Debate Christians/Atheists

[hanguk859]

Ok, I hope this catches on, but I think we should bring the evolutionists in from The Land of the Duffers, and the Atheists that have abandoned the Only For Atheists thread!

[Jay7]

Hey :) Im ready to join in and bring up the many holes of evolution. :D

[hanguk859]

haha, that's cool

[Jay7]

lol yep.

Lets get started everyone, where are you all

[Gibby]

OK, here we go...

Atheism...bad.
Christianity...good.
Evolution...bad.

Who can argue with this?

http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif

[Jay7]

OK, here we go...

Atheism...bad.
Christianity...good.
Evolution...bad.

Who can argue with this?

http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif
Its all been argued before, it isnt going to be anything new brought up, but it will change a few peoples views, which all debates do. :)

[Kitanna]

Atheism...bad.
Christianity...good.
Evolution...bad.

Well, despite being a Catholic, I find it hard to say Atheism is bad or evolution is bad. Disagree with it, yes, but to call a person's life choice bad is rather unfair. Religions get bent out of shape when other religions or atheists try to bring them down or break their faith. So why should Christians or Jews or Muslims or any other religion stoop to the level of their attackers by claiming the other's ideas are bad?

Being atheist is a choice. If they don't believe in God, that's a shame, because it's nice to believe in something. But making the choice to believe in the Theory of Evolution or to become an Atheist is not a bad one.

[TomOfTarsus]

And as others have said, it's all been said before. So if we as believers ae going to do anything constructive, it won't be by calling athiesm "bad."

I think we have to define some terms. Every dog, cat, horse, and cattle breeder "believes" in evolution, after a sort. They believe, no it's a quite well established fact, that they can use genetics to modify, strengthen, and even create new breeds. This is "science" in the true Christian sense, i.e., that God created a world of order and we can investigate and discover and use that order, as He has commanded us to do.

But when you get back to macro-evolution, or the origin of life at all, now you have whole different issues. The theory of evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life, jut the origin of species. Now Carl Sagan or Richard Dawkins can go on all they want about spontaneous generation, but I personally think you'd need more faith to believe that could happen than that a man was raised from the dead. Science can investigate these things and come up with theories that contradict the Genesis record. But so what? Those theories could be upended next week. We don't know, and probably never will know, based soley on scientific investigation.

So I don't get real excited about evolution, just about far-out evolution nut-jobs that want to preach it as gospel, and militant secularists who want to marginalize th faith that the majority of Americans hold (sorry to you off-shore folks...)

And as for atheism, I've never met an atheit who came to that conclusion as a matter of intellect - it's always been a matter of the heart, or else they were raised that way. But I see it as a sad and lonely existance, and the atheists I've known are certainly not filled with joy.

So if you're an atheist, Christianity is defined, as Jesus said, by two great commandments. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself. Give us a break on the first one and assume a God exists. What's the problem with either of these two commandments that you would see Christianty as so untenable?

Blessings all,

Tom

[Jay7]

I agree with everything you said. :)

[Gibby]

Its all been argued before, it isnt going to be anything new brought up, but it will change a few peoples views, which all debates do. :)

Just trying to help get things started, that's all. I wasn't trying to be offensive; which reading back at my post sure suggests that. Sorry all... I was actually trying to be funny which backfired. oops.http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon11.gif But I did get things started it seems.

[waterhogboy]

Well, despite being a Catholic, I find it hard to say Atheism is bad or evolution is bad. Disagree with it, yes, but to call a person's life choice bad is rather unfair. Religions get bent out of shape when other religions or atheists try to bring them down or break their faith. So why should Christians or Jews or Muslims or any other religion stoop to the level of their attackers by claiming the other's ideas are bad?

Being atheist is a choice. If they don't believe in God, that's a shame, because it's nice to believe in something. But making the choice to believe in the Theory of Evolution or to become an Atheist is not a bad one.

So, as a Christian, you don't think its bad to have a total hatred of God, and therefore a total hatred of anything good in this world. Because, I dont think that Athiests realise that that is what being an Athiest truly involves. True Athiests admit that this is the case (see Nietzche). In the same way, Evolutionists must agree that there is nothing wrong with racism, that some people are fit to be killed if they arent mentally or physically perfect and that there is no need for any morality as this is alien to the process in which they believe. It's be interesting to hear what so called Athiests and Evolutionists think of their titles now!?

[Kitanna]

So, as a Christian, you don't think its bad to have a total hatred of God, and therefore a total hatred of anything good in this world.

No, I don't think it's bad. I don't agree with their thinking, but if a person wants to hate God I'm not going to change their mind. If they let me be a Christian, then I let them go on being an Atheist. My point isn't what atheists think, but that they shouldn't be harped on because they have that thinking. I get upset when people ridicule my religion so why would I want to do it to someone else?

[Queen Swanwhite]

Well, hating God is a bit strong. God died for us. i wouldn't hate him for that.

[waterhogboy]

Ah - i see. Well I'm the opposite. I'd rather have people telling me how stupid Christianity is and ridiculing me, yet be able to try to make them see that they are hating a God who created them and loves them even though they, like me, dont deserve his love.

[waterhogboy]

Well, hating God is a bit strong. God died for us. i wouldn't hate him for that.

Well, an athiest is someone who hates God. If not then they arent really an athiest.

[Gibby]

The actual definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe in God. But the evidence of some of the atheists that have posted on this site and in some of our communities show that they are openly hostile to religion in general, particularly Christianity. So, WHB, I agree with you on them "hating God". Although this is a hasty generalization to all atheists and there are probably many out there who are just indifferent towards belief in religion.

[Jay7]

Just trying to help get things started, that's all. I wasn't trying to be offensive; which reading back at my post sure suggests that. Sorry all... I was actually trying to be funny which backfired. oops.http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon11.gif But I did get things started it seems.
Sorry if i came accross agrovated or anything, i didnt mean it in the way you thought i did, it actually was funny :) maybe i didn't word it right..

[truenarnian7]

yes christanity good and it will always be that way! :)

[hanguk859]

amen, but i think that the first entry by Gibby should have been
Christianity: Correct
Evolution: False
Atheism: False/Mislead
or something along those lines, not just good and bad, good and bad depend on the beholder, but I like to at least humor myself that the world still holds to 'absolute truth' that is to say, not the 'everyone picks their own truth' idea..
And yes, atheists don't believe in God, but I don't know if they all hate him...
how can they hate someone that 'doesn't exist'?

[DeplorableWord]

Well, hating God is a bit strong. God died for us. i wouldn't hate him for that.

Actually, Jesus died for us, not God. :o

[Gibby]

Actually, Jesus died for us, not God. :o

Jesus is God!

Romans 10:9

9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

[Gibby]

amen, but i think that the first entry by Gibby should have been
Christianity: Correct
Evolution: False
Atheism: False/Mislead
or something along those lines, not just good and bad, good and bad depend on the beholder, but I like to at least humor myself that the world still holds to 'absolute truth' that is to say, not the 'everyone picks their own truth' idea..
And yes, atheists don't believe in God, but I don't know if they all hate him...
how can they hate someone that 'doesn't exist'?

Yes, absolute truth is not very tolerant, is it? 1+1 still equals 2, not what "feels right to me in my heart".

[Suzuran]

Live and let live.


That's always how I've thought of the whole thing...

[unleavened]

And yes, atheists don't believe in God, but I don't know if they all hate him...how can they hate someone that 'doesn't exist'?
Because subconcously they know he does. Lewis says of the time when he was an atheist, "I was at this time living, like so many Atheists...in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry w/ God for not existing. I was equally angry with him for creating the world." (Surprised by Joy, ch 7) That pretty much lays it out.

Yes, absolute truth is not very tolerant, is it? 1+1 still equals 2, not what "feels right to me in my heart".
Exactly. The extreme tolerence urged on people today is part of Saten's attempt to make the church ineffective. That's my take on it anyway. Wow, it sounds alot more obvious here than it did when I was thinking of it.

[Gibby]

Because subconcously they know he does. Lewis says of the time when he was an atheist, "I was at this time living, like so many Atheists...in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry w/ God for not existing. I was equally angry with him for creating the world." (Surprised by Joy, ch 7) That pretty much lays it out.

.

Ahh, Surprised by Joy. I just bought that book; can't wait to find time to read it!

[waterhogboy]

amen, but i think that the first entry by Gibby should have been
Christianity: Correct
Evolution: False
Atheism: False/Mislead
or something along those lines, not just good and bad, good and bad depend on the beholder, but I like to at least humor myself that the world still holds to 'absolute truth' that is to say, not the 'everyone picks their own truth' idea..
And yes, atheists don't believe in God, but I don't know if they all hate him...
how can they hate someone that 'doesn't exist'?

(ok this is where I go typical WHB style and cant do proper quotes from the Bible cos I dont know it well enough. So peeps who no where I'm quoting from please reference it!!)

It says in the Bible that you cannot be luke warm towards God. You are either on his side, else you are against him. So if an athiest doesn't believe in God, he is against him. Similarly if you dont love God, then you must hate him - there's no such thing as indifference towards God, because indifference IS hatred.

[Gibby]

Revelation 3:15-17

15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

[waterhogboy]

Revelation 3:15-17

15I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

Hmmmm.... maybe thats not the verse I meant then... Curse my lack of knowledge of the Bible. Its in there somewhere... :rolleyes:

[Gibby]

This one?

Matthew 6:24
24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

[waterhogboy]

Hmmmm... - maybe I'm just gettin mixed up - cos thats more to do with money. Perhaps I was thinking of that verse but forgot it was talknig about money...

[Gibby]

That verse does not have to just be about money; it can be anything that we value more than God. Money was just an example Jesus used of something that has the potential to compete with God in our lives. For one man it can be money, for another, an earthly relationship, etc... Jesus was just expounding upon the commandment of "you shall have no other gods before me" Exodus 20:3

[waterhogboy]

Ahhhh - I see. That makes sense.

[Shawster]

We had to debate this topic in Speech class the other day and I of course defended Christianity. One person's comment threw me off guard, though... they asked, "If it's true that 'God' created man then how do you explain the bones of dinosaurs? Didn't they come before man?"

I was wondering if anyone has a correct answer to this question. I feel a little naive in asking it, but I thought I might as well know so I can better defend my position in the future.

[.::Briar-Of-Narnia::.]

Being atheist is a choice. If they don't believe in God, that's a shame, because it's nice to believe in something. But making the choice to believe in the Theory of Evolution or to become an Atheist is not a bad one.

I believe in a lot of things. I believe in love and luck and family and friends i ahev a lot to fall back upon when life gets me dwn. Just because i dont believe in your god doesn't mean i dont believe in anyhthing at all!! ;)
Love,
Briar. :D

[inkspot]

I think there is a Christian/scientific school of thought that dinosaurs aren't all that old and were created around the same time as other animals. I think there are significant problems with the carbon dating that suposedly tells us the true ages of fossils, etc. We should pop over to the creation vs. evolution thread as I believe Charn Tim would know more on that subject.

