argument. If I got that clear explanation, I must’ve missed it in the blizzard of finger wagging and alarms blaring about crossing this line or that one. So far, the clear message is only that I’ve violated 17 levels of protocol. Why is still a mystery.

Shane, RE: #67

You have misunderstood my comment #17. This is what I said:

“I am observing and experiencing that this anger toward God (the God they don’t believe in) spills over into anger (and hostile behavior) toward believers in God.”

My phrase “this anger toward God” refers to the anger that Dr. Exline observed and documented based on self-reports from self-identified atheist and agnostic college students in her study. The crux of this comment is the puzzlement that I share with author Carson Weitnauer about why atheists and agnostics are angry at a God they don’t believe exists.

Now, in your response, you use the term or descriptor of “misplaced” to ask about Christians alleged misplaced anger toward (your words) “…people who don’t share your beliefs.” I don’t happen to feel any anger whatsoever toward people who don’t share my beliefs, so I am asking you for some documentation or research to know what you are talking about since I find it foolish and rather presumptuous to speculate about the psychology of other people’s anger that I have no documentation of or research about.

It seems to me that you are attempting to take the discussion off in another direction when a discussion of why atheists who don’t believe in God express angry emotions toward God would be interesting and informative in and of itself. Meanwhile, I’ll try to find the Exline study on the internet.

Bob,

You say this: “Because religious diversity proves that at least some are wrong. ”

Are you really grasping the implications of this claim of yours for atheism and for naturalism?

First of all, in order to find “some” religions wrong while other religions are right (rejecting your proposition that if some are wrong, all might be wrong), you must have in mind a criterion for judging one or several religions to be a rendition of The One True Religion. If there is (and I believe that there is) One True Religion, then atheism must be wrong since atheism’s claim is that all religion(s) is/are wrong.

But the existence of One True Religion still does not address the issue of religious diversity. Is it possible for mere mortals to ever understand, know and practice the One True Religion with complete fidelity? IMO, no, it is not. But God send the Son, the Messiah, to teach us the One True Religion (John 14:6″… the way, the truth, and the life”) so that in our fallible, imperfect and incomplete human lives, we might come as close as humanly possible to living out the One True Religion, which we Christians also refer to as the Kingdom of God.

But Shane, do you go around spewing your dislike for Voldemort when not reading Harry Potter? And if you do express your dislike for Voldemort when not reading Harry Potter why are you angry at Voldemort, a fictional character, when Voldemort has no effect on you or the life you live. I would think that most fans of Harry Potter would share your dislike for Voldemort as he is the villain of the story. However, I have rarely met a Harry Potter fan who publicly displays their dislike for Voldemort (who, I am sure, don’t really believe Voldemort exists) the way atheist, who claim not to believe in God express their dislike for the Supreme Being.

On the other hand, if you are trying to equate God to Voldemort, based on what would appear to be an incomplete understanding of the biblical story in general and Christian theology in particular, then I would say your comparison is a poor one.

Yep. I’m happy to be told why the FSM is a useless argument. If I got that clear explanation, I must’ve missed it in the blizzard of finger wagging and alarms blaring about crossing this line or that one. So far, the clear message is only that I’ve violated 17 levels of protocol. Why is still a mystery.

If you don’t think you got a clear explanation, much less the dozen clear explanations that were offered, then you either don’t read and/or don’t understand English that well. And for a second there I thought you were showing some progress. Silly me.

Bob,

I’m happy to be told why the FSM is a useless argument.

I’m more interested to know how happy you will be to go learn the answer on your own. From your website I gather that you’ve read a lot of books about Christianity,you’ve written at least one on that same subject and you’ve interacted with Christians from all walks of life. You’ve shown that you can put in the effort.

Hmm…now that I think about it, why don’t you know the answer already?

Bob,

FSM.

See # 50 & 55.

Ontology.

Definition.

Illusion? Hologram?

No thanks.

The “many religions objection” does not work against theism IMO, because theism is an ontological (or philosophical) not religious position. For example, Christianity, Judaism and Mohammedanism are all said to be theistic religions. That is, even though they may differ in regards to their religious doctrines, ontologically they share many of the same basic presuppositions.

When you look at the debate philosophically then you are down to a relatively few positions: theism, pantheism, panentheism, naturalism, materialism or some kind of idealism (or “ideaism”). Notice that I did not include atheism. In my opinion, while some world views may be atheistic, atheism itself is not an ontologically viable position. What does atheism explain? Nothing. Apparently even some so called “atheists” are confused (or are being deliberately dishonest) about this.

An honest intellectual discussion is about which of the competing ontological positions is true. Of course, you have to be committed to the concept human beings naturally seek the truth and are capable of discovering the truth.

Correction:

The last sentence in my last post should change “is” to “in”, as in, “……hints / claims is non-existent, that is to say, he hints / claims that that side of the equation is non-existent in some subset of humanity…….”

Bob,

Okay ~~~

“That’s a thoughtful offer, but I’m fed up with this place, I’m afraid. I apologize for the harsh critique, but I’ve found the ratio of thoughtful content to hot air and outrage to be too low.”

This site is a great place to see how serious, evangelical apologists think. I have learned a whole lot, and while I have nowhere near enough time to lay out the kind of huge and detailed posts you see here, I do check it frequently on my rounds of the internet.

I don’t think you are going to convert anyone here as my experience with observing over the last year is that “atheist” posters either get pulled down into some convoluted philosophical rabbit-hole and lose sight of the original issues, or they get banned for breaching some discussion policy.

Still, I enjoy the site very much.

Chris @ #89 – As a Christian I recognise that Christianity has some mightily weird facets. Indeed, the long and often bizarre interaction between God and the Israelis is but one example. So I sympathise with the outsider.

However, your “weirdness” criteria for determining if something is valid is subjective. It’s a terrible line of reasoning.

I’m going to take a guess here and suggest that you are inconsistent in how you apply this in your life. For example, I suspect that the next time you sit down to watch a documentary on QM you will not say “this is all pretty weird and I don’t understand it (no one does). Therefore, it must be wrong”.

Tom, RE: Bob Seidensticker’s departure

This has been a very interesting week for me in terms of my learning curve as a Christian apologist. I am sorry that Bob S. did not find this website met his expectations, but frankly, I am not surprised. I wonder if he would be interested in my experience on his website and my reaction to its process and content. Whether or not he is, I think that my experience is illuminating for us as we learn what is involved in cyber-apologetics.

I went on Bob Seidensticker’s website with the best of intentions. I entered the discussion that was advertised as presenting “a natural explanation of the resurrection.” The blog is titled “So how does an atheist explain the resurrection story?” I was expecting a possible explanation of this supernatural event from the perspective of naturalism, and was very curious as to what this might look like.

I soon realized that in fact, this was a group of atheists and one or two identified Christian or believer commenters, discussing Bob S. arguments as to why the gospel accounts of the resurrection could not be believed, which he presented to bolster his conclusion that the resurrection never really happened. I called him on what I saw as a “bait and switch” lead-in to the thread, offering several sources that I consider to be credible analyses of why the Gospels are believable, including Jim Warner Wallace’s book Cold-case Christianity and Professor Simon Greenleaf (1874). The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence.

One issue that came up early on was the question of who has the “burden of proof” in such a discussion. This came up because I was asked by several commenters for evidence. I attempted to clarify the obvious. I, little ole Jenna, ordinary Christian living in the 21st century, have no personal evidence of the resurrection, a supernatural event that occurred over 2,000 years ago. Did they really expect that I would? This admission brought a bit of triumphant bellowing, “You’ve got nothing!” from my atheist interlocutors, and some rather bizarre accusations of how I was avoiding assuming my “burden of proof” and therefore, shirking my duties as a Christian apologist, possibly thereby contributing to condemning some atheists to hell, including Bob himself.

There then came a few comments directed my way that contained profanity, which I objected to, only to have it implied that I am “overly sensitive” and a prude. The essence of this message is that I was doing a great job of confirming every negative stereotype they hold about Christians, so keep it up! At that point, I took a break, only to return to find a lengthy discussion about me, full of dime store pseudo-psycho-analysis. They drew the conclusion that I merely cling to my Christian beliefs about the resurrection rather than admit to the power of persuasion of their arguments because if I did, my world would fall apart.

The strategy of talking about someone instead of to him or her when the target of the discussion is present is a catty, childish tactic for used by the cheerleaders’ clique for dissing someone who is an outsider. I’d had enough.

This experience, along with several years contributing to other open forums debating religion, have taught me a great deal about the social function for atheists of their cyber-community. I referred earlier to Alister McGrath’s elaborated discussion and analysis of this phenomenon. William Lane Craig also has written insightfully about internet atheism and its impact on apologetics. IMO, we need to be very much aware of the strategies and tools that substitute for reason, logic and respectful dialogue on these internet sites.

There are many genuine issues that we as apologists can analyze and discuss, along with our atheist friends and interlocutors, who are on a sincere quest for the truth. For instance, does any and every Christian make a “claim” in the argumentative and rhetorical sense to the basic tenets of Christianity, such as the truth of the resurrection, when we state our belief in the resurrection. Does this statement of belief then impose a “burden of proof” on us, individually or collectively, to present “evidence” to convince a skeptic?

My hope is that sharing this experience on a atheist blog will serve both as a challenge and a warning. I am reminded of what our Lord Jesus and the book of Proverbs have to say that might light our path: Matthew 7:6 and Proverbs 23:9. I am blessed to have this website to help me learn and grow as a Christian apologist.

That’s a thoughtful offer, but I’m fed up with this place, I’m afraid. I apologize for the harsh critique, but I’ve found the ratio of thoughtful content to hot air and outrage to be too low.

This a very insincere quote from a very insincere poster. The reality is that (myself excepted) every other poster here gave sincere, thoughtful and intelligent explanations of their position. They also answered Bob’s replies and went the extra mile to deal with Bob’s questions. There were very few examples of the “hot air and outrage” that Bob refers to. The reality is Bob had his sophomoric FSM debunked and didn’t like it. Now he’s taking his ball, and with a few impolite words, going home. Bye Bob.

Tom:

If we’re talking about the analysis of invective vs. thoughtful and helpful responses, I’d be happy to see the results. The mix of commenters changes over time at my site, and I have no control over that. My own policy is to be pretty laissez-faire. The end result will be more swearing and anger than you, Jenna, or even I would like to see. Many of the regulars don’t suffer fools lightly; on the other hand, there are some really smart people that are eager to share their knowledge. I want more Christians to read my blog, though, given the Wild West commenting environment, they’ll have to have a slightly rugged exterior.

You’re in the same boat, but I imagine that you’re able to keep things a bit more civil. You may be right that the quality ratio is better for your blog.

I appreciate Jenna’s fair summary of her experience at my blog. Things went downhill when she said in response to a suggestion of Bart Ehrman as a source with, “I do not consider Bart Ehrman to be a credible or authoritative Bible scholar.” She’s more than welcome to that opinion, but next time, it would be good to preface that with “I realize that …” listing his substantial qualifications and wrapping up with the reasons why his high reputation is undeserved. That will at least show that she has a well-informed opinion. Her “Got anybody else?” is exactly the game that “Doctor” Kent Hovind played in some of his debates. I doubt that Jenna was being anything but honest, but that might at least explain how things took a bad turn with her conversation.

I don’t want to revisit the FSM topic here, but just to make my point clear, I was quite eager to hear a coherent summary of why it was offensive and nonsensical. I may have already mentioned this, but I’m in another group in which this very complaint was brought up. I didn’t understand the concern there and, after exploring it here, I was no better informed.

What I got was a very clear statement that the FSM is unhelpful to my position and ridiculous, plus many assurances that this had been made clear to me. It wasn’t. Maybe I’m stupid or maybe (dare I say it?) the position was only clear in everyone’s mind, and that plain summary didn’t make it to the screen. If you do the analysis you proposed, be sure to flag statements that build this case. I think you’ll find it a lot weaker than you think. (And then, of course, when I raised this problem, I got slammed again with zero-content finger wagging.)

To repeat, I’m not trying to reopen the FSM discussion. I’m just trying to help you understand that my actions, from my standpoint, were quite reasonable (unlike what many comments seemed to imagine).

Tom,

I like your ideas about doing research on the content and argumentative tactics used in Christian vs. atheists websites and the “you all come” websites. I know that there are programs for ethnographic research that are used in this type of analysis, but I’m not familiar with them myself. Perhaps some foundation might be interested in this and have some grant funding for such research. I’m thinking of the Pew Center, perhaps. This would be a great contribution to our knowledge about how religion is perceived and discussed through social media and in cyber-communities of faith and non-faith.

Thanks for the productive and enlightening conversation. JB

Bob,

I was intending to post this URL to the text of a debate about the Resurrection between William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman but did not do so before I terminated my participation on your site.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm

One thing that I have noticed is that our atheist interlocutors seldom engage us with any real arguments. Instead they resort to being argumentative, which more often than not is endlessly repeating some kind of nonsense they have dreamed up. (I’ll spare everyone further discussion about the type of thing I’m thinking of 😉 .) But furthermore, they are not even good at being argumentative. Creating the same straw-men over-and-over again is not even a good way to be argumentative.

It doesn’t requires a PhD. to know how to argue persuasively. Have you ever been in the market for a better car and talked to a used car salesman? At least when they argue with you they don’t insult you and resort to ridicule. The good ones, as a matter of fact, try to make you feel they are your best friend (at least for that afternoon.)

My point is simply this: I am a theist, because theism is more reasonable than atheism or any other alternative. It is something I have thought about, talked about and written about. Notice I didn’t say that “I feel it’s more reasonable.” I am claiming that it is logically and objectively more reasonable than any competing explanation. If you think that I am wrong then you have to understand the reasons why I am a theist and make a point-by-point refutation. Throwing nonsense at me doesn’t accomplish that. It doesn’t accomplish anything. To make a decent argument you have to understand logic and how good arguments are constructed. Why is it that people who claim to have reason on their side are so poor when it comes to making good arguments? Why would you expect anyone to agree with you?

Is it maybe because you’re the kind of person who has bought into some bad arguments?

@ Jenna

Isn’t it always fair and reasonable to expect that any claim that defies natural law, made by any person (firsthand or otherwise), be supported by evidence?

Person A: When a living thing dies, it is not reanimated.

Person B: My sister’s boyfriend’s grandmother’s cat died and then came back to life a week later!

Is not the burden of proof obvious and irrefutable here? I’m just restating the “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” argument, but don’t you agree that it is applicable when alleging contravention of universal facts?

I wouldn’t waste your time with Bob Snidensnarker. The way he blew in working his juvenile argument about the FSM, and then coyly denied that he meant to be insulting, certainly demonstrates the quantity and quality of reasonable, civil discussion you should expect at his Cross Examined blog. It looks like he has a whole peanut gallery of antisocial college dropouts camping in his comments section, where Bob holds court over analyses of such sophisticated theses as “Christianity’s Unbroken Record of Failure” and “How Faith Infantilizes Adults.” Then, when the snark subsides, he posts about homosexuality and abortion just to increase traffic.

Why doesn’t someone go there and make an “analogy” between Bob’s wife and an inflatable sex doll? “Why, Bob, I had no idea you’d be offended!”

JHD

The Christian perspective is that it’s not an extraordinary claim. We believe the resurrection to be a miracle. Given that we believe in a God capable of creating the universe ex nihilo the ability of that God to resurrect a person is an perfectly ordinary manifestation of that power. Now, that being said we certainly do believe in supplying evidence. It may or may not convince you but it’s certainly supported by evidence.

JHD, JDH (Sorry)

JDH @ #112

Is not the burden of proof obvious and irrefutable here? I’m just restating the “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” argument, but don’t you agree that it is applicable when alleging contravention of universal facts?

The “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” argument is not an argument. It’s a phrase (now a slogan) that was coined by the late American astronomer Carl Sagan. As a standard it’s completely ad hoc. How would one ever determine whether evidence was sufficiently extraordinary enough? I suspect that a skeptic would never concede that it was sufficient. The so-called argument is really just a ploy that can be used to brush aside events and experiences that don’t fit comfortably into the skeptics world view.

Furthermore, Sagan himself did not himself live up to his own standard. For example, Sagan believed that the origin of life could be explained naturalistically. At present researchers are no where close to explaining how life originated. Sagan also believed that extraterrestrial intelligent life existed elsewhere in our universe. Where is the evidence for that?

…I find that my life is impacted negatively by Christianity in profound, tangible ways.

Care to give us a couple of examples?

So JDH. You’ve looked at the evidence and find you can’t accept it. Ok. So what exactly is the problem. If you don’t find the evidences for Christianity compelling then by all means don’t accept them. However, I get the impression there is something else troubling you. Care to give us some insight into that. Perhaps an answer to my prior question would be a starting point.

Inerrancy, infallibility, a huge number of miracles along with the modern dearth of miracles

You would have to expand on what you mean by either inerrancy and infallibility because both of these are contested amongst Christians.

And can you tell me why you think that there is a huge dearth of contemporary miracles (or miracle accounts if you prefer)?

JDH,

You give this analysis of my comments about “burden of proof”:

“That said, a distilled version of Jenna’s comment is that no Christian can be expected to prove any aspect of their belief that is based on doctrine predating their own lifespan (eg, I’m not a primary source for the resurrection, ergo I do not have the burden of proof). By extension, I could only reasonably expect a Christian to explain her own reasons for accepting what she perceives to be evidence of her belief without any expectation of actual supportive evidence.”

I partially agree with this statement of yours: “I’m not a primary source for the resurrection, ergo I do not have the burden of proof.” I will rephrase it, however. I was not a witness to the events surrounding the resurrection, therefore, I have no direct evidence or testimony about the events to offer as “proof” that this miracle occurred. Therefore, I do not have a “burden of proof” regarding the Resurrection. However, I am more than willing to explain to you why I believe the testimony we have from the Gospels and the New Testament about the Resurrection.

Now, what I don’t understand is why you seem to have a problem with this. You say this: “If a person holds a belief in a miracle, why is it unfair to require proof?” In this question, do you mean “proof” of my belief in the miracle in question or “proof” that the miracle occurred? There is an important difference, and that is my point, which I sense that Tom has understood.

As you state in #121, your own “standard of proof” for belief in the miracles testified to in the Gospels has not been met, such as you accept the credibility of the evidence “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Okay, so the reasonable thing for any Christian individually or many Christians collectively is to invite you to come, let us reason together to see if we can support you in viewing the evidence available equally to all of us to overcome your doubts. For this purpose, I highly recommend Tom and Carson’s book, True Reason.

I am a team of writers unto myself! J/k

I appreciate the enjoyable discussion and intend to engage more on my lunch break tomorrow. =)

Jenna,

Mind pushes matter.

If you can stomach the word count, see my last comment. Person A. Person B.

A three week bench-top chemistry run to defy nature’s pull and thus fashion some strand of non-living RNA which deteriorates the minute Mind leaves it to nature’s pull.

Or,

A three hour all-hands-on-deck heroic code run on a patient in the trauma bay and a pulseless man walks.

500 years ago: “No way! No way!”

Three hours. Three days. Three weeks. Whatever.

Mind fashions life. Finite, fragmented minds at that.

It’s the only known way that life comes from death.

It’s verifiable.

We’re getting better at it, though we’re only children.

There is a Father.

“Thank you for your insights, Jenna. You’ve been a strong encourager here at many points along the way.”

This.
Thank you Jenna.

And thanks to everyone else here as well. And to Tom for moderating the interactions. There are many rude people out there and the internet has vastly increased the chances of running into them. It’s good to be part of a “safe” community where open and honest communication is encouraged.

Sincerely
Shane

Shane,

There are no “choices” in reasoning, per your commitments.

Shane@ #133

Even though it’s on a slight tangent you might find this post interesting. Perhaps it goes to explain the “I don’t believe in God and I hate him” phenomena evident in a few individuals.

JDH,

And yet it houses far more coherence than the reverse found in your assertion’s necessary conclusions.

Do you really believe life comes from dead things even if Mind isn’t around to force dead things to do otherwise?

On what grounds?

We can see our own finite Mind synthesize……….and we’re merely children playing in our Father’s house.

As for the other points, I’d be happy to talk with you about them, once we clear up this business about dead stuff coming to life without Mind pushing it.

Tom,

I agree. I took JDH’s three separate comments and turned them around 180 degrees and put it all into my one long post. His wording/writing was so enjoyable to read I wanted to keep it and just trade out premises 😉

JDH,

After the 180 degree turn-abound substituting Theism’s “twist” for your “twist” on things I find much more coherence to your well worded (thus my desire to bounce off of) but a bit incoherent assertions.

SteveK yes I’m sorry about that ~~~

Anyway, back on topic.

@BillT #122 – You will just have to accept it as a “stipulation;” details would only derail.

@BillT #124 – The problem is that my inability to accept a preponderance of heresay evidence as convincing beyond a reasonable doubt is apparently sufficient to be branded irrational and unreasonable.

@SteveK #125 – Allow me to explain what I mean by “the stakes are higher” by using an analogy. Let’s say you’re standing on a street corner and a stranger walks up and says “Hey, a bunch of people told me that if you go behind that building, a man will give you $500!” In this scenario, you might get $500 for peeking around the corner. Low risk with a potential reward for the price of a few minutes time. The stakes are low.

Now let’s take the same scenario, but this time the stranger tells you that you can have a free home in Connecticut on 2 acres if you claim it within the next 3 days. He assures you that hundreds of people have told him this is true. You consider for a moment that it is a virtual impossibility that this is the case. You realize that in order to find out for sure, you would have to quit your job, abandon your apartment, pull your kids out of school, and throw everything you own into a U-Haul in the next 24 hours. Clearly the stakes are high.

With the New Testament, the stakes are high, and it’s completely rational to demand a higher standard of evidence that is vastly more convincing than we accept for Plato.

In my own personal situation, compliance with the New Testament would require me to divorce immediately and live the rest of my years marching towards a solitary death. I would have to donate thousands of dollars per year to a church that could use it in ways that I morally oppose. I would have to conjure some way to believe in mystical events that defy the physical understanding of the world. For a person with little to lose (or a person who does not know what they’re missing), maybe a preponderance of heresay evidence is good enough. My family, money, and happiness mean enough to me to not bet them on an invisible mansion in an invisible place promised to me by an invisible being (under the threat of eternal damnation, no less) just because Paul says 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus. Call me crazy.