[Mar]

hey, is anyone catholic here?

[waterhogboy]

You see this is where people who say they dont believe in God get themselves confused by saying their athiests, as this isnt strictly true. Not believing in God (specifically the Christian God that most people refr to simply as God) does not mean you dont believe in a god. To take Briar above as an example. She stated that, although she doesnt believe in God (ie. Jehovah) she does believe in luck. Therefore her 'god' is luck. Similarly, someone who puts their trust in themselves, means they hold themselves as a 'god' and would be called a humanist. Someone who treats science as a 'god' is, obviously, a scientist.

Basically, if you're going to refer to yourself as an athiest, it literally means you do not believe in or put your faith in anything in life. This is why true athiests are often nihilists, those who believe, literally, in nothing - that nothing matters... sadly a very depressing view...

[Gibby]

...This is why true athiests are often nihilists, those who believe, literally, in nothing - that nothing matters... sadly a very depressing view...

I agree. Without hope, what reason is there for happiness? No wonder life becomes for the non-believer a mad scramble to "do and experience everything" and acquire as much wealth, etc... as possible before they depart this world...with nothing I might add.

[waterhogboy]

I agree. Without hope, what reason is there for happiness? No wonder life becomes for the non-believer a mad scramble to "do and experience everything" and acquire as much wealth, etc... as possible before they depart this world...with nothing I might add.

Its true - and thats why people are never happy, no matter how much fame, fortune or prestige they have. In fact - its generally those that have the worst problems....

[Parthian King]

Perhaps this observation (a very astute one) forms the conceptual basis for Puddleglum's speech to the Green Witch of the Silver Chair: Assuming (for the sake of the argument) that we, believing Christians, are roundly deceived and misled, we are merely happy fools for it, and it is up to the atheist to show not that God does not exist (something that cannot be done anymore than we can prove He does), but that their belief system makes them happier, more contributing to themselves and others, more constructive, and overall better off. If they cannot, then we we are better to go on as happy fools, and they as miserable nihilists, since if they are right we all rot in the ground in a matter of a few days, (or rather moments, speaking in relation to the vastness of time), while if we are right, we go to eternal blessedness and they (terribly) to torment (i.e., Pascal's Wager). In short, this earth is the last hell we will see, and the last heaven they will see. Oddly, in their belief system, they already view this earth through a lens that would lead them to view life as a living hell (indeed, to make it one), and Christ affords us enough joy to conclude that our eternal life has begun already.

Add to this that God is not desirous that any should perish, and Lewis' Great Divorce comes into sharp focus.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Basically, if you're going to refer to yourself as an athiest, it literally means you do not believe in or put your faith in anything in life. This is why true athiests are often nihilists, those who believe, literally, in nothing - that nothing matters... sadly a very depressing view...The great G.K. Chesterton was once speaking to a hall full of secular men, and at one point in his talk he conducted a simple experiment. He asked which men in the room had some thing - a token, or piece of clothing, or heirloom, or charm - that they simply could not be without. To a man, everyone in the hall acknowledged that they all had something that they felt they must have with them for whatever reason - "luck", or familiarity, or comfort, or connection with a dead relative, or whatever. The only person who didn't was Chesterton himself, the only supernaturalist in the room.

You're right, WHB - we don't ever not believe in a god - we just trade some for others.

[PeaseantGirl]

I have a hard time with religion, because I'm a Christian Wiccan, so one religion says that witches should burn in hell, but then I'm a kinda half witch, so am I gonna burn, or am I gonna be forgiven, or am I going to wander? Plus, into that weird mixture, I believe in heaven AND in reincarnation!

[Charn_Tim]

Someone who treats science as a 'god' is, obviously, a scientist.
Okay, I do not mean to be picky here, but I really agree with everything you've said in your excellent and insightful post except for this. I am a scientist and my "god" is the infinite-personal God, Jesus Christ, Jehovah of the Bible. I'm sure (I hope) you didn't mean that all scientists are those who treat science as a god, but I just wanted to make that one clear before people keep railing on "science" in these threads. Please be more careful with your language, because people get the wrong ideas about science enough without making statements like this...just a word of caution. :)

[Parthian King]

PeasantGirl, I am not sure what you mean by saying that "one religion [by this I guess you mean Christianity] says that witches should burn in hell." Are you suggesting that anyone wants witches (or anyone else) to suffer eternally? My understanding of Scripture is that those who are eternally lost and cast into the lake of fire are so lost and damned because they have rejected Christ as Savior and Lord. Their behavior (adultery, theft, murder, and yes, witchcraft, as well as any number of other things) is incidental to this rejection. For this reason Christians view the very continuation of history as divine patience, since the only reason a holy God would continue to tolerate so much sin is mercy--He doesn't want those who are estranged from Him to be lost, so He waits. God's eternal perspective also plays into this. As players in this drama, Christians seek to carry the message of the gospel--what Paul calls the message of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5).

Now, I cannot know what your life is really up to, nor do I wish to. Therefore I won't deign to pass the judgment you seem to have already assumed from people like me. But I will say that Wicca as I understand it is basically a form of witchcraft based on nature worship. Witchcraft is rejected by the Old and New Testaments because it places the practitioner in a position of attempting to usurp that which is God's alone: Control (or in our case, manipulation) of the natural order. It is between you and Him whether this is what you are up to. The second issue is nature worship itself. Of course, God in His mercy demands we worship Him as Creator alone and not creation in the slightest. We may (indeed, should) glorify Him for His creation, but we cannot confuse the two.

Again, I do not know why you identify yourself as Wiccan and Christian, since those two worldviews in their purest forms seem incompatible to me. It would appear to most that to claim adherence to both means compromise of the tenets of either one or the other, or both. But in the end, God is your judge, and no one here condemns you.

[inkspot]

Gibby, I like your new avi! Is that your puppy?

Peasant Girl, welcome to the discussion. I don't know enough about Wicca to say if it is compatible with Christianity, but if it is a form of worship of any other being/thing except Jesus, then it is not compatible, and you should probably re-think that.

To be a Christian, you have to confess Christ as the only God and Savior, who died on the cross as a ransom for sin, who forgives our sins through His sacrifice, who was buried and rose again after three days and now sits at the right hand of God. When you choose Him over all other gods/idols/things, then you can say you are a Christian.

I don't know if that is your understanding of Christianity. If Wicca is more like a hobby than a religion, then I can see it would be compatible with Christianity. What do you think?

[Gibby]

Gibby, I like your new avi! Is that your puppy?

He's my current work dog; a tri-color border collie. He's trained in narcotics detection and tracking. He's 10 months in this picture (taken yesterday btw). I'm quite proud of him as you can tell; I trained him myself (with guidance and advice from experienced folks in the industry of course).

[inkspot]

He's my current work dog; a tri-color border collie. He's trained in narcotics detection and tracking.
No way, like Sparky the drug dog at the airports?
(In the Houston airport, where a lot of Caribbean flights come in, they also have Sparky the fruit dog! He's a little beagle, and I bet the drug dogs rip on him when they find narcotics and he finds an avocado ...)

The dog is sweet.

[Gibby]

No way, like Sparky the drug dog at the airports?
(In the Houston airport, where a lot of Caribbean flights come in, they also have Sparky the fruit dog! He's a little beagle, and I bet the drug dogs rip on him when they find narcotics and he finds an avocado ...)

The dog is sweet.

You could teach a dog to find dirty underwear if you wanted to (although I don't know why anyone would want to do this!). I know beagles have been used for dope and bomb detection as well.

[inkspot]

That's true -- I saw a program on TV where a dog had been trained to smell if a person had cancer. No kidding, it could tell the difference between a healthy person and a person with cancerous cells. There can't even be a smell for cancer. Dogs are amazing animals. I saw another program which said my dog has 20,000 scent receptors in his nose, but scent hounds like blood hounds have many more, like 50 or 100,000! They are very wonderful animals.

[Gibby]

...but scent hounds like blood hounds have many more, like 50 or 100,000! They are very wonderful animals.

My last work dog was a bloodhound. She challenged my decision to work with dogs; I about went crazy trying to manage this thick-headed slobber machine. Scent is about all their good for! As far as "cancer smell", I believe this one. All people emit scents; it's like a "fingerprint" to dogs. This is evident in how they can "scent discriminate" between different people on tracks. Perhaps the dead skin cells or other toxins and substances secreted from skin pores emit a unique, possibly even a "decomp" type of smell to dogs that is only present in cancer patients? I wish these amazing potlickers could tell us what they were thinking! Whoa, are we off of subject or what?

[inkspot]

I know, my bad. I just love dogs.
OK, back on track ...
Regarding Christianity vs. atheism, well, I would choose Christianity because I like Jesus, and I like to think He exists, and He likes me, too. (And I bet He likes dogs!)

[hanguk859]

hey it's cool, I'm sure that He likes dogs, Just as Aslan loves all the creatures, and they love him in return. lol
Yeah, I really don't think Christianity and Wicca are that compatible, but like he said, we're not going to condemn you, and I really don't have an in depth knowledge of it neway...

[PeaseantGirl]

ok, well, I am 12 years old, I have been Christian for 10 years, and then 2 years ago, I discovered Wicca, which is believing that everything is or was alive at some point. It believes that everything has a spirit, and that there is one force, aldo a triune, Maiden Mother Crone. I believe in both. It also believes that there is a place that you go to when you die, but that you stay there for a period of time, and then you go back to the earth. It also believes in more than one God. I believe in both, I say again. That is what I mean when I say that I am Christian and Wiccan.

I believe in and worship and pray to God Jesus, but I belive in Wicca stuff. So its awkward. ya.

[Parthian King]

PeasantGirl, in a spirit of tenderness and goodwill, let me simply say that Jesus is not the kind of master that allows us to serve Him and another in the way you say you are doing. He still loves you the same, but if you pray to another and worship another as God, then He, being the gentleman that He is, bows out of the picture. He is the Lord, and will not tolerate rivals. I think that if you really read about Him in the Bible, and truly discover Him as you seem to have discovered Wicca, if you really search for Him to know Him as he knows Himself to be (as C.S. Lewis says), then He will show Himself to you--just as Aslan showed Himself to Lucy.

Let me suggest that you read the New Testament, say the Gosepl of Mark, then John, to find out who Jesus is. I think you'll find that He loves you enough to want you all for Himself.

[inkspot]

I agree with PK. It does not sound as if Wicca is compatible with Christianity, simply because Jesus stated that He is the only way to eternal life, and worship of other gods is condemned. If you want to undertake your reading of the Gospel as PK suggests, let me suggest an easy translation of the Bible such as The Message or the Contemporary English Version. Both can be found online at http://www.biblegateway.com/

I agree with Hanguk that no matter what, Jesus loves you, and we narniafans love you, too!

[Parthian King]

Inkspot, I am sure you mean that the worship of other gods is condemned just as a doctor hates cancer because it kills the patients he or she loves. God condemns worship of other gods not because he hates those who worship them, but because He loves them, and those gods are false, and to worship them (though it may seem neat at the time) in the end leads to destruction. I know this is what you meant, I just want to make sure PeasantGirl knows that we love her with the love of Christ, and want her to have the abundant life Jesus speaks of.

[waterhogboy]

Okay, I do not mean to be picky here, but I really agree with everything you've said in your excellent and insightful post except for this. I am a scientist and my "god" is the infinite-personal God, Jesus Christ, Jehovah of the Bible. I'm sure (I hope) you didn't mean that all scientists are those who treat science as a god, but I just wanted to make that one clear before people keep railing on "science" in these threads. Please be more careful with your language, because people get the wrong ideas about science enough without making statements like this...just a word of caution. :)

Lol - yeh sorry. I meant a 'scientist' as someone who holds their belief system in science, rather than a 'scientist' who just enjoys studying it. Sorry about that!

[inkspot]

WHB, and HB must be part of three duffsketeers, but who is the third?

[Gryphon]

hey PeasantGirl check this out ok?

Christianity and Wicca are two completely different religions. Christianity doesn’t offer people the opportunity to pick and choose what they want to believe in the way that Wicca does. Even if we disagree with the Bible, or don’t understand its teaching, God wants us to trust Him. His Word — the Bible — is without error. Its truth has been verified and proven more than any other book.

When it comes to witchcraft, the Bible is very clear. God strictly forbids practicing witchcraft or casting spells (Deuteronomy 18:10, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Micah 5:12 and Galatians 5:20). He’s a holy God, and these practices are evil. God also shows that as the Creator, He is to be worshiped — not Earth, which is part of His creation. God doesn’t restrict us so we’ll miss out on a good life. He’s desperately in love with us and wants to give us the best. And because He created us, He knows what’s going to fulfill and satisfy us the most.

As followers of Jesus, we do care about people who practice Wicca. Based on the truth of the Bible, we also recognize that they’re headed down the wrong path. We want all people to experience God’s hope, love and forgiveness.

Asking God to accept your Wicca is not an option, its like asking God "Hey could you stop being so one-sided about sin, i know Heaven is a perfect paradise and you dont allow sin in there but could you maybe reconsider?"

im only making this post caue i love you gal! dont let satan distroy you with his lies, you can overcome this i promise, trust in God not Wicca!

[Gryphon]

WHB, and HB must be part of three duffsketeers, but who is the third?
haha, i am just FYI look at my sig at the bottom in red :D

[inkspot]

haha, i am just FYI look at my sig at the bottom in red :D
Thank you, I did not notice yours. Duffsketeers!

[PeaseantGirl]

dont let satan distroy you with his lies, you can overcome this i promise, trust in God not Wicca! But that is just the thing! Wicca and Wiccans don't believe in Satan. Wicca has nothing to do with Satan. Wicca is, in many ways, using will power to change things. Like, for instance, when you are sick, and you cast a spell to end the sickness, it is your body willing the sickness to be gone. And some people are so good at willing, that the illness actually seems to be gone!

[inkspot]

But that is just the thing! Wicca and Wiccans don't believe in Satan. Wicca has nothing to do with Satan.
Peasant Girl, I think you said you follow Christ and Wicca? But if you follow Christ, then you must know that there is a devil as the Bible says. So it doesn't matter if Wicca says there's no devil, Christ has said there is. And did you read the other posts clearly showing that Wicca is incompatible with Christianity? Christ will be your One and Only, or He will step aside. You can't have Christ and Wicca both -- Jesus said, "You can't worship two gods at once. Loving one god, you'll end up hating the other. Adoration of one feeds contempt for the other" (Matthew 6:24, The Messsage).

Wicca is, in many ways, using will power to change things. Like, for instance, when you are sick, and you cast a spell to end the sickness, it is your body willing the sickness to be gone. And some people are so good at willing, that the illness actually seems to be gone!
Using will power to change things is good: that's like diet and exercise, managing your money, controlling your drinking. But using will power to change things does not involve the "triune, Maiden Mother Crone" you mention in your previous post: that is a goddess, and if you believe in Jesus, then you know it is a false goddess, and to worship such, in the Christian view, is sinful.

Please, if you do trust in Christ, consider this very carefully. Read His Word and understand what He is saying. I would suggest starting with the four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. John is my favorite, I would start there. You can read them online at www.biblegateway.com in many different versions -- I like The Message and the Contemporary English Version.

Jesus loves you so much! But it's His nature that He cannot share you with some other god or goddess. He has called you, you say you believe in Him. Please investigate His claims and follow Him whole-hearted.

[Nema]

I've been reading through this thread just now, and I've noticed a rather glaring absence of defenders of (or apologists for, if you like) the atheist side of the discussion.

I'd like to preface this post by pointing out that I know many of you hold strong religious views, and that for some of you the beliefs which I do not share with you are the dearest you have. As such, I shall make no attempt to try to convert you, or treat your views with anything less that intellectual equinimity, regardless of my own heart-felt beliefs. I would ask only for the same courtesy. Counter my positions with what arguments you will, but the most is to be gained here from abstaining on both sides from personal attack, I think.

There are several points which have been brought up in this thread which I should very much like to address. The first is the way in which 'atheism' is annexed to belief in evolution, even in the thread title. The two are not synonymous, and it is quite possible to be firmly atheistic without believing blindly in those elements of evolutionary theory which still need refinement. In most cases, atheists are the least likely to accept any theory as doctrine and so any weaknesses there are in the theory of evolution are not synonymously weaknesses in the atheistic position. The two are descrete.

There are also some individual posts I feel need to be addressed.

TomofTarsus said:
So if you're an atheist, Christianity is defined, as Jesus said, by two great commandments. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself. Give us a break on the first one and assume a God exists. What's the problem with either of these two commandments that you would see Christianty as so untenable?
It's a self-defeating approach to ask an atheist from the start to give you a break and assume a god exists, because the absence of that assumption is the sole defining characteristic of the atheist's position. Atheists will defend themselves on different grounds, but it generally boils down to our having never found a reason acceptable to us for believing in a divine governing force in the universe.

If Christianity is simply those two commandments, then whether individually we accept number two or not has nothing to do with our atheism. God himself is what we find so untenable about the first one. And the over all problem for the whole thing is our skepticism over who exactly is issuing these precepts as commandments.


Waterhogboy wrote:
So, as a Christian, you don't think its bad to have a total hatred of God, and therefore a total hatred of anything good in this world. Because, I dont think that Athiests realise that that is what being an Athiest truly involves. True Athiests admit that this is the case (see Nietzche).

I can't see the logical steps by which you can equate atheism to "hatred of anything good in this world" or even to hatred of God. Nietzsche most certainly did not hold such a position. Schopenhauer did, as his philosophy was both atheistic and extremely pessimistic, but his philosophy is rarely espoused by...well... anybody except Schopenhauer. Nietzsche's pessimism is a sense of dread at what he predicts would happen if there was to be a loss in faith en masse across Europe, but for him Nihilism is an essentially positive and liberating thing.

I hope you'll forgive some introspection here, but I think it might best ground my point when I say that I am not aware in myself of any hatred for God at all. I was raised Catholic, I came to a point where I questioned what it was that I was claiming to believe in, and I found that all the notions I had of God led me into logical contradiction and that it was no loss to me to abandon the idea. God as a concept makes no sense to me, and so I can't see how I could hate him when I cannot even conceive of him.

There are however a great many things which I enjoy and which I believe to be good. I am perplexed to think that I am somehow mistaken and that my atheism must somehow mean that I in fact hate those things which I along with the theists find joy in just because I do not share the belief in their god.

Gibby wrote:
The actual definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe in God. But the evidence of some of the atheists that have posted on this site and in some of our communities show that they are openly hostile to religion in general, particularly Christianity. It's unfortuneate that that's the case, but given how vitriolic Christians can be against atheists I hope most people will degree that this stems on both sides from a frustration in trying to relate to those whose beliefs you cannot repect, rather than in any inherent antagonism within the beliefs themselves.

Waterhogboy wrote:
Basically, if you're going to refer to yourself as an athiest, it literally means you do not believe in or put your faith in anything in life. This is why true athiests are often nihilists, those who believe, literally, in nothing - that nothing matters... sadly a very depressing view...

You see further than most, Waterhogboy :). Yet there are a few clarifications I'd like to draw between my views as I would express them and as you have expressed them here. Firstly literally atheism simply means without any god and mileage may vary as to what exactly falls within that category. There are many atheists who believe that science will eventually yield a theory of everything, which explains the universe. Others mean it strictly as a disbelief in the idea of god as proposed by theists.

However, extreme Atheism can, as you say, tend toward nihilism. However a Nihilist can hold that there is no objective meaning in the universe without holding that 'nothing matters'. I could never cope with such a depressing view myself, yet I would say that my philosophy tends towards Nihilism. Need one really give preferential authority to any one concept in order for anything to be deemed to matter?
(Nietzsche, incidently, held that Christianity was Nihilistic, but this post is long enough without tangents!)

Parthian King wrote
In short, this earth is the last hell we will see, and the last heaven they will see. Oddly, in their belief system, they already view this earth through a lens that would lead them to view life as a living hell (indeed, to make it one), and Christ affords us enough joy to conclude that our eternal life has begun already.

But if the Atheistic position were really so unbearable, why are so many of us happy to hold it? Hand on my heart I don't see this life as a living hell. I truly love just about every experience of being alive - even the painful ones. This may be "the last heaven I will see" but truth be told the concept doesn't bother me. In fact (since we're on the Narnia board afterall) depictions of heaven that are like Lewis's New Narnia leave me cold. This world's not perfect - sometimes it's awful - but I love it.

I can't help but wonder, if the theist thinks of it as their "last hell", and lives in anticipation of the better life to come, how it can be we atheists who are viewing it through a depressing lens.

I'm sorry the post is so long, seven pages of theistic replies got here before me.

[Charn_Tim]

Nema, thank you for taking up the atheist side to this argument. It certainly has been a while since we've had an atheist who has really decided to engage in logical, non-hostile arguments with us (who are mostly orthodox Christian, as Lewis was). I would love to take the time right now to respond thoughtfully and carefully to your arguments, as you raise many interesting and thought-provoking points. However, I still have some homework to do (being sunday night ;)) and I'm afraid I will not get the chance to give your post justice tonight. Thus, I certainly will respond (as others will too, no doubt) tomorrow and I would like to ask you to hang in there and both of us can hear out the arguments of the other side without enmity.