So the stakes in the New Testament are high. There is no way to be a deistic Christian, despite the best efforts here and elsewhere to exclusively argue theistic existence vs. non-existence. I’m not opposed to the notion of a God, but I am vehemently opposed to the baggage that the Christian God carries. And no matter how hard a Christian tries to argue an atheist on the existence of God, the Christian cannot and will never avoid the fact that they are arguing for the existence of a particular God, with a particular character, with a particular past, and with particular rules. I assume that this is why we see so much of what Tom described in #115.

So the point of this post, then, is to honestly ask if it is “irrational,” given the circumstances I described, to not believe in the Christian God. Is it unreasonable to refuse to bet my family and security and happiness on an ancient text given the amount of evidence we have to consider?

My purpose here is not to convince anyone that God does not exist or to be convinced that he/she/it does. I don’t mind the idea of a god, but I do feel a need to argue that rejection of the Christian God is not remotely “irrational” regardless of whether it is right. My sole motive is to encourage characteristically certain, absolutist Christians to respect the integrity of doubt.

@scb….. Your comments read like a Nigerian chain email, and I do not understand them at all. Maybe you have a cyborg computer brain, but I do not.

JDH

It doesn’t do much for your credibility to say something as inflammatory as “…I find that my life is impacted negatively by Christianity in profound, tangible ways.” and then refuse to explain yourself. But it is your credibility.

As far as your being branded “… irrational and unreasonable.” “sticks and stones.” If you’re satisfied with your conclusion, why do you care what your branded. Have you been on any atheist websites recently? Seen the way Christians are described. Doesn’t cost me any sleep.

And just BTW, the things you describe after these words “…compliance with the New Testament would require me to…” are as utterly ridiculous as really anything I have recently read. You have some serious misconceptions there JDH.

JDH,

People have opinions. Everyone is entitled to them. For everyone who holds an opinion there is someone else that holds one in opposition. It’s part of life. Tom’s book was written because the atheists were calling themselves rational but in others opinions failing to actually be so. That’s a fair topic for discussion, isn’t it? You seem to be taking all this quite personally. Why? Do you find it applies.

And as far as your long litany of terrible things you would have to do if you became a Christian, seems like some crocodile tears to me. Becoming a Christian is a voluntary act. No one can or is forcing you to believe it or do any of that. Again, you’ve made choices you’re happy with, correct? What? Are you mad at Christianity because it didn’t change it’s beliefs to accommodate yours.

Yes, my honest attempt at an enjoyable discussion about a book is just a cover for my hurt feelings and being super mad at the world’s largest religion for not bending to my personal whims.

Busted.

JDH,

So sorry. I must have missed something. Just where is your “honest attempt at an enjoyable discussion about a book.” I don’t remember many specific points about the book you raised nor questions you asked about it’s content. Please point me to them and accept my apologies.

JDH,

My family, money, and happiness mean enough to me to not bet them on an invisible mansion in an invisible place promised to me by an invisible being.

It’s your decision and it’s a reflection of your heart. You’ve made it clear what you love and value.

I don’t know what’s so troubling about unseen things. My life is propelled by many unseen things. I do things now in anticipation of many future events that I envision will come to exist. Those may not come to pass, but I press on believing that they will because I have experienced things that fuel that belief. I’ve experienced Goodness, so I pursue it every chance I can get.

Call me crazy.

I think the term Paul uses is rebellious or fallen.

@Melissa

I consider myself a New Atheist for several reasons, though the criteria are amorphous. First, I feel that the world at large would benefit more than it would suffer if Abrahamic religions lost power and shrunk in size. Second, I feel that living my life according to the Bible would be a morally inferior way to live. Third, I’m not content to be institutionally disadvantaged by the religious idiosyncrasies of people I do not know and love.

I do my best not to be a jerk about it and to be as respectful of others as I can (which usually isn’t that difficult). I also try to be mindful to not universalize my personal experiences or confuse my emotions with reality. Those things go against negative stereotypes about New Atheists, but I would hardly say that they’re definitive traits.

Jenna, here is a book you perhaps might be interested in. Admittedly I’ve not read it yet (been meaning to for quite some time) but I remember reading a fairly detailed review of it and being struck by the honesty of the author, a gay man try to square his sexual desires with his Christian faith.

Billy, RE: Anger at God discussion

Thanks for the link in #138. I think research studies like this one and Julie Exline’s decade of research on anger at God point to a reality that I have thought quite a lot about. It is impossible not to have a relationship with God since God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. We Christians have a relationship characterized by love and seeking of closeness with God. Atheists have a relationship with God characterized by non-belief, non-acceptance of the reality of God, and apparently, often of anger at God. Non-belief in God does not make God cease to exist, any more than belief in God is what causes God to exist.

As far as I understand anger, it is an emotional reaction to hurt, disappointment, injustice and most of all, unfulfilled expectations that we have of someone else involving “oughts” and “shoulds” in regard to their conduct toward us. Anger only occurs when there is a relationship, where there are expectations of mutuality, trust, etc. Anger is to emotional, spiritual hurts what pain is to physical biological hurts. So anger at God may stem from our violated expectations of how God should conduct Himself in relationship to us. As Professor Exline suggests in her research, atheism may be the outcome or result of anger at God.

In light of the statistic quoted in this article about the number of atheists who self-identify as former believers in God and some of the hypotheses the researchers pose, I am curious about how much of atheism is anti-theism and anti-religion. In other words, how much of atheism is the product of a “bad” relationship with God (which is not, from the Christian point of view, God’s fault) and how much it is the product of anger at believers in God.

Jenna Black,

You noted, “I tell you this because I believe that I live a very “ecumenical” life and find this to be perfectly in tune with my Christian faith. I find Christianity, based on Jesus Christ’s teachings, to be a loving, embracing religion….In fact, the church where he and I attend Christmas Eve services has a large and thriving LTBG congregation.”

Refreshing.

Anything short of this seems to fall short of just Who and What God is, that is to say, What He does / is, what He does into/unto the world. We too often have a view of Him, of Immutable Love, which is far too small. As if He is not the end of worlds upon worlds but instead can inexplicably be limited by Time or Circumstance or Sin. I offer that if we should choose to render to others according to the Law, rather than Grace, we error. The list of interior motions which are supposedly going to “kick us out” of His Embrace are, well, my life has a wide array of them. Yet I find Him ever with me. A simple example being lying, which I find I do on various levels daily with a move here or a word there put in play to ever-so-subtly manipulate some given situation rather than to just be/speak truthfully. Liars will not inherit Love’s final Felicity? Then I’m out. That’s but one simple example, but we like to cherry pick and invent our one-verse theologies. How catastrophic for someone like your son who I am sure has felt the full weight of the Law, rather than Grace, from Christians. Thankfully he has you for his mother! There is a book along these lines by a homosexual who learned that this or that bit of our nature is not what “steers” God to/away from us, which helps take our eyes off of some feature of ourselves and focus instead on His inpouring. It is called “That Kind Can Never Change!” Can They?” (by Victor J. Adamson) and is about his journey with faith in the midst of all of it. I’ll push the envelope here to make my point: should I live till 100, will that bit in me which lies, or is too timid, or is too loveless (which Christ defines as murder), and so on, will any of it be gone? The answer is that short of Love’s final work on the other side of this life I will not “achieve / rise to” that condition. How can we short of His finished work? I offer that it is impossible short of that final felicity in that next step/life. And thus my fellow Christians will have to put up with the likes of me in their midst till then. But then, the “likes of me” just is His Body, His Beloved. It seems extreme but it shouldn’t that in Christ, in Love’s Ontology, we find the embrace of all men everywhere, as churches are but hospitals for all of us in whatever arena another person may choose to deride us with. William Lane Craig reminds us, “If you find yourself feeling glad when some affliction befalls a homosexual person or you find feelings of hatred welling up in your heart toward homosexual people, then you need to reflect long and hard on the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew: “…..it will be more tolerable on the Day of Judgment for Sodom and Gomorrah than for you….” (Mt. 10.15; 11.24).” You noted: “It is impossible not to have a relationship with God since God is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. We Christians have a relationship characterized by love and seeking of closeness with God. Atheists have a relationship with God characterized by non-belief, non-acceptance of the reality of God, and apparently, often of anger at God.” How true! I find but one ontology wherein we can in truth, without autohypnosis, posit that Love is in fact the highest Ethic in all possible worlds. Love, at bottom, just is One/Three, as all that is Self, as all that is Other, and as all that is I-You, which is the Us, just is what Love is, what God is. E Pluribus Unum just is the [Self-Other-Us], just is fully singular, just is fully triune. If Ultimate Actuality is Love, if God is Love, then I find I cannot avoid that peculiarly necessary topography at the end of ad infinitum. That is not the only reason I am a Christian, though, that I know love is in fact the highest ethic in all possible worlds is one of the reasons I am a Christian.

Bill,

Several gay friends who read these….. They’re worth the three minutes to me. Some thoughts can come across wrong if loops are not closed properly.

My apologies to you, though.

Hi Jenna,

Frustration at being unable to change the tyre is probably the cause of the anger, but I don’t think it explains it away. With regard to your explanation, I would suggest that the anger could be directed towards myself and my inability to accomplish a task. I certainly have a relationship with myself, and probably have expectations, even in something as trivial as changing of a tyre.

But what about someone suffering from cancer? Are you saying that they can’t feel anger towards their situation without personalising? Maybe they are feeling anger at themselves as well; and feel betrayed by their own bodies?

Cheers
Shane

An example:

When my beloved suffers excruciating pain for years, only to die, the following statement is a statement of certain truth, the epistemology of which both atheists and theists employ, each knowing/getting the truth of such, the necessary ontological implications being unavoidable: should have been otherwise

Hi scblhrm,

I have to start with this. 🙂

“Your formula would hold if we were Vulcans, void of love.”

Vulcans are not void of love or the other emotions, but merely keep them under control so that their thinking is not affected by them.

An atheist does not believe in God, by definition.
To be angry at something you do not believe in is not rational.
If an atheist says they are angry at God, they are either irrational or lying (either about being angry at God or their non belief in God).

Are there any other alternatives?

And I have lost several good friends and family members and have never once thought “should have been otherwise”. Actually this is especially true when I was a Christian. I had total faith in God and his actions and the idea that anything happened that wasn’t supposed to happen according to his plan was just nonsense. People died when they were supposed to and that was that. My prayers in time of family illness were, “God’s will be done.” and not motivated by any selfish wish of mine or the thought that God didn’t know exactly how I felt about the person who was ill. That also was nonsense.

And death was never an end, so the thought that I should want to keep anyone here on earth instead of letting them progress towards being closer to God was absurd.

Sincerely
Shane

I’m a bit surprised that the idea that atheists can be and are angry at God is controversial at all. It’s a pretty basic Christian understanding that one either loves God or hates Him. If God exists then he gave us everything we have and everything we are. Thus, we owe him our love, devotion and obedience. People don’t want the world to be like that. They say so in that many words. They want to be their own God. So do I (even though I know I’m not). So God, or at the very least the concept of Him, makes people angry. And, of course, it’s also our understanding that everyone knows, deep down somewhere, that God really does exist. And that makes them even madder.