[Nema]

I look forward to it, and hope your homework goes well. Truth be told, there's an essay I really ought to be working on at the moment too.

[Saruman]

I've been reading through this thread just now, and I've noticed a rather glaring absence of defenders of (or apologists for, if you like) the atheist side of the discussion.

I'd like to preface this post by pointing out that I know many of you hold strong religious views, and that for some of you the beliefs which I do not share with you are the dearest you have. As such, I shall make no attempt to try to convert you, or treat your views with anything less that intellectual equinimity, regardless of my own heart-felt beliefs. I would ask only for the same courtesy. Counter my positions with what arguments you will, but the most is to be gained here from abstaining on both sides from personal attack, I think.

This will be an excellent opportunity to weigh and measure the thoughts, philosophies and facts surrounding both Christianity and the religion of atheism. Welcome to the discussion! And I agree with you - nobody should reduce any discussion down to mere attack, when it should be about reasonable debate and thought-provoking discussion. Well put!

There are several points which have been brought up in this thread which I should very much like to address. The first is the way in which 'atheism' is annexed to belief in evolution, even in the thread title. The two are not synonymous, and it is quite possible to be firmly atheistic without believing blindly in those elements of evolutionary theory which still need refinement. In most cases, atheists are the least likely to accept any theory as doctrine and so any weaknesses there are in the theory of evolution are not synonymously weaknesses in the atheistic position. The two are descrete.

I must confess I've always thought atheists were general adherents to the theory of evolution, as explaining the origin of life. However, seeing as you do not believe in any God to have established order and natural law throughout the universe, and apparently you do not necessarily believe in the theory of evolution, how then would you explain the reason behind the existence of life and of mankind, and what, then, are our origins in your estimation?

There are also some individual posts I feel need to be addressed....

If Christianity is simply those two commandments, then whether individually we accept number two or not has nothing to do with our atheism. God himself is what we find so untenable about the first one. And the over all problem for the whole thing is our skepticism over who exactly is issuing these precepts as commandments.

I am rather curious as to your exact position. You have already explained your position as being an atheist, but you have not yet explained where you stand as far as the ideas and concepts of morality are concerned. For, to have the concept and idea of "loving one's neighbor as himself," it would seem as evidence and proof of the natural design of a Creator who Himself has established such a nature within man. I mean to say, where have we gained, or developed, or inherited such concepts as loving one another, or, for that matter, doing good to others - being willing, say, to surrender your place in a lifeboat for another person, knowing that the ship you were standing on was going to sink and you would freeze to death in icy cold waters among others (just in example)? With atheism, there can be no actual development or creation of such concepts, and it becomes impossible for man to have inherited or gained such a nature in and of himself, or through any other means (not even through evolving - the chances of a person evolving the capabilities to think, feel, love, understand, etc., are zero, in my estimation). I would be interested to hear what you have to say concerning your position on this subject.

I hope you'll forgive some introspection here, but I think it might best ground my point when I say that I am not aware in myself of any hatred for God at all. I was raised Catholic, I came to a point where I questioned what it was that I was claiming to believe in, and I found that all the notions I had of God led me into logical contradiction and that it was no loss to me to abandon the idea. God as a concept makes no sense to me, and so I can't see how I could hate him when I cannot even conceive of him.

There are however a great many things which I enjoy and which I believe to be good. I am perplexed to think that I am somehow mistaken and that my atheism must somehow mean that I in fact hate those things which I along with the theists find joy in just because I do not share the belief in their god.

Now, I think, we are finally getting somewhere! :)

You have now explained that, in your own reasoning and your own understanding, you have come to poo-poo the idea of the existence of God. The question at hand - which I assayed to put, as best as I could, above - is how then can an atheist truly love, or be compassionate? Without a God, such things are not only irrelevant and without foundation, but they therefore become completely ridiculous! Therefore (forgive my crudeness), it is now okay for me to go and have intimate relations with men, women or animals for that matter, for there is now no real establishment of morality or order that will draw a definitive line for me. I can do whatever I want, just as it pleases me, for it somehow tells me that I am god, and I can do whatever I want.

You see further than most, Waterhogboy :). Yet there are a few clarifications I'd like to draw between my views as I would express them and as you have expressed them here. Firstly literally atheism simply means without any god and mileage may vary as to what exactly falls within that category. There are many atheists who believe that science will eventually yield a theory of everything, which explains the universe. Others mean it strictly as a disbelief in the idea of god as proposed by theists.

However, extreme Atheism can, as you say, tend toward nihilism. However a Nihilist can hold that there is no objective meaning in the universe without holding that 'nothing matters'. I could never cope with such a depressing view myself, yet I would say that my philosophy tends towards Nihilism. Need one really give preferential authority to any one concept in order for anything to be deemed to matter?
(Nietzsche, incidently, held that Christianity was Nihilistic, but this post is long enough without tangents!)

I am yet curious once more. I may be no expert on the philosophy or concept of nihilism, but if it means what I think it means, then I have to question your faith in atheism altogether. For reasons I have stated above, there can be no order or establishment apart from a Divine Authority to have created such natural laws (C. S. Lewis has two terms for natural laws, if you have ever read his book, Mere Christianity). You contradict yourself: you say that you "could never cope with such a depressing view," and yet this is exactly what atheism seems to propose. If I am missing something about your faith, please correct me.

As regarding science, I again have to ask you another question: where does it come from? Has it evolved? Or did it, through some magical and complex occurrence, suddenly form into an ordered establishment that we clearly recognize today?

But if the Atheistic position were really so unbearable, why are so many of us happy to hold it? Hand on my heart I don't see this life as a living hell. I truly love just about every experience of being alive - even the painful ones. This may be "the last heaven I will see" but truth be told the concept doesn't bother me. In fact (since we're on the Narnia board afterall) depictions of heaven that are like Lewis's New Narnia leave me cold. This world's not perfect - sometimes it's awful - but I love it.

Continued below...

[Saruman]

I do not entirely follow you here. Why are you so happy to hold onto this belief? I think a reason as to why we believe you are viewing life in what we call "a depressing lens" is for the reason that there is really nothing to life at all, and there is no meaning or depth to it in any way (if atheism were true). I still have to ask why you should even dare to state "this world's not perfect - sometimes it's awful - but I love it." I still wonder, then, where love and hate come from. In the light of atheism's barest nature, is there really any need to love or to hate? Where do those concepts come from? How can this world be awful? How dare you say such a thing! for, if atheism is indeed true, this world is perfectly beautiful and sweet, and there is no level or varying degree of right or wrong, for there is no establishment because there is No One who has established any such right or wrong. You still have me in the dark quite in the dark...

However, in the light of my belief in Jesus Christ (whom I believe to be the living God of the universe come down to earth in the form of a man, being both fully God and fully man), I would like to quote something He had to say to an inquisitive Hebrew leader:

From John 3:16-20: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Please do understand, I do not use this to make a personal attack against you. However, Jesus has clearly summed it all up. You love this world because you love to live according to the desires of your own heart: "men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

If, in fact, your view that there is no God is correct, then these words of Jesus Christ are null and void. However, if, in fact, your view that there is no God is incorrect, then there is a serious issue that you are facing and will have to give an account someday to the God who, in His love for you, not only created you for the purpose of having a relationship with Him, but also came to the earth, died for your sins past, present and future and also has resurrected from the dead in His ultimate power as God. A choice, therefore, lies before you which you cannot escape.

I can't help but wonder, if the theist thinks of it as their "last hell", and lives in anticipation of the better life to come, how it can be we atheists who are viewing it through a depressing lens.

What Parthian King stated was that, as Christians, we believe this life is the closest thing to hell we are ever going to taste and that we have a blessed assurance of eternal life after death. As for those who do not follow after God, life on this earth is going to be the closest thing to heaven they will ever taste. A thought on this matter: if, in placing your faith in atheism, you believe there is no "life after death," either in a heaven or in a hell, what if, just perhaps, you were entirely wrong in your outlook in life? What, then, should be the consequences of all your choices and actions in life?

Regarding the other subject, I think we believe you view life through "a depressing lens" because atheism clearly establishes the thought that there is nothing after death (and, perhaps, there is nothing even before life), and that there is no reason for the existence of mankind, or the existence of animals and plant-life, or the existence of this universe in which we live and, as luck would so have it, we have nothing to look forward to but to fade away and dissolve into the ethereal nothingness from which we somehow miraculously sprung.

If I may explain further my own beliefs to you: God has established natural law and order, and has, in creating man, placed within him a natural thirst and a desire after God, as well as a general understanding of certain natural truths of nature and of morality. Not to mention, we have a spiritual nature. If you do not wish to believe in God, you most certainly will be placing your devoted pleasure, delight and faith in something else, whether it's the Sunday night football game you have to watch, or science, or anything else you can think of. We are driven to find something or some way to satisfy this drive within us, whether through meditation, prayer, mantra, etc. Yet the God of the Bible tells us that there is no satisfaction to our spiritual hunger apart from Him.

I'm sorry the post is so long, seven pages of theistic replies got here before me.

We are glad to have you join the forum and to discuss your views. :)

All in all, my argument boils down to this thought: human beings alone are evidence enough of a Designer. Our very nature, our very essence, the things we do, think and ponder, are clear signs that there is One who has established us with such wonderful processes and capabilities. Yet it is the discovery of such an One that is vital for each individual human being. I find great fault with atheism because it really denies certain incontestable and evident truths concerning our nature and our being and, when it comes down to it, really denies a logical origin and purpose for our being and existence.

I hope I have, at the very least, been somewhat clear in my explanations - I can get a little "choppy" at times. And if in anything I have misunderstood you, please let me know.

I look forward to further discussion with you on this matter. Once more please accept my heartiest and sincerest welcome!

[PrinceOfTheWest]

To take things on another tangent, Nema - I guess I'm a bit mystified when you speak of yourself as an atheist as if it were part of your identity, like your eye color or your height. You seem to me to be one who is seeking truth, and your quest for truth has brought you to your current spot. Are you really planning to camp here and end your quest? Might it be more accurate for you to say, "I seek truth, and my search therefore has brought me to this point for these reasons?" I don't want to put words in your mouth, but given what you've said, that seems to be more where you're coming from.

[Danny]

I think it's rather narrowminded to dismiss atheism, especially evolution as "bad".
Evolution in itself is a belief held by millions of people across the globe, including myself. Though I do not consider myself atheist, or even agnostic.
People tend to think of God as a physical entity, or a "Supreme being".
I believe "God", though I see him through the beauty of nature, through the cycle of seasons and passing years, I feel him. He exists everywhere.
Science and religion are intertwined, afterall, is not science only an outlet, a tool in the search for greater truth?
To experience love is to experience God.
All of us, surely love, or have loved.

Therefore, everyone has experienced God, whether they know it or not.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Therefore, everyone has experienced God, whether they know it or not.Truer words were never spoken!