JDH,

You’re missing the obvious. Anger at an ism is not anger at a person.

Atheists themselves describe their own anger at God, and on varying levels.

So, we’re sitting around talking about what atheist’s are telling us is going on inside them.

scb, where are these atheists you speak of? All I’m seeing is Christians beating a dead straw man.

Another point you have failed to consider, assuming that any atheist actually expresses him/herself as follows: “I’m angry at god, but I do not believe he exists.” Communication is social and ideas involve shared cultural understanding. Instead of wildly assuming that no atheists exist, wouldn’t it be more accurate (or at least more charitable) to assume that not every atheist is a flawless communicator or that he/she is communicating an idea in a manner that will make sense in a religiously saturated culture?

Another likely possibility, also completely unconsidered in the straw man gang-bang, is that the atheist is imperfectly communicating anger towards a figure that is an iconic representation of religious culture. By extension, God is a representation of all sorts of loathsome things: misogyny, homophobia, racism, tax fraud, hypocrisy, special rights, child abuse, anti-science, and all sorts of other things. If the church is the sum of its parts, and the church is the bride of Christ, and Christ is God, then saying “I’m angry with God” is a perfectly valid (if not precise) way of expressing anger at all the terrible things sanctioned and encouraged by religion.

JDH,

See links provided earlier.

BillT –

I’m a bit surprised that the idea that atheists can be and are angry at God is controversial at all. It’s a pretty basic Christian understanding

Sure, it’s a pretty settled aspect of Christian doctrine. I wouldn’t expect it to be controversial among Christians, either.

Note, however, that not everyone’s Christian.

It’s not my experience that I either ‘hate God’ or ‘secretly believe in God’. And, of course, I’m inclined to trust my own judgments of myself more than what the doctrines of others claim. So – even if you think it’s true that atheists ‘really believe deep down’ – it’s unlikely to be useful for persuasion. Indeed, it’s rather likely to damage your credibility.

There’s a mirror-image of this, BTW. Many atheists think that many of the religious don’t actually believe what they profess, but rather want to fit in socially, or are just trying really hard to convince themselves. I don’t know of an atheist who thinks all religious people are secret disbelievers, but it’s known that they do exist.

JDH,

Atheists are mad at God, therefore they know God exists. God exists, therefore atheists are mad at him.

This is not an accurate representation if what I said. I’d be glad to respond if you would represent my post fairly and accurately.

Ray,

I didn’t claim everyone was a Christian nor did I expect people, especially atheists, to agree with me nor did I post that as a means of persuasion or am I too concerned, in this case, about it effecting my credibility. Otherwise though, spot on.

And I’m sure there are people who don’t believe what they profess and do so to fit in socially. Quite a large number of them would be my guess.

scb, you’re making a very common mistake made in motivated religious reasoning, namely, you are taking evidence for A and assuming that it is evidence for B because you believe B to be true.

You said, “It is reasonable that we find anger at God, even among Atheists and Agnostics (as the CNN link briefly touches on) because…it is impossible to not have a relationship with Ultimate Actuality.”

Except that your use of “reason” is predicated on volumes of unverified assumptions. That God exists, that he is ultimate, that he is everywhere, that he is good, that he has relationships, etc. are all things you accept to be true because you believe the Bible is true. Whatever evidence there is for the Bible being historically accurate, there is no evidence whatsoever for these matters of faith that you are universalizing as absolute truths.

So there’s allegedly evidence that atheists express being “angry at God” at a similar rate to the rest of the population. That evidence (A) is evidence of anger (A). You take that as evidence that everyone has a universal awareness of God (B) because you believe that (B) to be true. No doubt you take mountains, ducks, sunsets, waterfalls, and beavers (A) to be evidence of God (B) as well instead of simply being evidence that ducks, sunsets, waterfalls, and beavers exist (A).

Some people see a light in the sky and think it’s evidence of aliens. You see a misleading and unsubstantiated CNN headline and think it’s evidence for God. Nevermind that it obliterates the usefulness of the word “evidence” when the relation between A and B is so tenuous, except within your own assumed facts.

In short, you read a headline about a study and an article that had nothing to do with atheism and then projected upon it your belief that God exists EXACTLY AS YOU IMAGINE HIM TO BE. That is not reason, it is imagination.

As an aside, the idea that it’s “impossible not to have a relationship with” God is nothing short of spiritual rape. What else do you call a forced “relationship” with a person who tells you “no?” Stalking, maybe? At the very least we could call it coercion if not outright abuse.

JDH,

Some clarification is needed here. I am the one who initiated the discussion of anger toward God. Please see my comment #17 where I expressed my surprise and puzzlement at a quotation from the book, True Reason, that we are discussing here.

Jenna: “I am appreciating greatly the analysis of atheists’ debate strategies in True Reason. One quote that has given me great insights already is on p. 33 where you report on the study by psychologist Julie Exline of Case Western Reserve University that found among atheist and agnostic college students “…more anger at God during their lifetimes than believers.” You give this analysis:

“What’s interesting about this study is that these individuals don’t necessarily even believe that God exists, yet they report greater levels of an angry emotional investment in God’s hypothetical character than people who actually believe that God is real.” (p. 33 of True Reason)

I am observing and experiencing that this anger toward God (the God they don’t believe in) spills over into anger (and hostile behavior) toward believers in God.”

I then looked up Professor Julie Exline’s research on the internet and was only to locate one article, which I posted the link to, above. Apparently you read it. I referred specifically to Dr. Exline’s own theories as to why atheists express anger toward God. These theories are hers and are not stereotyping by anyone commenting on this thread. The article from CNN that scblhrm provided is a summary and commentary on Dr. Exline’s research.

I then continued my own analysis of Dr. Exline’s research in comment #162 and responded to Shane’s response to this analysis in comment #169. I hope this will help you recreate the actual discussion.

It seems to me that you are reacting to the suggestion that atheists are some sort of “secret” or unwitting believers in God. I don’t make this suggestion or claim. I take atheists at their word. They do not believe in God. However, as a believer in God and in God’s “existence”, I believe that it is impossible not to have a relationship with God, regardless of what any person may or may not believe about God. IMO, this is why BillT can rightfully state that anger at God from a Christian point of view is not controversial, a statement with which I agree.

I think that it is perfectly legitimate and quite possibly productive to examine the sources of atheists’ anger both at God (only if and when they themselves state that they have such anger) and anger at believers in God. Since what you describe is, IMO, a collection of stereotypes about believers, along with a heavy dose of anti-religion sentiment, which is not representative of Christianity as a religion or IMO, the majority of Christians, I think that conversation about this anger would be fruitful, as is Dr. Julie Exline’s research.

This is the quote from the book:

“What’s interesting about this study is that these individuals don’t necessarily even believe that God exists, yet they report greater levels of an angry emotional investment in God’s hypothetical character than people who actually believe that God is real.”

Which is WILDLY different than being “angry at God,” which is the phrase that keeps bouncing around. I think that calling atheists “angry at God” and then mocking them for or expressing disbelief at the notion is a disservice to atheists and to Christians attempting to understand non-belief.

I’m not sure how interesting it is, but it’s certainly not surprising to find atheists reporting anger at “God’s hypothetical character.” Atheists do not give God a free pass for the Old Testament and overlook the unsavory aspects of the New Testament. I’m sure you’ve read enough of the Bible (and Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens) to know the terrible things the literary God did, and the Four Horsemen unceasingly question the morality of anyone who is not outraged by those terrible things. It’s a main pillar of the entire anti-theist worldview.

This isn’t some mystery that you all are unearthing here. It’s not something that hasn’t been discussed candidly in books, speeches, and debates since the dawn of New Atheism in reaction to 9/11.

JDH,

Yes. There it is. That experience we all have, Pan-World, of should have been otherwise is jut too real to be submerged by the autohypnosis, so, it just comes leaking out on some target, any target. Often, one’s false notion of God, that is to say, one’s false notion of Immutable Love.

The root is the issue here, JDH, not the varying fruit. If you throw out the Existential (Mind’s perception) with the trash, then with it goes the Intellectual (Mind’s perception). Equivocations won’t help dance around the necessary conclusions of that move, if you take it.

Remember, Theists hold that we can know truth. Epistemology is how we discover such, whereas, the ontological is the what-is-discovered. We have a relationship with varying truths. Like intentionality. And like should have been otherwise. Notice that both of those are coherent with each other and with our brutally repeatable experience. Both are coherent with Theism. Neither is coherent with Materialism/Atheism. The autohypnosis needed here is obvious.

scb, Please rephrase that last comment. Pretend you’re talking to a 3rd grader.

JDH,

I still don’t understand you. Why do you claim that my statement “I believe that it is impossible not to have a relationship with God, regardless of what any person may or may not believe about God…” suggests or requires coercion? What I am attempting to point out is that to have or not have a relationship with God characterized by “belief in” God is a free choice, an act of free will.

Please allow me to use the imagery (anthropomorphism) given to us by Jesus Christ: that of God as Father. All of us have a father. Obviously, we wouldn’t be here if we didn’t. Therefore, we are all a son or a daughter of a father. We have a relationship with our father. Now, whether or not we pursue an active engagement and interaction or involvement with our human father is a matter of choice (both his and/or ours in many cases). We Christians believe in God as the Father Almighty, the Creator. Therefore, all of us have a relationship with our Heavenly Father, which we characterize as love, which Jesus, God’s Son, teaches us to reciprocate.

Surely, you know that for many millions of people around the world throughout history, belief in God is not dependent on knowledge of the Hebrew Bible. I came to believe in God as a child when the only thing I knew about/of the Old Testament was the 23rd Psalm. My belief in God was independent of any knowledge or understanding of the OT.

Many Christian authors who write about Christian apologetics such as Alister McGrath point out that many of the early Christians were Romans and Greeks who were totally unfamiliar with the Hebrew sacred writings. I encourage you to explore scholarly research into the relationship that most/many Christians have with/to the Old Testament, but meanwhile, let me point out that the OT is first and foremost, the story of the ancient Hebrews’ relationship with God as they understood God. It is God’s message, which we call Word, to humanity that comes to us through the sacred scriptures of the Hebrew people.

Scb, I’m really trying here. You are turning common nouns into proper nouns over and over. Classical Christian authors did this to convey the notion of absolutes drawn from their understanding of the nature of God, but they had the benefit of being able to explain how that related to their invention of new proper nouns. Unfortunately on a forum you do not have this benefit and should explain what you mean.

Also, what the heck is this “should have been otherwise” that you put in every single post? Apparently it’s universal and I am pinned under its thumb while having no idea what it even is.

JDH,

Let’s make it easy. Intentionality and moral outrage.

Again, it just leaks out. It can’t not leak out. We can’t not relate with such.

Each is coherent with each other.

Each is coherent with Theism.

Neither is coherent with Materialism.

We do project that anger, don’t we, often onto our false notions of Immutable Love? Of course we do, because, it is imposible to not have a relationship with Truth. It’s odd that you base your anger at your false noton of God on love’s topography. That’s a bit telling. More unavoidable Truth that you are relating with? Another illusion? More autohypnosis?

JDH,

Okay then. Illusion and autohypnosis.