The difficulty, of course, is whether God wants us to do anything - and if so, what?

[Charn_Tim]

Hmm, it seems as if Curumo beat me to it! ;) Many of the same questions that Curumo asked you I would have liked to ask you as well, so I will keep my post as brief as possible, because of the many interesting questions Curumo already raised, and I know you are only one person and the last thing you probably want to do is read a hundred pages of posts questioning your atheistic beliefs.

The most notable issue with the atheistic worldview that Curumo raised (in my estimation) is how do atheists explain morality, feeling, love, hate, etc. if there is no God. We would be happy to elucidate this point further if you would care to hear about it-as Curumo points out, C.S. Lewis devotes the first section of his book Mere Christianity to this concept and how it helped Lewis turn from atheism to the Christian faith.

Now I will try not to repeat what Curumo said in his excellent posts, but I just wanted to respond to some of your statements as well.

I came to a point where I questioned what it was that I was claiming to believe in, and I found that all the notions I had of God led me into logical contradiction and that it was no loss to me to abandon the idea. God as a concept makes no sense to me...
If I may, could I ask you to explain some of these contradictory beliefs to us? I personally would love to hear them, if nothing else, just from a purely intellectual point of view. I know you didn't come on here to try to convert us or anything as you said, but I think it may actually be beneficial to all of us if we could hear personally from an atheist why one wouldn't believe in God.

There are many atheists who believe that science will eventually yield a theory of everything, which explains the universe.
Being a scientist myself, I was intrigued by this statement. I think you may be getting this from reading some of Hawking's work or Carl Sagan perhaps? As one who has spent a significant amount of time researching this matter and the theoretical framework of string theory and quantum gravity (the two areas in which scientists are currently trying to formulate this Theory of Everything) I can honestly say that I see no way that this will ever be possible, and the vast majority of scientists (I would say about 99 %) share my view on this matter. There is one key reason that this argument fails in my estimation and I would argue that it doesn't even make sense to discuss it as an explanatory framework of how the universe has come into being.

The key reason is this: even if scientists have worked out all there is to know regarding the evolution and structure of the universe, know with certainty its history (cosmology), etc. the laws and theories they discover in our universe has nothing at all to say regarding events prior to the beginning of the universe, because before our universe existed, space, time, matter, and energy did not exist (at least in the sense that we can know/understand these things now). Thus, science will never have anything to say about events prior to the creation of our universe, and hence it is not possible for science to come up with an explanation of how our universe came to be.

I'm sorry I guess I didn't do a very good job of keeping this post short :) but I hope you get time to discuss this with us some more.

[Nosferatu]

Truer words were never spoken!

The difficulty, of course, is whether God wants us to do anything - and if so, what?


god wants to do one thing in our lives! "Mans chief end is to glorify God and Enjoy him forever - CATACISM Question 1"

So in our lives we are to do everything to the glory of God. (God gives us other commands in life but this is the principal behind them all.)

[QA48]

scientists argue that they don't believe in God because there is no proof to his existence, therefore he doesn't exist. But, how can you prove something that doesn't exist?

[PrinceOfTheWest]

god wants to do one thing in our lives! "Mans chief end is to glorify God and Enjoy him forever - CATACISM Question 1"

So in our lives we are to do everything to the glory of God. (God gives us other commands in life but this is the principal behind them all.)Nosferatu, that's fine for someone who accepts Christianity. But what of those who don't?

[Gryphon]

Hey peasantgirl, in addition to what inky said (nice post by the way inky) i gotta know... what does Wicca fulfill that God does not? If you pray to Him, He will heal you. If you cry out to Him, He will listen. If you want protection He gives it to you.You should have no reason to do Wicca.

Also, satan does exsist. He doesnt want you to think that but He does. Even as you are reading this the evil one is telling you "They're all wrong, satan doesnt exsist." believe me he does and he would love nothing more than for you to ignor us.

[ChildOfAslan7]

Also, satan does exsist. He doesnt want you to think that but He does. Even as you are reading this the evil one is telling you "They're all wrong, satan doesnt exsist." believe me he does and he would love nothing more than for you to ignor us.

that is very true.

[Nema]

Sorry for the delay. Limited net time and that.

Curumo first!

I must confess I've always thought atheists were general adherents to the theory of evolution, as explaining the origin of life. However, seeing as you do not believe in any God to have established order and natural law throughout the universe, and apparently you do not necessarily believe in the theory of evolution, how then would you explain the reason behind the existence of life and of mankind, and what, then, are our origins in your estimation?

Personally I’m more inclined to believe some version of evolution (though I recognize there are flaws to be worked out in the theories) as being the correct description, however really the point I was trying to make was that atheism and evolutionism are two entirely separate issues and conflating the two can only muddy the waters in any debate.

I am rather curious as to your exact position. You have already explained your position as being an atheist, but you have not yet explained where you stand as far as the ideas and concepts of morality are concerned. For, to have the concept and idea of "loving one's neighbor as himself," it would seem as evidence and proof of the natural design of a Creator who Himself has established such a nature within man. I mean to say, where have we gained, or developed, or inherited such concepts as loving one another, or, for that matter, doing good to others - being willing, say, to surrender your place in a lifeboat for another person, knowing that the ship you were standing on was going to sink and you would freeze to death in icy cold waters among others (just in example)? With atheism, there can be no actual development or creation of such concepts, and it becomes impossible for man to have inherited or gained such a nature in and of himself, or through any other means (not even through evolving - the chances of a person evolving the capabilities to think, feel, love, understand, etc., are zero, in my estimation). I would be interested to hear what you have to say concerning your position on this subject.

Well you see, you’re basing your argument there on a premise that I don not believe to be true, viz that in order for there to be morality there must be an ultimate template of perfect morality causing it in us, and this is God. Why is it impossible for a man to have inherited or gained moral values? As an analogy, whenever I go to prepare food I automatically wash my hands. If I didn’t I’d feel awful. It wouldn’t be a logical thing, I just can’t feel right cooking til I’ve washed my hands. Yet does anyone ever argue that this is because of an innate sense of hygiene which is instilled by an ultimate power who is perfectly hygienic? Rather you’d say that it’s because I’ve learned from instruction and from habit, to the point where it’s no longer a rational consideration but an automatic impulse.

If we are ‘well brought up’ then we have it enforced over and over that doing good is rewarded and bad is punished. It may not even be in a tangible way – we may find that hitting a sibling has negative influence back on us because they don’t want to play with us anymore that day. Morals are the codes we develop so that we can all get along to the best advantage of everyone. They are pragmatic goods. They also change over time – even the bible shows us that. My biblical skills are well rusted over by now, but isn’t Jesus supposed to have made a new covenant, which in fact contradicts the old one in places? We’re social beings, and as such we develop bonds and relations and pragmatic codes of behaviour. I don’t see that an ultimate source of these is necessitated anymore than there needs to exist the perfect epitome of ‘table-ness’ before we can make furniture.


how then can an atheist truly love, or be compassionate? Without a God, such things are not only irrelevant and without foundation, but they therefore become completely ridiculous! Therefore (forgive my crudeness), it is now okay for me to go and have intimate relations with men, women or animals for that matter, for there is now no real establishment of morality or order that will draw a definitive line for me. I can do whatever I want, just as it pleases me, for it somehow tells me that I am god, and I can do whatever I want.

I don’t quite understand why the lack of a God should make love ridiculous. As I stated above, we are social beings. Humans are not the only animal capable of such things – a dog for example, may pine for years over the loss of a member of its pack. We are the only ones capable of compassion etc on the level we have it, however, because we are the only animals who are capable of transitive logic which is what really sets us apart. I’m afraid I can’t quite tease out the steps of your argument as to why morality necessitates a governing force instilling it. Why can it not be something we develop, like language or technology?

Similarly, it doesn’t strike me that each man being his own god is a logical flaw in the denial of one supreme divinity. If we eliminate the notion of God just as a thought experiment is there any reason why a learned morality based on what gives pleasure and pain, formed in the surroundings of social feedback from others, should be incoherent?

I may be no expert on the philosophy or concept of nihilism, but if it means what I think it means, then I have to question your faith in atheism altogether. For reasons I have stated above, there can be no order or establishment apart from a Divine Authority to have created such natural laws (C. S. Lewis has two terms for natural laws, if you have ever read his book, Mere Christianity).

Unfortuneately, I haven’t read the work. Perhaps I will try to check it out over the weekend. When you speak of a Divine Authority, I imagine you annex a whole bundle of attributes to it – that it is an intending agent who is omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent are the usual beliefs. Some atheists may hold that there is a first cause (about which they may suspend judgment, or be agnostic) but they will all hold that whatever it is it cannot be this agent that theists postulate. Atheism doesn’t inherently rule out a first cause per se.

Continued below...

[Nema]

Nihilism on the other hand will tend toward the view that there is no ultimate authority for the universe as we know it. That’s what Waterhogboy was getting at when he spoke of Atheism meaning you had to have no gods at all – nothing could stand in the stead of the intending agent for the nihilistic atheist. There are different Nihilistic positions – my own for example based roughly on the idea of authority as an arbitrary attribute. However, for the purposes of not getting this thread lost in a maze of sub-philosophy will sticking to the outline of atheism in my first paragraph here do?

You contradict yourself: you say that you "could never cope with such a depressing view," and yet this is exactly what atheism seems to propose. If I am missing something about your faith, please correct me.

For clarification here, Waterhogboy put forward the argument that if there is no ultimate authority then “Nothing matters”. I do think this is an untenably depressing view, but I don’t think it’s inherent in atheism. To say that there is not one authority is not to say that there can be no preferences.

As regarding science, I again have to ask you another question: where does it come from? Has it evolved? Or did it, through some magical and complex occurrence, suddenly form into an ordered establishment that we clearly recognize today?

Well surely all science is is the systematic expression of what we’ve learned about the world. We observe, we make predictions, we test theories and what we learn we bundle together under the name of ‘science’ where it is constantly added to and revised. We’ve been building the ‘ordered establishment’ piece by piece ever since the first guy picked up a rock, used it to hit another rock and found it effective. Science isn’t something that exists in the world, it’s our catalogue of things we’ve found happen in succession.


Why are you so happy to hold onto this belief? I think a reason as to why we believe you are viewing life in what we call "a depressing lens" is for the reason that there is really nothing to life at all, and there is no meaning or depth to it in any way (if atheism were true). I still have to ask why you should even dare to state "this world's not perfect - sometimes it's awful - but I love it." I still wonder, then, where love and hate come from. In the light of atheism's barest nature, is there really any need to love or to hate? Where do those concepts come from?