Why do you shy away from those words?

Because intentionality is non-entity in your view (even though you experience / relate with, it)?

Because ought is non-entity in your view (even though you experience / relate with, it)?

More importantly, why do you base your anger (Existential) and your reasoning (Intellectual) on love’s topography?

Because it (how terrible the necessary indifference of mutable “love” in natural selection) is non-entity in your view?

@ BillT

Here’s a few examples. How do you explain?

1) The animals in the flood.

2) Lot’s wife, who didn’t even violate a directive.

3) 50,000+ killed for looking in the ark. (1 Sam 6:19)

4) Uzzah killed with lightning for trying to help. (2 Sam 6:6)

5) Innocent babies, adults, and animals killed in 10th plague.

6) God curses and murders an innocent baby for being conceived from adultery. His reasoning is that people will say mean things about his favorite people if the baby lives. (2 Sam 4:12)

7) God disapproves of a political dispute and murders over 70,000 people before he is placated by blood sacrifice of innocent animals. (1 Chron 21)

8) God kills 100,000 Syrians because he feels insulted by them (1 Kings 20)

9) God kills another 27,000 Syrians by crushing them with a fallen wall.

10) Still not content with his bodycount, God kills another Syrian by lion.

11) God kills 42 children by bear for making fun of a bald guy’s baldness. (2 Kings 2)

Bill, I’m eagerly awaiting your justifications.

Jenna,

I do not believe that holding God accountable for “difficult” verses is inappropriate. It’s not like they’re few and far between. if you tally the numbered deaths in the Old Testament that were directly caused or indirectly authorized by God, the body count is over 2 MILLION. That’s not even accounting for wiping out the global population and starting over.

NA’s aren’t cherrypicking the OT to make God look bad. The meat and substance of the OT is highly descriptive of a despotic tyrant god. In fact, the Cathars understood this and made no attempt to reconcile the flagrant evil of the OT god with the definitive goodness of the NT spiritual god. That doctrine might be more prevalent today were it not for the Crusade to wipe them off the map.

In some slight sense I agree with you about the beauty of the OT as literature. In fact, I adore the Bible as an allegory for the rise and maturation of human consciousness. If you look at it this way, you see a species of barbaric, genocidal moral and intellectual infants flourish into philosophers and budding egalitarians. As a snapshot of human history (or mythology), it’s really quite humbling.

JDH,

You say this: “I do not believe that holding God accountable for “difficult” verses is inappropriate.” If this be the case, then certainly you will want to be very clear about what God actually did vs. what the ancient Hebrews said God did or what the ancient Hebrews did before you talk to God about His moral accountability to you.

Let’s talk about genocide vs. justice. In World War II, the countries that were threatened by Nazi Germany undertook the total destruction of German society, both to prevent their victory in their imperialistic endeavors and to punish their genocide. Do you believe that these countries were unjust in wrecking the level of destruction we did on Germany? If so, let’s hear your argument against the destruction of the Nazi regime being a manifestation of justice.

You are claiming an Absolute Morality that dictates that “wanton (a very loaded and judgmental term) murder and genocide are never moral.” Fine. I agree. God agrees. However, you ignore the concept of justice, which must be part of any moral system and moral code that is in place in the absence of perfection. Remember that I said earlier that the ancient Hebrews believed in God’s Justice (with a capital J). When they acted in accordance with what they believed to be obedience to God’s law, meting out God’s Justice through their own actions, they expressed their belief in God. IMO, we must always examine these biblical passages with an eye to how the ancient Hebrews saw the circumstances and acted in accord with their understanding of God’s law. Instead, you appear to wish to impose your own set of moral absolutes on the ancient Hebrews, who, of course, aren’t around to explain themselves.

JDH,

In light of your remark in #210, I think you will find this book interesting:

Alan M. Dershowitz (2000). The genesis of justice: 10 stories of biblical injustice that led to the Ten Commandments and modern law.

JB

JDH,

Apparently, we agree that the concept of justice (and its attainment to the extent possible by human beings) is completely relative: It is relative to an absolute moral standard. If you are going to hold God morally accountable, you must have a moral standard in mind against which and in comparison to you will judge God’s actions. So where does this moral standard come from? Who dictates what it is? Sam Harris? Richard Dawkins?

I also must point out that the entire notion of holding God morally accountable presumes and presupposes a relationship with God, because if God has no relationship with humankind, why should God be accountable to humans? Why would you expect God to be accountable? The ancient Hebrews had a relationship with God as they understood God and believed that everything they said, did/didn’t do, ate, wore, etc. they were accountable to God, both individually and collectively as a people who had a “contract” with God, the Creator. IMO, their consideration of the seriousness of any disobedience of God and how this disobedience could result in damage to their communal relationship with God is the reason why penalties for infractions were (at least on the books) so severe.

As I indicated in my discussion of Midrash, I think that it is not a wise practice to look just at the “face value” of any biblical passage. I do not suggest that we need to be Bible scholars to interpret the Bible, but I do believe that it is unreasonable to ask just any ordinary Christian you meet up with on the internet to explain or justify God based on a Bible passage taken out of context without reference to scholarly analysis. This is not the way we Christians approach biblical exegesis.

Which reminds me of another very deep and well-written discussion of Bible interpretation:

Rabbi Michael Samuel (2010). “Birth and Rebirth Through Genesis: A Timeless Theological Conversation Genesis 1-3.”

Hi Schblrm,
#175

“Thus, you were mistaken to so think of reality when you were a Christian.”

I have to tell you, I don’t understand how this sentence at the end of the paragraph relates to the rest of that post. I don’t have any clue what I was thinking of reality and why I was mistaken.

Also, in reading the rest of the conversation I see you post essentially the same thing half a dozen times. Can I suggest, that if saying something once doesn’t get your point across, you need to say it in an entirely different way, using entirely different words. Repeating your key phrases, when there is no understanding from the person you are speaking to, doesn’t forward the conversation.

Respectfully
Shane

JDH,

The whole quote mining the Bible for justification that “God is a moral monster” is just not credible biblical understanding. Taking individual stories out of context and challenging people to justify them shows little, if any, understanding of the Bible narrative. “Justifying” the things on your list would basically involve teaching you how to understand the Bible. That’s not something applicable to the space we have here.

I would though ask you to take a step back from your assertions and look as the source you cited. The Four Horsemen would have to be the least likely source for credible Biblical understanding imaginable. First, none have a lick of theological training. Second, all have a very public agenda attacking religious belief and have made and continue to make quite a profit doing it. They are hardly people who’s Biblical interpretation can be taken at all seriously.

There are book length explanations of the kind of stories you listed and how they are appropriately understood as part of the overall Biblical narrative. If you really are interested in understanding rather than posting a “gotcha” list they aren’t hard to find.

BTW, I know this reiterates much of what Jenna and Melissa said but since you addressed me directly I thought a direct response from me was appropriate. And as aside, of the Four Horsemen I’ve read Dawkins most and I can assure you he’s never read the Bible. You simply cannot have any kind of understanding of the Bible and take anything he says seriously.

JDH,

Sorry,

I posted comment #217 to you but neglected to address it to you. I agree with Bill that to walk you through the “A to Z” of Scripture is not feasible in this format. You clearly don’t take Scripture as one story on the ontology of Love actually describing, both in the OT and the NT, the landscape of the entire OT as but the Loveless Outside wherein Wholeness for Man can never be found. The Ceiling and Floor of Deuteronomy 28 is the best/worst Man can hope for in hell on Earth (the Outside on definition). The Outside is on definition lovelessness and Death Restrained is the Summation of that landscape (not Life Given), for, Moral Excellence is promised in the Protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15-17, not in the Outside which immediately follows. Life cannot be found in lovelessness, in Man in privation. It must be Man-In-God, God-In-Man. Amalgamation, not mere Juxtaposition. Actualization of lovelessness there in the Outside’s Juxtaposition (hell, on definition), and, actualization of Amalgamation in John 3:15-17 is one, seamless Descriptive-Prescriptive of Love’s Ontology and its necessitations. Bill is right. It’s too much for this format, and, given my tendency for word-count issues, I’ll leave it at that.

You clearly do not know what Scripture says even about itself, never mind what it says about Man and God. One must start with, “Let Us make man in Our Image”. Perhaps you have a distaste for the business about the fully singular, the fully triune E Pluribus Unum, of Self/Other/Us, but, well, that is what Love is at bottom. There is no love void of Self, nor void of Other, nor void of Self-Other. Such is Scripture’s A, and, such is Scripture’s Z. If you ignore Scripture, you cannot expect to understand it, much less dialogue about it with those who don’t ignore it and who allow it to define itself.

Hi scblhrm,

“I meant that what you described as your view when you were a Christian implied (IMO) that “ought not have been / should have been otherwise” on some level affronted your understanding of Him.”

This is exactly what I meant. Appealing to God that things should be different to what they are implies at least one of these things:

God doesn’t know how the way things are.
God doesn’t know how I feel about the way things are.
I have a better understanding than God about these first two things because of my POV.
God doesn’t care about how I feel about the way things are.

These are obviously all completely wrong when talking about an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God.

To give a specific, my grandmother died due to cancer when I was in high school. I never asked God to cure her because of the 4 points I listed above. It’s inconceivable to say that God didn’t know she was ill, didn’t know how I felt about it, didn’t understand the situation as well as I and didn’t care about how I felt. Add to that the question, “Why would I want to keep her out of heaven?” And for situations that aren’t life or death, why put too much emphasis on what happens here on earth compared to the eternity of the afterlife? The Christian has no good reason for “ought not have been / should have been otherwise”.

Now, this does not mean that the question will not be asked by a Christian, but it is not a question that is born out of a rational understanding of any earthly situation.

Respectfully
Shane

Shane,

In that view there seems to be no such thing as an event here (inside of what Scripture defines as the Outside) which runs contrary to Love’s Will.

Which is nonsensical.

Should have been otherwise is one of (there are many others) the primary themes of Love’s Ontology laced throughout Scripture’s A to Z.

The freedom of motion amid/among Self-Other-Us necessitates Man in His Image, and the Self in Privation, while fully Real, while fully All-Sufficiency in Him, is but Lovelessness, Insufficiency in Man, (in any created anything). Once Power wills His Image in Man, it cannot not exist, and it is irrational to interpret all of reality as if it does not, or ought not have, existed. Privation, or what we call evil, that insufficiency of being, the contingent Self fragmented off of the Uncreated Other (no such thing is found in All-Sufficiency, as all moves land on, well, All-Sufficiency) though necessarily availed to the Created Self, is not of necessity actualized.

Your theology (when you were a Christian) failed to account for the Actuality of Wills in play other than Love’s Will being that which Power Wills. And, it failed to account for Man’s Image necessarily housing God’s Triune topography (Privation necessarily availed, not of necessity motioned into).

Again, that there is no such thing as an event here (inside of what Scripture defines as the Outside) which runs contrary to Love’s Will is nonsensical.

Thus the coherence of should have been otherwise in Love’s Ontology, and, the incoherence of such in Materialism. Intentionality and Actual Personhood-s (pleural) at the end of all regress makes such rational in Love’s Ontology, while the impossibility of each makes such irrational in Materialism.