For my own part, I’ve wondered at times what meaning a theist can find in the world. If the whole point is for the good ones to end up in the divine hereafter, where everything is perfect all the time, I can’t help but wonder why bother with this middle ground at all. What meaning or understanding can be gained by so doing? But if this really is all we’ve got, and if life is ours no strings attached, then why wouldn’t we love it and celebrate it in all its great diversity?
As to the other point, I think we’re recovering the same ground and I probably can’t say much more until I’ve heard your response on pain/pleasure stimulus vs divine template of love.

How can this world be awful? How dare you say such a thing! for, if atheism is indeed true, this world is perfectly beautiful and sweet, and there is no level or varying degree of right or wrong, for there is no establishment because there is No One who has established any such right or wrong. You still have me in the dark quite in the dark...

Why should my denying a god necessitate that I believe all things to be perfectly beautiful and sweet. Why can I not prefer things that cause me pleasure to things that cause me pain? Or through an empathy of feeling wish pleasure rather than pain for others? I still don’t hold that just because No One in capitals has established Right and Wrong as existent qualities in the universe that we can’t as a society develop a system of preferential goods over bads.

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

Please do understand, I do not use this to make a personal attack against you. However, Jesus has clearly summed it all up. You love this world because you love to live according to the desires of your own heart: "men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
Well now, perhaps I do but to my mind the dark looks so much like light that I honestly don’t know how I’m expected to tell the difference. I confess that I am compelled by the desires of my heart, mixed with the labours of my reason. It’s the desire of my heart to be happy and to make other people happy to the best of my ability. If I have gotten it wrong, then my only defense can be that I’ve done so with every earnest desire to get it right.

If, in fact, your view that there is no God is correct, then these words of Jesus Christ are null and void. However, if, in fact, your view that there is no God is incorrect, then there is a serious issue that you are facing and will have to give an account someday to the God who, in His love for you, not only created you for the purpose of having a relationship with Him, but also came to the earth, died for your sins past, present and future and also has resurrected from the dead in His ultimate power as God. A choice, therefore, lies before you which you cannot escape.

For this thought experiment let us presume that you’re right and there is a God. I don’t mean to sound flippant about this, I really don’t, but if he made me to have a relationship with him, then didn’t he sort of do a lousy job in my case? You say there is a choice, but choice must always be influenced by something. There has to be a motive behind every decision. If I find can find no such motive, and yet there is a God who wants me to make this decision, to be held responsible for not choosing something which appealed neither to my reason not my general sentiments doesn’t really seem like fair-play.

A thought on this matter: if, in placing your faith in atheism, you believe there is no "life after death," either in a heaven or in a hell, what if, just perhaps, you were entirely wrong in your outlook in life? What, then, should be the consequences of all your choices and actions in life?
Well if I have been totally wrong, and the points whereupon I’ve diverged from religious teachings really were immoral then I guess I’d be in trouble. But you wouldn’t want my sort in your heaven any way. We’d drive down the property values and lower the whole tone of the neighbourhood.

Regarding the other subject, I think we believe you view life through "a depressing lens" because atheism clearly establishes the thought that there is nothing after death (and, perhaps, there is nothing even before life), and that there is no reason for the existence of mankind, or the existence of animals and plant-life, or the existence of this universe in which we live and, as luck would so have it, we have nothing to look forward to but to fade away and dissolve into the ethereal nothingness from which we somehow miraculously sprung.
As I said before, for some reason the thought of such transience doesn’t bother me nearly as much as the idea of eternal perfect heaven. Actually, that’s not exactly true - more that there isn’t really a difference. I mean, if in heaven one never has to struggle for everything, one never has anything more to learn etc then it’s so incredibly different to this life that I wouldn’t really be me there anyway, would I? So six of one, half a dozen of the other.


If I may explain further my own beliefs to you: God has established natural law and order, and has, in creating man, placed within him a natural thirst and a desire after God, as well as a general understanding of certain natural truths of nature and of morality. Not to mention, we have a spiritual nature.
Yes, that’s where I figured you stood reading your post. I hope I’ve managed to outline without being too verbose where I differ from you on that.

All in all, my argument boils down to this thought: human beings alone are evidence enough of a Designer. Our very nature, our very essence, the things we do, think and ponder, are clear signs that there is One who has established us with such wonderful processes and capabilities. Yet it is the discovery of such an One that is vital for each individual human being. I find great fault with atheism because it really denies certain incontestable and evident truths concerning our nature and our being and, when it comes down to it, really denies a logical origin and purpose for our being and existence.
That’s an awful lot of logical leaps to throw at a gal in the conclusion of your argument!:)
There are three whole separate and complex arguments there. (1) People have properties X, Y, Z which proves there must be a divine creator. (2)These humans cannot function properly unless they have direct access to/knowledge of said creator. (3)There are incontestable truths about human beings with which Atheism is incompatible.
I can’t take these on now, especially without hearing your support for them, but hopefully they’ll emerge naturally as we pursue this discussion.
Moving swiftly along to some other people’s points (Would ya look at the size of this post!)

[Nema]

To take things on another tangent, Nema - I guess I'm a bit mystified when you speak of yourself as an atheist as if it were part of your identity, like your eye color or your height. You seem to me to be one who is seeking truth, and your quest for truth has brought you to your current spot. Are you really planning to camp here and end your quest? Might it be more accurate for you to say, "I seek truth, and my search therefore has brought me to this point for these reasons?" I don't want to put words in your mouth, but given what you've said, that seems to be more where you're coming from.

Absolutely, I’d hate to think that my quest for truth is at an end. The reason I identified myself as an atheist so strongly is really just for the sake of this thread – that’s the part of myself that I’m putting forward in this discussion. There are many other elements of my life, philosophies and character that I don’t think are relevant to the issue.




The most notable issue with the atheistic worldview that Curumo raised (in my estimation) is how do atheists explain morality, feeling, love, hate, etc. if there is no God. We would be happy to elucidate this point further if you would care to hear about it-as Curumo points out, C.S. Lewis devotes the first section of his book Mere Christianity to this concept and how it helped Lewis turn from atheism to the Christian faith.
I hope some of what I replied to Curumo above helps elucidate this somewhat.

On the Scientific theory of everything:
I made a muddle of expressing that. Rather it was the position that all the laws of nature within the universe may be ultimately explicable by one really good theory. My point was that this theory does not have to be God, and that an atheist doesn’t automatically hold that there is no truth to be found. Transcendent knowledge of something outside our temporal or spatial scope I acknowledge will not form a part of this, but then that’s a point that works against the theist too. Which brings me to your previous point.


I came to a point where I questioned what it was that I was claiming to believe in, and I found that all the notions I had of God led me into logical contradiction and that it was no loss to me to abandon the idea. God as a concept makes no sense to me...

If I may, could I ask you to explain some of these contradictory beliefs to us? I personally would love to hear them, if nothing else, just from a purely intellectual point of view. I know you didn't come on here to try to convert us or anything as you said, but I think it may actually be beneficial to all of us if we could hear personally from an atheist why one wouldn't believe in God.

Okay, I’m picking one a starting point at random here, so it may not be the strongest but I hope it illustrates the point. God, you would acknowledge, is generally credited with being the cause of all contingent things, yes? So if you accept that the universe at some point came in to being then God was the cause of that, right? So God in fact caused time and space and all the natural laws to come about.

Yet that means that God himself is not governed by temporal or spatial rules. A God who was atemporal could never become temporal – at least not in any way that is comprehensible to us as we understand the terms. Yet does that not make God something vastly different to us? How then can we be justified in assigning any attributes to him? God we are told caused the universe through his intention, but when we talk about ‘intention’ we mean it in terms of the intention of a temporal being. We want something, we put into motion a series of cause and effect that we believe will lead it to happen. It doesn’t make sense to talk about God in this way though, does it? If he’s omnipotent, then surely any effect he wants can come about instantaneously without any intermediate stages. And since he has no temporal parts, there’d be no lapse in time between his intentions, and since he’s omniscient his intentions would be the same always and forever. So as soon as you have the concept of a God, must you not also have the concept of the instantaneous realization of everything He could ever intend?

Is that God as you understand him, or does that sound as absurd an idea to you as it does to me?

Okay, somebody else’s turn to type now, because my fingers are about to fall off.

[inkspot]

Hello, Nema. Well done! I have been offline a few days, but I am pleased to see an intelligent defense of atheism has been mounted by someone who is not angry and disrespectful. Kudos to you.

I'll leave Curumo to take up the meat of the issue of how you can have morality of you don't have God, but I will suggest from Mere Christianity CS Lewis' idea that just because something has been passed down from generation to generation and taught to us as children does not mean that it had its origination within us. He uses the concept of the multiplication table: it was not "invented" by man -- it is an inherent truth that would be true in our world whether anyone ever learned to count or not. Yet it was formulated in a way we can understand, and it has sense been passed down from generation to generation. Yes, it is taught to children. But no, the Truth of it did not originate within man himself. It is a truth outside of us, that we learned, and have passed down to each generation. The fact that moraity is passed down from father to son does not mean some father thought it up on his own.

Dogs may indeed feel grief, as you suggest, but that is not morality: that is the pain of loss. No dogs have a moral code. If you train them to be nice, they will be nice, but they do not think in terms of right and wrong, so it is an amazing anomaly if early evolving man one day began to think that way. Why him and not a dog?

Morals are the codes we develop so that we can all get along to the best advantage of everyone.
If early evolving man did indeed develop this code out of his own burgeoning brain for the best advantage of everyone, it's odd that by now everyone is not equally advantaged. It's also odd dogs didn't develop something like it, if it merely means behavior that is to everyone's advantage, because surely dogs (and monkeys and so forth) would have benefited from behavior that is to everyone's advantage?

A God who was atemporal could never become temporal – at least not in any way that is comprehensible to us as we understand the terms. Yet does that not make God something vastly different to us? How then can we be justified in assigning any attributes to him?
We are not assigning attributes to God if we come at it from a Christian viewpoint: He has revealed His attributes to us. Is He vastly different from us? Indeed, a God would have to be very different from us -- but that would rather shore up His claim to be God than make it impossible for there to be a God, wouldn't it? As for whether He could become temporal: why couldn't He? I don't understand how this is an impossibility?

As for your contention that you are happy as an atheist because heaven sounds boring anyway, and none of us would want your "sort" there, I do not think you actually have a good idea of what the heaven described in the Bible will be like. Certainly every believer would welcome everybody into heaven, for it is the worst thing we can imagine for someone to be eternally barred from life with Christ. I would suggest the epic work by author Grant Jeffrey (sp?) called "Heaven" for a real look at everything the Bible has to say about heaven. It is very different from hell, and if you seriously believed, you would never dismiss it as six of one, half dozen of the other.

Like everyone else, there is much more to be said, but I don't want to make a novel out of this one post! Again, welcome to the discussion, and I heartily encourage you to join our Mere Christianity reading group over in the other Thread and give us your ideas on Lewis' more expert defense of how morality in itself points to the existence of God. You are more than welcome there!

[Gibby]

Wow, Inkspot, you articulated that response quite well. As for heaven and what it is like, I think the most exciting part of it is being with Jesus. While we wait for heaven here on earth, we get to live with a little slice of that heaven in our hearts, and that "slice of heaven" is the relationship with Christ. Those who do not have a personal relationship with Christ would probably not want to be in heaven anyway. Maybe it would be boring! Being in the arms of my Creator and Savior; that's what it's about. That's true heaven!

Those who love the Lord bring that same slice of heaven to this hurting world also...

2 Corinthians 5:20

20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

I wish I knew what those furry pot-lickers (dogs) were thinking. It would make my job a lot easier!http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

[Nosferatu]

Nosferatu, that's fine for someone who accepts Christianity. But what of those who don't?


Well thats the thing. If you do not believe in God and accept him as king you have no purpose in life. You are nothing without God.

[devils_advocate_for_evil]

I am not exactly an atheist, but I don't believe in anything either! I believe in accepting everyone's religion, except those that conflict with life! By conflicting with life, I mean killing other humans, live, healthy, good humans! I believe in everyone getting along and embracing all sorts of people, no matter the religion! I really think that learning about everything is good, and trying new things perhaps? Reactions?

[Mar]

I am not exactly an atheist, but I don't believe in anything either! I believe in accepting everyone's religion, except those that conflict with life! By conflicting with life, I mean killing other humans, live, healthy, good humans! I believe in everyone getting along and embracing all sorts of people, no matter the religion! I really think that learning about everything is good, and trying new things perhaps? Reactions?
how do you think the world began?

[inkspot]

Kelsey, I want to know more about not killing the live, healthy good humans. Does your belief system allow for the killing of sick, bad humans? If so, who decides when the sick ones should be killed, and who the bad ones are.

Oh, and you may as well share your definition of good and bad, and how you came to that conclusion (so we know not to kill any good humans).

[LordoftheBunnies]

Well, despite being a Catholic, I find it hard to say Atheism is bad or evolution is bad. Disagree with it, yes, but to call a person's life choice bad is rather unfair. Religions get bent out of shape when other religions or atheists try to bring them down or break their faith. So why should Christians or Jews or Muslims or any other religion stoop to the level of their attackers by claiming the other's ideas are bad?

Being atheist is a choice. If they don't believe in God, that's a shame, because it's nice to believe in something. But making the choice to believe in the Theory of Evolution or to become an Atheist is not a bad one.

I agree with this post. To call someone "bad" is inherently a bad behavior. To call one thing good and something else bad is a form of judgementalism, and that is a terrible choice to make in the way of life.

Why don't we all just live in harmony with each eother? I'd hate to be the only Zen on a Christian forum (I'm not even Zen) but as Buddha once said, "In the world's seperateness lies the world's great misery; in compassion lies the world's true strength..."

So we should all love one another and not hate each other for being atheists or in my case, a fake Zen.

Thank you all. I have posted.

[Nema]

Hello, Nema. Well done! I have been offline a few days, but I am pleased to see an intelligent defense of atheism has been mounted by someone who is not angry and disrespectful. Kudos to you.

Hello Inkspot. Well, I figure when I'm so vastly in the minority here, there's no point having a hissy fit, is there? I mean, we're none of us likely to completely overhaul our opinions here, but maybe we'll gain some new insight into where exactly we differ. Then we can all go back to the more important discussions - like whether or not Peter or Edmund is the hotter.

I will suggest from Mere Christianity CS Lewis' idea that just because something has been passed down from generation to generation and taught to us as children does not mean that it had its origination within us. He uses the concept of the multiplication table: it was not "invented" by man -- it is an inherent truth that would be true in our world whether anyone ever learned to count or not. Yet it was formulated in a way we can understand, and it has sense been passed down from generation to generation. Yes, it is taught to children. But no, the Truth of it did not originate within man himself. It is a truth outside of us, that we learned, and have passed down to each generation. The fact that moraity is passed down from father to son does not mean some father thought it up on his own.

There is a difference between multiplication and morallity though, is there not? Anyone who properly understands the terms can never multiply 6 by 2 and come up with anything other than 12. It is a logical a priori fact about the way that the universe in which we live functions. Surely morallity is a different sort of fish? There are vast gulfs between people on moral issues - even between those who share a faith. On the other hand, no country has ever had to hold a referendum to decide once and for all whether 6x2 shall be said to be 12 or 11. Obviously there are differences in the two which are not dealt with in the multiplication table analogy.

To clarify, I did not argue that "some father thought it up on his own" and then taught it to his children (that's actually your own position, if you think about it). I argued that morals emerged pragmatically and naturally as humans developed, based on the ways they interacted with one another and were subsequently formalised as creeds and philosophies.


Dogs may indeed feel grief, as you suggest, but that is not morality: that is the pain of loss. No dogs have a moral code. If you train them to be nice, they will be nice, but they do not think in terms of right and wrong, so it is an amazing anomaly if early evolving man one day began to think that way. Why him and not a dog?

An interesting point raised by the field of comparative psychology is that one thing we can definitely say humans have that no other animal seems to have mastered is transitive logic. If a human sees that A causes B to happen, and that B causes C to happen, she can deduce that A causes C to happen. My friends who are more learned in psychology than I inform me that after much testing no other animal has been found to have this capacity.

Is it not then at least possible that the difference between a dog's emotional ties and a human's moral code might stem from this difference? A dog hasn't the intellectual capacity to work out what will cause it pleasure or pain more than one direct step in advance, and that's instinct. We can trace through various possible outcomes for actions and weigh up which is ultimately more beneficial, and that's morallity.

It's also odd dogs didn't develop something like it, if it merely means behavior that is to everyone's advantage, because surely dogs (and monkeys and so forth) would have benefited from behavior that is to everyone's advantage?
This unique capacity for creating rational connections is indeed an amazing feature of the human being. If I'm right above then the reason animals don't. Maybe sentience itself is what we should look at once we've dealt with morallity. You'll argue that it's a firm basis for believing in God, and I'll argue that that's not logically necessitated. This argument's going to go on for pages isn't it? ;)

If early evolving man did indeed develop this code out of his own burgeoning brain for the best advantage of everyone, it's odd that by now everyone is not equally advantaged.
Sorry, I'm probably being dense but I need to ask for some clarification on what it is you mean here. What in your mind constitutes "not equally advantaged"?

We are not assigning attributes to God if we come at it from a Christian viewpoint: He has revealed His attributes to us.
Do you mean through individual revelation? Does each theist at some point suddenly know, without ever having recourse to reason, that God is omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent and eternal, with a full understanding of each of these terms? If you do, then the question of why we don't believe is a pointless one to ask the atheist; the question ought to be why some people have this a-rational, undoubtable revelation and others don't. Your arguments ought surely to aim to change us in such a way that we can have these revelations without any previous notion of God or you're putting the cart before the horse.

If, on the other hand, you have logical arguments for describing God as having attriburte X, but not attribute Y then you are assigning them (even if they are true and accurate descriptions) and the atheist is entitled to question your reasoning in so doing.

Is He vastly different from us? Indeed, a God would have to be very different from us -- but that would rather shore up His claim to be God than make it impossible for there to be a God, wouldn't it?
You're smiling at me as you type that, right? Cause I could have a go at arguing against it, but it's not exactly the strongest point you've raised. Since the rest of your arguments are strong and forceful, would I be right in assuming this one is a little bit tongue-in-cheek?

As for whether He could become temporal: why couldn't He? I don't understand how this is an impossibility?
Well, I meant that it seems impossible as we understand the terms. You can't talk sensibly about an atemporal thing becoming temporal, because from the temporal point of view you'd have to say things like "before he was temporal, he was atemporal" or "after this he will be atemporal again" or most confusingly of all "he's both temporal and atemporal now". You can't coherently use words like "before", "after" and "now" when talking about atemporal things. Timelessness by its very definition cannot enter into any temporal relations with anything, or it wouldn't be timeless.

As for your contention that you are happy as an atheist because heaven sounds boring anyway, and none of us would want your "sort" there, I do not think you actually have a good idea of what the heaven described in the Bible will be like...I would suggest the epic work by author Grant Jeffrey (sp?) called "Heaven" for a real look at everything the Bible has to say about heaven. It is very different from hell, and if you seriously believed, you would never dismiss it as six of one, half dozen of the other.

I was perhaps a bit flippant when talking about my sort in heaven. My understanding of what heaven is said to be stems purely from a Catholic school upbringing. I confess I don't have time at the moment to read the book you suggest.

The clearest understanding of Heaven I've ever been given is that we'll all be completely happy all the time, and that that will be because we will finally be with the lord. The reason I said I was ambivalent is because right now that doesn't stir me to great excitement.

To use an appallingly bad analogy, it's a bit like being told that in heaven you'll get to eat all the icecream you want, you'll never be full and you'll never be sick of the taste. Loads of people love icecream and would leap at this thought, but it's of no interest to me, because I'm not really an icecream fan. If they were to then tell me that someday I will like icecream, and then I'll be thrilled with the afterlife is it not understandable that I'd still not be excited? The Nema who'd like icecream isn't this Nema. This Nema's perfectly content with skipping dessert, and doesn't really see what all the fuss is about.

Certainly every believer would welcome everybody into heaven, for it is the worst thing we can imagine for someone to be eternally barred from life with Christ.

Now there's an interesting thought. If a believer dies and goes to heaven, but their loved one is a non-believer and so does not, how does heaven work for the believer? Do they forget such a person as the non-believer ever existed? Or are their feelings of love transformed so that they do not feel pain at the punishment of their loved one? How, when you get down to it, does that work?

Again, welcome to the discussion, and I heartily encourage you to join our Mere Christianity reading group over in the other Thread and give us your ideas on Lewis' more expert defense of how morality in itself points to the existence of God. You are more than welcome there!
Yet another incentive to read it. I really shall try to give it a go.

[inkspot]

Nema, again, thank you for the well-reasoned responses! you're a smartie, for sure, and I look forward to seeing you over in the Mere Christianity Reading Group if you have the time.

* Are you implying morality changes, so it is not the same as the multiplication table? Christians would argue that the Standard for morality does not change, and every time a society does change their standards, in their minds they are moving closer to the true standard. Lewis would say, you can do a mathematics equation wrong twice, and one of the answers can be closer to correct than the other one. If people did not think, with each change in morality, that they were progressing, getting nearer to True morality, then why would the codes ever change? Slavery was working for the land-owners of the USA, in the pragmatic sense, it was a gold mine! But it was morally off the path, and so reformers worked to abolish it. If the basis of morality were "what works best," then slavery would still be legal (and indeed, it is legal in nations we would regard as less morally developed than we are, such as Sudan).