JDH/Bigbird:

Bigbird your comment gives a good example. There are many others like it.

But you don’t go far enough.

Love (God) hates divorce, according to the OT.

Thus, next to each motion/act/law “regulating” divorce on any level, we must write, “I (God/Love) hate divorce. When you do divorce, do so thusly, though I hate the divorce and though I hate the thusly”. And so too with domination. And so too with slavery. And so too with Man’s entire landscape between Genesis 3:15-17’s protoevangelium and John 3:15-17’s actualization thereof, all which is outside of the Us that is Love’s Image, that of E Pluribus Unum.

Those who read the OT and willfully ignore Scripture’s definition of itself, refusing to put, “And God hates” next to all inside of that Outside (hell, on definition) will not see your example as helpful, though there are countless examples like it. They irrationally think Juxtaposition of Power/Man can “magically” yield the fruit only available in the Amalgamation of Love/Man though Genesis tells us, from the get-go, such is not the case, cannot be the case, wholeness coming only through the mammoth anthology of that protoevangelium mentioned first in Genesis and subsequently described throughout the OT as the New approaches.

Nonetheless, it is a good example.

If God is unchanging and absolute then why does it matter that it happened 2500 years ago? Ok, lets say the bear merely mauled young adults. That doesn’t impact my point at all, aside from adding doubt about the merits of an English Bible that evidently says what it means infrequently enough to make God look like the Riddler.

@bigbird

I went through 4 different expositions on the bear verse and some 15 different English versions. Zero hint of anything other than children. Several versions heavily imply death (tore them to pieces), although being “tore apart” or “mauled” is plenty to constitute and evil action.

The best explanation I could come across from readily-accessible Christian sources is that God wanted to make an example of the kids to legitimize Elisha as Elija’s successor. In order to do so, he killed/maimed children for a miniscule offense to demonstrate a zero-tolerance policy for disrespect of the new prophet.

If you think this is ok, then I would expect you would be totally fine with having your child “torn to pieces” by the school principal the next time he sasses anyone.

I feel like I’ve stepped into Bizarro world. It only took 2 days to get one single poster to concede that God did something mean in mauling/killing a crowd of children. (Is that what happened? At least “ugly” is a negative adjective, so it’s a start.) What a sterling moral standard!

Apparently the rest feel that my loathing of child abuse is merely a byproduct of laziness and poor reading skills. If only I could make excuses for God, I might apply that same technique to rationalizing terrorism. Imagine how little anger I could feel!

JDH,

So, since no ancient Hebrew has stepped forward to explain the passage of 2 Kings 2: 23-24 to your satisfaction as other than child abuse by bear mauling, what do you have to say about the character of the God of the NT who rose Jesus Christ from the grave?

Apparently the rest feel that my loathing of child abuse is merely a byproduct of laziness and poor reading skills.

So, JDH, you oppose child abuse by others. Can you tell us why?

@ BillT

Because it causes unnecessary suffering. Incidentally, child abuse innately says more about the abuser than the actions of the child.

Also because it infringes upon the rights of other sentient, autonomous individuals.

Also because abuse is inherently excessive in relation to any offense, which violates principles of fairness.

JDH,

Because it causes unnecessary suffering.

Also because it infringes upon the rights of other sentient, autonomous individuals.

Also because…(it)…violates principles of fairness.

Ok.

Now, can you explain why anyone should care about any of the above? In other words, why should anyone care about unnecessary suffering, rights of others or principles of fairness.

@Jenna

Navigating world religions to find the “right” one is a puzzle, usually an unwinnable one if you’re unfortunate enough to be born on the wrong continent. Choose wisely amongst those 40,000+ world religions.

You say that the focus is not on avoiding hell, but I do not accept that a consequence would exist except as a deterrent. What part of “love me, or else!” does not inspire fear?

Assuming your premise about the pursuit of righteousness, note that a full 3 of those 7 Noahic laws are demonstrably inferior to laws that could exist in their place. Maybe “treat everyone as your equal?” Or “do not own slaves?” Or “do not abuse the earth for personal gain?” But no, God’s ego is more important than the life of a slave or a woman.

How is “getting right with God more than getting God right” any different than, say, a Mormon promising that if you convert that God will reveal to you that the Book of Mormon is true? “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it,” right?

Since we have established that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, I suppose I cannot refer to scripture to bolster my understanding of hell. It comes from Grace Fellowship in Tulsa, Life Church in Oklahoma City, the 700 Club, and Focus on the Family. CS Lewis’ idea of hell in the Great Divorce was actually quite nice by comparison, albeit heretical. If the Bible doesn’t mean what it says, I suppose I could accept that my megachurch upbringing and two of the largest Christian organizations in the country were also just flat wrong. Maybe my decades of Bible studies, devotionals, camps, counselors, and books all just got it wrong. I would be thrilled if that were the case!

So it’s not a puzzle, but the book doesn’t mean what it says. It’s not an ultimatum to say “love me, or else.” Hell is not how I understand it, or how it is taught to millions of Christians by the leaders of the faith. We are punished for our disposition to sin, which was caused by original sin, but that isn’t the same as being punished for original sin.

This is rationality?

“Ok. Now, can you explain why anyone should care about any of the above? In other words, why should anyone care about unnecessary suffering, rights of others or principles of fairness.”

Lots of reasons. Self-interest. Avoiding consequences and personal pain. Avoiding emotional stress. Avoiding ripple-effect consequences to those you love. Social stability and advancement. Evolutionary instinct.

These are all scientifically measurable motivators. People who inflict suffering for personal gain or enjoyment are often sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists, or suffering from other ailments (depression, anxiety, phobias, religious or nationalist indoctrination, etc) that inhibit their attachment to reality and disrupt a sense of consequence and social order.

JDH,

I find this statement of yours fascinating: “US law, with its dark history and ongoing imperfection, has reached a moral pinnacle beyond anything the literary God ever did.”

Of course you realize that the foundation of US law, with its dark history and ongoing imperfection, is this fundamental principle:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The Creator referred to here is, of course, that “literary God” you disparage so much.

JDH,

You say this: “If God is who you say he is, one can follow him without ever believing he exists.”

What do you mean by this?

Not to nitpick, but I can hardly “disparage” God by quoting (with context) the book he divinely inspired. I think he ought to take responsibility for misrepresenting himself so thoroughly, since that’s allegedly what has happened.

Most of our founders, most of the Enlightenment thinkers, and certainly John Locke were leftist heretics. No doubt they did believe in a creator, and I hardly fault them for that. But morality – and by extension law – is a living thing. The morality of the founders, despite their recognition of a creator, did nothing to benefit the genocide of Native peoples and did nothing to benefit women, blacks, gays, Catholics, Baptists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hispanics, etc.

Their belief in God, their religion, and their appeal to higher morality did nothing to stop white supremacy, patriarchy, or genocide. Fortunately, a living, evolving morality has moved to higher ground in the slow march to an egalitarian ethic. What did God have to do with that?

“What do you mean by this?”

If God is all good and an absolute moral standard (even if it’s “do as I say, not as I do”), you would not need to believe he exists to strive for absolute goodness in everything you do. Without a doubt, it is more “good” to do good for its own sake than because you were told to do so. Commands imply consequences for failure.

BillT,

JDH’s reasoning is not volitional, according to him. He neither believes in autonomous individuals nor any value therein, other than, perhaps, an unintentional illusion.

The autohypnosis he is engaging in is cleary intentional given that intentionality is real, though he does not believe in it.

JDH:

You don’t believe in autonomous individuals.

JDH,

So you do believe in physical systems with intentionality?

On what grounds? Your mind’s experience of it?

JDH,

It’s a matter of coherence. Of avoiding circular reasoning.

As in: which Moral Excellence would you strive for? The Indifference that subsumes all of our illusions?

I have no idea what you mean by “good” because equivocation and obvious autohypnosis are just to intrusive in all of your reasoning thus far, and such makes it hard to pinpoint your definition of such things.

Since you don’t want to talk about Christianity on its own ontological definitions, perhaps we can once again speak about this business of reasoning.

Unintentional thinking seems to me to be quite fatal to reasoning, and to “good”.

scb,

You need to define terms, because I hardly have any idea what you mean by “autohypnosis” or how you’re using “intentionality” and “illusion.”

Jenna,

I intend to read the book, but I can’t exactly argue with a book.

“What “higher ground” of “evolving morality” does atheism aspire to?”

Atheism is not a philosophy in itself. Its only social goal would be to counter and oppose religious justifications for violating the rights of others, especially where they are institutionalized.

Atheist writers love nothing more than outlining the history of religious justifications for institutional oppression and unjust wars.

JDH,

I’ll leave you to figure out what “intentional” / “volitional” means, since you want to so converse.

For the rest, it’s rather simple, the bitter end of all regress, ontological necessity, and all that. That bitter end of regress may help you figure out what “volitional” means, BTW.

End of Regress:

Brute Fact:

A = Deterministic Indifference

Z = Deterministic Indifference

[Actuality] = [A – (Deterministic / Indifferent Effervescing Fragments of Psychic Phosphorescence) – Z]

Brute Fact:

A = Love’s fully singular, fully triune [Self-Other-Us], Who is the Triune God, Who is One, Who is Love’s E Pluribus Unum.

Z = Love’s fully singular, fully triune [Self-Other-Us], Who is the Triune God, Who is One, Who is Love’s E Pluribus Unum.

[Actuality] = [A – (Fragmentations / Privations of the Self, of Other, of Us) – Z]

I’d love to read that! Where did you find it?

Sure, the first link I found on this, here.

Next time I meet with an inmate who’s in for child abuse, I’ll just suggest that he maim a servant next time.

Your original complaint was that God caused 42 children to be murdered.

I point out that a reasonable reading of the text is that they were a gang of young men, and there is no clear indication that they were killed.

So this is quite likely an account of how God protected his prophet and punished the people who mocked and abused him.

If you want to make analogies, try one of someone defending your father from being abused or beaten by a gang of 42 young men.

JDH, #264,

But surely you know that atheism has no coherent reasonable argument as to why violating the rights of individuals is wrong, most especially when it is in one’s own self-interest to do so. The “unalienable rights granted by our Creator” argument is contradictory for atheists. What makes you so sure that an atheist society would have a rationale for upholding the rights of minorities (religious, racial/ethnic, sexual orientation, disabled) when atheists do not see it as being in their best interests to do so? Isn’t the systematic, institutionalized violation of the human/civil rights in fact, the ugly history of atheism?

What I see among atheists, most especially the New Atheists movements’ leaders, is lots of self-righteousness and no logic or reason. Our conversation has confirmed for me the thesis of Tom Gilson and Carson Weitnauer’s book True Reason, which I sincerely hope you will read some day.

Jenna, you are conflating Communism with atheism. Communism is a philosophy invented by Marx and expounded upon by Lenin, Stalin, etc. Are you going to tell me that Marx invented atheism?

Philosophy drives behavior, not non-belief in a deity. I call Communism evil because it failed to balance the competing interests of the members of society. I cannot be SURE that atheists would follow a beneficial philosophy. Unlike Christians who claim a theological philosophy that has failed to stifle evil to rival Communism.

I expect a modern atheist country would look much like the atheist nations of Scandinavia. I expect atheists to adapt to the moral progress of the day instead of clinging to archaic notions of subjugated women, racial purity, and the supposed evils of consentual adult relationships. They care for their sick and poor, they are highly communitarian, and their justice system emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment. You can flog the Soviets and North Koreans all you want, but you are too good for that. The honest answer to your question is in the highly secular pluralistic societies of Europe.

Hi scblhrm,
#226

“In that view there seems to be no such thing as an event here (inside of what Scripture defines as the Outside) which runs contrary to Love’s Will.

Which is nonsensical.”

By Love, do you mean God? How about we keep using the same term? It would certainly be confusing if I started referring to myself as “Sarah’s Father” or “the owner of Nissan Pulsar ST-L 230-TON”.

And why is that nonsensical?

“Should have been otherwise is one of (there are many others) the primary themes of Love’s Ontology laced throughout Scripture’s A to Z.”

I don’t know what this means.

“The freedom of motion amid/among Self-Other-Us necessitates Man in His Image, and the Self in Privation, while fully Real, while fully All-Sufficiency in Him, is but Lovelessness, Insufficiency in Man, (in any created anything).”

I don’t know what this means.

“Once Power wills His Image in Man, it cannot not exist, and it is irrational to interpret all of reality as if it does not, or ought not have, existed.”

Assuming Power is another word for God, I request again that you just call him God.

God knows all the choices all men will make if they have free will.
God gives man free will.
God can change anything if he chooses too.
Anything he doesn’t change is because he doesn’t want to change it.
Everything that happens is either directly or indirectly because of God’s will.

“Privation, or what we call evil, that insufficiency of being, the contingent Self fragmented off of the Uncreated Other (no such thing is found in All-Sufficiency, as all moves land on, well, All-Sufficiency) though necessarily availed to the Created Self, is not of necessity actualized.”

I don’t know what this means.

“Your theology (when you were a Christian) failed to account for the Actuality of Wills in play other than Love’s Will being that which Power Wills.”

Are you saying that God wanted two different things? What did He want?

“And, it failed to account for Man’s Image necessarily housing God’s Triune topography (Privation necessarily availed, not of necessity motioned into).”

I don’t know what this means.

“Again, that there is no such thing as an event here (inside of what Scripture defines as the Outside) which runs contrary to Love’s Will is nonsensical.”

Again, why?

“Thus the coherence of should have been otherwise in Love’s Ontology, and, the incoherence of such in Materialism.”

It certainly doesn’t make sense in materalism. But I still don’t understand why it should in Christianity.

Thanks
Shane

Shane,

Some random thoughts for you as I haven’t the time to address your old school Monolithic-It sort of God:

Once Power wills His Image in Man, it cannot not exist, and it is irrational to interpret all of reality as if it does not, or ought not have, or cannot have, existed.

This is your fundamental error.

The volitional motions among/amid Self, Other, Us, just is the end of regress in the Christian God. Singular/Triune.

The motion into the Pure Self, in Him, is but a motion into All Sufficiency, into the Great I-AM.

Whereas, that same motion in Man leads Man, necessarily, into In-Sufficiency, into Privation, what you and I commonly call Evil.

That such a Motion be availed to Man is necessary because Power Wills Man in His Image.

Power, God, has that Will, which cannot be “changed”, because God is not conflicted.

Further, it is not necessary for Man to motion into Privation, for, Power has Willed for Man Man’s motion into Himself (into God), and since Power has so Willed, it so is His Will for Man.

You will insist on defining a rather small God who lacks the capacity to house within Himself [All-Possibilities], and, further, you will see Him as Monolithic-It, rather than a Singular/Triune, and that is why you cannot fathom such necessary freedom in His creative act.

Once Power wills His Image in Man, it cannot not exist, and your are being irrational to interpret all of reality as if it does not, or cannot, so exist.

His tridimensional topography amid [All Possibility] within Personhood’s motions far outreaches your oversimplified uni-tangential thinking.

[All-Possibilities] houses all roads in Eden, and you think such a thing can be thwarted by Man’s choice therein. But, of course, all roads, obedience or disobedience, bring Man to Love’s Eternally Sacrificed Self. Love spreading His arms wide and pouring Himself out, and into, His beloved, cannot not happen. Man, In-Sufficiency, cannot enter Him on his own steam, whether in obedience or disobedience. Man must be filled up. Thus, God must pour out, into. Love Himself must descend, be debased, Man, the Beloved, must be filled up, glorified. In All Possibilities. In all Worlds. You’re thinking isn’t wide enough, Shane. It seems within Him, within [All-Possibilities] the actualization of all of it just does happen. The Knowledge of Evil, of the Isolated I, is known necessarily when one knows the Whole of Self-Other-Us. To know the Whole is to know the Part. Man will eat of the knowledge of Good/Evil. That is a Good Tree. Only, Love Wills Man to first eat of Life’s Tree. That He declares such means it is such, as He is not conflicted. Man can choose which route, because there is freedom among Self/Other/Us, because Power’s Will cannot not happen, but, Man cannot choose the Means/Ends, which just is Love’s Eternally Sacrificed Self, because there is no other reality besides E Pluribus Unum. Man is, thankfully, wholly free, and, Man is, thankfully, fully constrained.

Your thinking is not of the Triune God in Whom [All-Possibilities] is but some small corner, but is instead of some small monolithic It who cannot create worlds upon worlds, many, yet one, both in creating and in being.

The more we take God at His Word there in Genesis though Revelations, the more His Singular/Triune necessitations become too large for such old-school monolithic thinking.

Because God is volitionally free to motion into/out of the Self, the Other, the Us, amid Self-Other-Us, so too is Man, and we know that Power creates/wills that Image, that Freedom, and then you want to think it impossible, and, even worse, you think [All-Possibilities] are contained in Eden, because you don’t take Scripture’s A to Z seriously. That is irrational, and that irrationality explains all of your misinterpretation of the Triune God Who is One. Your other irrationality is that your whole take on Eden’s Trees (Life, Good, Evil, and so on) will just assume that experience must be the highest form of knowledge, whereas, it is but a Part of the Whole that is Knowledge. It is the lesser, not the Whole. God knows more than the inchworm what it is “like” to “be” the inchworm. God knows more than Satan what Evil “is” for Evil, or the Pure-Self, is from everlasting within Love’s fully singular/triune Self-Other-Us, within E Pluribus Unum. We are told that we will (later) know as He knows, and even worse for old-school Monolithic-It thinking, we will know Him in the way that He knows us.

It is interesting that in Him the Pure Self just is Good, is Life, is God. The Great I AM. He cannot “sin”, and yet Evil, the Pure Self, the Privatized-I, just is grounded in Love’s Ontology, just is in Him.

Whereas, in any created anything, on ontological necessity, such a location of isolation, of privation, just is In-Sufficiency, Lack, Need, Death, Love-Less. We see then that when it comes to the Privatized Self what is Evil for Man is not, cannot be, Evil for God, because Actuality just begins and ends with Him. But for Love, there cannot be what we call Evil. Man is free to motion into himself, and, simultaneously, given the Singular/Triune, it is not necessary for Him to do so. All-Possibilities being, of course, fully actualized in God.

I’ve violated my word count 😉

Shane,

God could change that Image, but the result wouldn’t be Love’s Topography of the fully singular, fully triune Self-Other-Us, of E Pluribus Unum. But Love begets yet more Love, worlds upon worlds, ad infinitum.

At the risk of seeming rude, is sch autistic or managing OCD or Asperger’s or something? Sincerely wondering.

JDH,

Here is an example of why that annoyingly tedious work sometimes helps define things closer to Christianity’s set of ontological end points.

You replied to Jenna:

“I fail to see how your examples constitute anything other than “love me, or else.””

In that thinking you completely glossed over the delight of the Created Self being the very thing that is your supposed “or else”.

Any Created Self in Privation “just is” void of “I-You”, or, if it helps, “just is” void of “Self-Other” , and that condition “just is” love-less-ness.

God, or, Love, just is the Whole of all that is. To be outside of such is to be, well, outside of love.

But what is love? What is God? What is it to be outside of “that”?

Well, we have to bring in all that tedious work of Self-Other-Us, and so on, and then “E Pluribus Unum”, and, step by step we end up with the fully singular, fully triune. The Christian God is Love, which means He is not an old-school Monolithic-It, but rather, is a Triune-Person.

That is God.

Outside of “That/Him” there cannot be love, on ontological necessity, for the beginning and end of Actuality just is Him – and He just is love.

The Created Self “just is free” to motion into/out-of Self/Other/Us because God – in Himself – just is free to so motion, and He makes Man in THAT Image. There is no or-else. There is only THAT landscape.

Etc.

At best, it’s tedious.

You say you want to discuss Christianity, but instead you keep trying to define things, or asking us to define things, in non-Christian terms.

That move by you doesn’t make things any easier…… layered over the “tedious” part 😉

JDH, RE: #272

No, I am not “conflating” atheism with Communism, although you do not deny that Communism is an atheistic ideology, of which there are many. I am pointing out the need for you to base your idealized vision of an atheist society (a society where belief in God is absent) on the realities of atheism, including the history of oppression and genocide of atheistic ideologies. Since atheism does not have or profess any paradigm for moral reasoning, there is no guarantee that an atheist society would look anything like the secular societies of Scandinavia. (And BTW, secularism and atheism are not synonyms).

In fact, I challenge you to show us evidence that the countries of Scandinavia have less antisemitism or anti-immigrant sentiments than other societies, including the rest of Europe. On what do you base your belief (which is what it is, not fact) that any atheist society would be more concerned with protecting the human and civil rights than any non-atheist society? Since, as you point out, atheism per se has no moral philosophy that advocates for equity for all groups or articulates a moral vision of equity, what makes you think that abandoning religion and belief in God would lead to more social equity? Isn’t it now and hasn’t it been historically the lack of a belief in accountability to God that permits horrific atrocities and genocide? Where are atheism’s arguments against violations of human and civil rights of individuals or groups? Naturalism? Materialism?

Your expectations for an atheist society are simply your own wishful thinking.

Some of the better research and arguments on this point can be found IMO, in these two books:

Rabbi David Wolpe (2008) Why faith matters.

David Berlinski (2009). “The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.”

David Berlinski’s argument against atheism is based on Nazism and the Holocaust.

JDH, RE: Your “love me or else” argument

Why do you think God would want (command) us to love Him?

The way I understand God, it that is because God loves us and because He loves us (all of us), He wants us to love Him as the Creator of all, we humans, our earth and our universe. As our Heavenly Father (the metaphor Jesus gives us), God only wants what is best for us. God loves all of His creation and wants us to love it, too. That means that anything that is harmful and destructive to ourselves or to our fellow human beings (also children of God) or to God’s creation (the environment, all living creatures), is disobedience to God (also called sin) and goes against His will for us.

Why would anyone want to disobey a Father who is all powerful, all knowing and all loving who wants us to live the “abundant life” (John 10:10) and has revealed to us how we can achieve this? And if, in addition, God promises us an eternal life with Him enjoying His love and without the suffering of our biological bodies at the conclusion of our time on earth, why not do all we can to achieve this as an extension into eternity of the “abundant life” that God gives us? It all makes perfect sense.

Shane,

Yes, Love tarries. I wonder why.

Hi Billy Squibs,

Going to jump in on #126 if you don’t mind.

“And can you tell me why you think that there is a huge dearth of contemporary miracles (or miracle accounts if you prefer)?”

There is huge difference between ‘miracles’ and ‘miracle accounts’ obviously. There is an enormous number of alien abductions reported annually but that doesn’t convert into even one verified alien abduction.

Respectfully
Shane

There is huge difference between ‘miracles’ and ‘miracle accounts’ obviously. There is an enormous number of alien abductions reported annually but that doesn’t convert into even one verified alien abduction.

Oh no! The alien abduction thing again. OK, we all get is Shane. We understand your point. Now can we move on?

I realise that there is a difference between an actual miracle (even in principle) and an account of a miracle. I said as much in post #126 and #271. What I want to get from JDH (I’ll assume until I’m corrected that JDH is a he) are answers to the following questions:

a) Is he familiar with contemporary claims of miraculous events.
b) Does he understand the temporal frequency of miracle accounts

In both cases I would like him to demonstrate some understanding in these areas. If you go back and reread the quoted section it did not, as I understand it, directly concern the impossibility or improbability of miracles. Rather, it spoke about belief in infallibility and inerrancy (both, as I mentioned, are hotly contested within Christianity) and – importantly – the dearth of contemporary miracles. While I appreciate the response (aside from the tedious alien abduction thing) you are not addressing the questions I asked.

Shane,

Please see my discussion of the tradition of Midrash in Judaism and reference to the 37 volumes of the Talmud. There are many sources of “rules and regulations” related to Noachide Law (the 7 Laws of Noah). The Torah is one source but the concept of Noachide Law is elaborated in the Talmud and other interpretive writings. The interpretation of the Laws of Noah varies in the different traditions of modern Judaism: orthodox, reform, conservative, etc.

I hope that this answers your question and if not, that you will do some research on the Internet. There is a lot of information and analysis available.

Hi schblrm,

“Your assertion of a miracle every nanosecond to intervene and thereby micro-manage Mankind’s trillion-per-second motions (which is what it would take) is the moral equivalent of making us Automatons, and you think He should be doing this, and, you assert that because He is not doing that then “it is God’s will that you just got raped”.”

Where did I assert that? The whole point of my posts has been that God does not interfere in things, nor should we ask him to. Obviously we would not have free will if God made any changes to the universe. That’s exactly why he can’t. If God’s Will is for us to have free choice then he can’t be held responsible for the choices we make. That God wants better things for us is a different thing to what He Wills.

Thanks
Shane

Shane,

We find then that if you wish to discuss Christianity, rather than some form of deified Monolithic-It akin to Materialism’s deterministic end of regress, should have been otherwise finds all the support it needs atop the Will of E Pluribus Unum to fashion Man in His Image. Further, He tells us that the business of activity within Time is an activity which He engages in, and, He tells us to Pray, and calls us co-laborers with Him. In other words, the Inverse-Of, or, the Mirror-Image of the reality of should have been otherwise within Time just is the reality of can be otherwise within Time, each finding coherence in the other, each resting atop Love’s Willed Image as the end of regress. Because things can be otherwise, Pastor Martin Luther King Jr. prays for light, for grace, and so on, and, in pouring himself out, in mirroring Love’s end of regress, light comes, grace comes. Prayer is that motioning within can be otherwise. Of course, we know this is true, for, things will be otherwise. That Man is an actual Person with an actual will demonstrating an actual impact in such things, while irrational in materialism, is ontologically necessary and coherent within Christianity’s ontological end points.

Shane,

“The whole point of my posts has been that God does not interfere in things, nor should we ask him to.”

Given that it is true that “should have been otherwise” here within Time is coherent (given Christianity’s ontological end points), and, since things “can be otherwise” here within Time, and, since God does act within Time, and, since things will be otherwise (God’s Will in play / Man’s will in play), your assertion that we “should-not” pray is incoherent for two reasons. First, the word should is a kind of vapor in materialism which you have no capacity to employ unless you borrow some ontological collateral from the Christian, and, second, it is clearly incongruent with Christianity’s Living Triune Person, the ontological end points of Whom are radically different than any sort of Monolithic-It mirroring Materialism’s deterministic ends of regression. As noted, Prayer just is our activity within the arena of can be otherwise. Only He can change “everything“, which He has done / is doing through His New Creation, though, it is clear that Man with Him can and does change some things here within Time that would not otherwise change but for Man in prayer with God. That Man is an actual Person with an actual will demonstrating an actual impact in / on such things, while irrational in materialism, is ontologically necessary and coherent within Christianity’s ontological end points. Prayer is in part this business of “asking”, but, it is so much more for the Christian as communion with one’s beloved just is so much more than that.

What changes Mankind is not that miracle-per-nano-second that would be needed to head-off every bit of evil inside of Mind / Man / Mankind (which would equate to us being automatons, which would run against His Will) but what changes / will change Mankind is Grace. “My grace is sufficient for you” is thus the truest of all possible answers to prayers requesting change where Evil is concerned. Grace will do what the miracle-per-nano-second could never do.

I think it merits repeating: Only He can change “everything“, which He has done / is doing through His New Creation, though, it is clear that Man with Him can and does change some things here within Time that would not otherwise change but for Man in prayer with God. That Man is an actual Person with an actual will demonstrating an actual impact in / on such things, while irrational in materialism, is ontologically necessary and coherent within Christianity’s ontological end points.

@301: OT so I’ll demur… plus, there’s too much to say. Very brief stream-of-consciousness: In western Ukraine, things are very quiet but tense. In eastern Ukraine, Russian thugs are being bused in across the border (photographic and video evidence) to beat people up. Western press reports are woefully ignorant. My prediction: Russia will soon invade (actually, small incursions have already started), possibly Friday or after, followed by war. Turkey is threatening to close the Bosporus strait to all Russian vessels–which it should do as a minimum… but we’re talking potential for a major regional conflagration. (I hope to God I’m wrong.) International agreements are now being looked at as non-binding because of Russia’s rejection of the Bucharest agreement (e.g., Iran is now openly questioning agreements with the west). Separatist movements all over the world are gaining traction… including Venice! Russia is hinting that the U.S. could be reduced to “nuclear ash,” and Putin is rightly laughing at the joke sanctions being imposed while suggesting western assets will be seized as a response (he’s already deporting westerners for traffic infractions). Three years after the start of the butchering in Syria, it continues unabated and Obama’s “red line” is a joke second only to him as president. Ukraine is (ignorantly but understandably, in my opinion) making overtures about renewing its nuclear weapons capabilities. Our Eastern European allies correctly view Obama as a spineless, ignorant, idealist, unreliable fool. Khodorkovsky’s speech on the Maidan was breathtaking. Etc., etc., etc.

Shane,

It’s simple. Should/Ought is grounded in Love’s Will. Ultimate Good. Man in his full felicity. The end of ad infinitum there is Immutable Love Himself, that fully singular, that fully triune Self-Other-Us, Who is the Unchanging and Timeless E Pluribus Unum.

Part of that whole arena is, of course, that God Wills to not rape man and force him to choose X amid Self/Other/Us. That is to say, that the motion into and out-of Privation / God is availed him. Eden’s juxtaposition acquiesces to Gethsemane’s amalgamation in all possible actualizations, pending the Created Self’s delight/choice. What happens once that Marriage takes place is, we are told, over a horizon beyond which our current mind cannot even ask/imagine.

Materialism has its own moral end of regress, Christianity another. I’ve no care to dance atop the grave of Euthyphro with you here.

Contextually speaking, all that follows Genesis 3 is God in interaction within Time with Man in Man’s Privation, the activities of which there in the Outside, or – on definition – hell on earth, necessitate a Ceiling/Floor which is, on definition, fragmentation.

A bunch of Laws and Rules are as hopeless (from there in the Outside) as is the miracle-per-nano-second we just discussed to fashion Man in His Image (from there in the Outside). Genesis 3’s Protoevangelium being the only hope.

Perhaps you imply that we think that Love’s Will to create Man free to motion into / out-of Privation/God is the end of His Will? As if there awaits, from that point onward, some sort of empty void?

How odd it would be for anyone to think that, given that it is so unscriptural.

You seem to dislike it when I call God by the name of Love, but as He is the Unchanging E Pluribus Unum it serves its purpose in these discussions to ever remind us of the Means/Ends we speak of. Love’s Means/Ends for Man are, simply, Love Himself. There are no other Means which can fill In-Sufficiency but All-Sufficiency Himself there at the ends of the Timeless and Underived, thus the coherency of, necessity of, Love’s pouring-out unto/into the bitter ends of the derivations we call Time and Physicality, and, there are no Ends beyond the End of Ad Infinitum but Immutable Love Himself there at the ends of the Timeless and Underived, thus the coherency of, necessity of, Love’s pouring-out unto/into the bitter ends of the derivations we call Time and Physicality.

Man cannot ascend but by Another’s Strength, on ontological necessity, as God cannot create God. It just cannot be otherwise in all possible actualizations that Love must come down, must pour out, must be debased, and Man must be raised up, must be filled up, must be glorified. Such is the case from the bitter ends of time and physicality to the end of ad infinitum, which just is God, that is to say, which just is E Pluribus Unum. There are plans for a Marriage, and such is The-Now, and, there are plans for the Groom and Bride on the other side of that amalgamation, though we are told we cannot, in our current condition, even imagine the tapestry of such things. While the Self is in God but the Great I AM, such is in any crated Self of necessity insufficiency, lack, want, need. Such privation is for any created Self the Outside. As for that Outside, the Pure-Self, that which is void of Self-Other, that which is – on definition – loveless, such is not His Will for Man, though such is of necessity availed Man, just as, such is not of necessity chosen by Man. Love/Marriage is the better choice. In fact, Love/Marriage is the best choice in all possible worlds, in all possible actualizations, as Ultimate Actuality just is Love, just is that fully singular, that fully triune Self-Other-Us, Who is the Timeless and Unchanging E Pluribus Unum.

Hi scblhrm,

“Perhaps you imply that we think that Love’s Will to create Man free to motion into / out-of Privation/God is the end of His Will? As if there awaits, from that point onward, some sort of empty void?

How odd it would be for anyone to think that, given that it is so unscriptural.”

Do you mean on earth? Obviously there is more to the story after death.

Cheers
Shane

Tom yes certainly. The analogy between our Fall with “the outside” and with “on definition hell here” is just to equate the notion of the OT landscape being that of something less than what God desires for us. Just the same, the analogy of the NT’s reference to the Law as “the ministry of death” is employed only to show that that Law (any law) just will not do the work which Christ ultimately did for us. The rigorous writhing you do here is obviously not being used in those sorts of loosely-flowing word “drawings”. Perhaps God’s options for Man after the Fall are 1) abandonment , or 2) annihilation, or 3) to just by miracle (against our will) “magically erase” our Fall (our Privation), or 4) to do what He did and (restrain death) and ultimately save us (etc.) These topics are (IMO) important in my discussions with atheists who do not take the OT on Scripture’s own terms as they seem to think the OT was supposed to somehow “cure us” or somehow bring moral excellence to our nature……..which of course only God can do. I hope you’ll accept my apology and thank you for your work here!