* If morality developed because it "worked to everyone's advantage" as you say, for a pragmatic reason, that it benefitted everyone, then why isn't everyone enjoying the benefits of morality today? This is what I meant by equally advantaged? Your idea, as near I can tell, is that early man developed ethics and morality because it was the system that worked best for everyone ... but if that's the case, it hasn't really worked, because there is still so much misery in the world.

* If morality is a system that developed through pragmatism, for everyone's benefit, who told the original people that it was a good idea to benefit everyone? Mostly people want to benefit themselves. Why should they care what benefits everyone? There is a disconnect here. Why behave morally? Because that benefits everyone. Why should I benefit everyone and not just me? Because it's the right thing to do. Why should I do the right thing? Because it benefits everyone. Why should I benefit everyone and not just me? Because it's the right thing to do? Why should I do the right thing? Because it benefits ... you see? There is something beyond just what works best here. What is this something?

* It is beyond my power to express the joy of being with Christ in a way that would make heaven seem real to you, but I hope one day you will know that joy for yourself! It is neither here nor there as far as a discussion of whether God exists.

* Are you saying that if you cannot understand how an eternal being could step into the earthly timeline, then it is impossible for such a being to do so? Surely you do not think that only things you can understand are possible? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your points on temporal and atemporal. Just because something is clumsy to tallk about and difficult to understand does not make it impossible ...

LordoftheBunnies, welcome to the discussion! What is a "fake zen"? Everyone is welcome here, fake Zen or Real Zen. The idea of this thread is to discuss whether or not God exists, and whether or nor Christianity is the path to God. It's not designed to make anyone feel excluded, just exchange information.

To call someone "bad" is inherently a bad behavior. To call one thing good and something else bad is a form of judgementalism, and that is a terrible choice to make in the way of life.
I think it's funny that you say calling anything bad is, well, bad! You broke your own rule and called something bad. :)

I think in Zen, all circumstances are just deemed "circumstances," neither good nor bad, simply "what is." But in practical reallity, you know that when something is harmful for you, it is bad and to be avoided. You can Zen the fact of burning your fingers in a fire by saying, "It's not good or bad, it just is," but the pain is still real. No one is saying atheists are more bad than Christians are bad (the Bible says all have sinned and fall short of God's glory) ... believers just think there is a better way, a way that moves a person to eternal life.

[Saruman]

An interesting point raised by the field of comparative psychology is that one thing we can definitely say humans have that no other animal seems to have mastered is transitive logic. If a human sees that A causes B to happen, and that B causes C to happen, she can deduce that A causes C to happen. My friends who are more learned in psychology than I inform me that after much testing no other animal has been found to have this capacity.

Is it not then at least possible that the difference between a dog's emotional ties and a human's moral code might stem from this difference? A dog hasn't the intellectual capacity to work out what will cause it pleasure or pain more than one direct step in advance, and that's instinct. We can trace through various possible outcomes for actions and weigh up which is ultimately more beneficial, and that's morallity.


This unique capacity for creating rational connections is indeed an amazing feature of the human being. If I'm right above then the reason animals don't. Maybe sentience itself is what we should look at once we've dealt with morallity. You'll argue that it's a firm basis for believing in God, and I'll argue that that's not logically necessitated. This argument's going to go on for pages isn't it? ;)

Like you, Nema, I also find myself to be rather busy, especially with work and the "call to duty." Nevertheless, it remains my full intent to reply to every one of your thoughts on this subject.

What did strike me, however, about reading the above quoted statement was just how much proof we find in the reason for intelligent design. Even psychologists have clearly observed very fine distinctions that make us human beings and that make animals, well, just that: animals. I do not believe in macroevolution, for the very simple reason that it defies the evidences of natural order displayed throughout the universe and, as you have already pointed out, displayed in us.

I find myself rather confused: you say, basically, that it is fine to acknowledge morality, and yet it somehow just happens to be a prevailing characteristic in human beings that, coming from your point of view, has magically appeared. This stance is very bizarre and rather, on the whole, untenable. You've lost me entirely when you write, "You'll argue that it's a firm basis for believing in God, and I'll argue that that's not logically necessitated." My question for you, then, is: how so?

[hanguk859]

yes, please elaborate

[Nema]

Inkspot

Are you implying morality changes, so it is not the same as the multiplication table? Christians would argue that the Standard for morality does not change, and every time a society does change their standards, in their minds they are moving closer to the true standard. Lewis would say, you can do a mathematics equation wrong twice, and one of the answers can be closer to correct than the other one. If people did not think, with each change in morality, that they were progressing, getting nearer to True morality, then why would the codes ever change? Slavery was working for the land-owners of the USA, in the pragmatic sense, it was a gold mine! But it was morally off the path, and so reformers worked to abolish it. If the basis of morality were "what works best," then slavery would still be legal (and indeed, it is legal in nations we would regard as less morally developed than we are, such as Sudan).
Emphasis mine, because I want to deal with that sentence first. There’s a difference between changing and moving towards a True Morality. The latter is a typically (though not solely) theistic principal that relies upon essentialism. Think of it this way, for the essentialist morality is like a mathematical truth. A complex one, which takes the whole span of human existence to work out but which, at the end of the day, is something which exists in perfect form. The perfect morality is there, we just need to get to it.
For the non-essentialist (which is my position) morality is more like a long poem or song. We’ll tweak and change it, rewrite lines according to what we think sounds right at a given time, and according to how other ideas of language, meter etc change.
Everyone agrees that some poems are better than others. There are some poems which would be almost universally rejected, but nobody would argue that there exists one perfect poem which we are trying to discover.
This is where I understand the distinction to lie; do you see it? For the non-essentialist there doesn’t need to be an eternal perfect morality – neither God nor anything brought in to take the place of God.

I am implying that morality changes, yes. I am not saying that it is arbitrary, or quick, or that it happens in a vacuum, or that there are no limits to what can fall under the heading of being moral. Society changes gradually, and with it our ideas of what is acceptable and not acceptable change. I do not believe that the moral reformers woke up one morning and thought “Oops. We were totally wrong about this slavery lark. I can see the perfect morality more clearly now.” I’m sure if you look at the surrounding ideological factors it was something which gradually emerged.

My US history is appalling, but I’m familiar enough with the abolition of slavery in Great Britain. It happened at a time when (a) the French Revolution had led people to think about the necessity for the patriarchal figure not to abuse his power for fear of society being overthrown. And (b) there was a level of financial security in the Empire that made it possible for the benefits of abolishing slavery to at least balance out the inconveniences. For as long as slavery was economically necessary, the dominant motion was to find ways to morally justify it.


If morality is a system that developed through pragmatism, for everyone's benefit, who told the original people that it was a good idea to benefit everyone? Mostly people want to benefit themselves. Why should they care what benefits everyone? There is a disconnect here. Why behave morally? Because that benefits everyone. Why should I benefit everyone and not just me? Because it's the right thing to do. Why should I do the right thing? Because it benefits everyone. Why should I benefit everyone and not just me? Because it's the right thing to do? Why should I do the right thing? Because it benefits ... you see? There is something beyond just what works best here. What is this something?

What I actually said was “morals emerged pragmatically and naturally as humans developed, based on the ways they interacted with one another and were subsequently formalised as creeds and philosophies.” What I meant by this is that moral statements are something like the formalisation of what we see at a certain time as being good for us and good for our society. It’s not that morality comes first and then society follows its lead. It emerges from society, influences it, changes based on those influences and is entirely inextricable from it.

What benefits the individual, is generally what benefits society. Nobody had to tell early man that. As Donne put it, so much more eloquently than ever I could “No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee..” Humans are social animals. Morality isn’t a code adopted by society, it’s society’s code.

We’re getting off the track of the argument a bit here, so basically I’ll just stop and ask whether (regardless of which is true) there is any logical impediment to a non-essentialist view of morality that you can see.

It is beyond my power to express the joy of being with Christ in a way that would make heaven seem real to you, but I hope one day you will know that joy for yourself! It is neither here nor there as far as a discussion of whether God exists.
That’s fair enough, but we must therefore both of us avoid calling upon the notion of the reward of a life after death anywhere further on in the argument.

Are you saying that if you cannot understand how an eternal being could step into the earthly timeline, then it is impossible for such a being to do so? Surely you do not think that only things you can understand are possible? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your points on temporal and atemporal. Just because something is clumsy to tallk about and difficult to understand does not make it impossible

I will not say that only things that are intelligible to me are possible, but I will maintain that I have no business attempting to talk about things I cannot understand and pretending that my words mean anything. Now, as far as temporal and atemporal are concerned, I understand them as binary opposites. If something is atemporal it is, by defintion, not temporal and cannot be said to become temporal unless the terms can be redefined in a way that makes logical sense, and yet allows them not to be contradictory.

If all I can say is that it is so, but I cannot tell you logically why I am justified in believing it to be so, then that is an empty argument and had better not have been made.
I’m sorry that you did not deal with my argument about logic vs revelation because I think it’s important. Perhaps we can come back to it later, but for the moment can I assume that we’ll stick to logic, and therefore that the atheist is as entitled to interrogate your logical reasons for believing God to be as you says he is, as you are to interrogate hers for not believing?

Curomo

I find myself rather confused: you say, basically, that it is fine to acknowledge morality, and yet it somehow just happens to be a prevailing characteristic in human beings that, coming from your point of view, has magically appeared. This stance is very bizarre and rather, on the whole, untenable.
I’ve dealt with this at length in my reply to Inkspot. As you can see, my point of view is not that it has magically appeared. I believe the story of morality I have offered is not an untenable one, but the burden is on you now to undermine it.

What did strike me, however, about reading the above quoted statement was just how much proof we find in the reason for intelligent design. Even psychologists have clearly observed very fine distinctions that make us human beings and that make animals, well, just that: animals. I do not believe in macroevolution, for the very simple reason that it defies the evidences of natural order displayed throughout the universe and, as you have already pointed out, displayed in us…

You've lost me entirely when you write, "You'll argue that it's a firm basis for believing in God, and I'll argue that that's not logically necessitated." My question for you, then, is: how so?
No fair. I was pointing out a possible direction in which the argument could go. It’s not up to me to provide your half of the argument as well as my own. I merely (and presumptuously) guessed at what your position would be. Until one of you articulates it, how can I be expected to argue against it?

[inkspot]

I don't think you have logically defended the "pragmatic" development of morality, yet. You declare everyone knows, as Donne did: No man is an island.
What I meant by this is that moral statements are something like the formalisation of what we see at a certain time as being good for us and good for our society.
But you have not answered the question: what gave individuals the insight that what is good for "society" is good for them? Obeying a moral code calls for a personal sacrifice in order to benefit the group. What could possibly compel individuals en masse to sign up for this when our number one driving force is self-preservation? Mothers and fathers will sacrifice themselves for their children, but where in nature do you see animals making the ultimate sacrifice (or any sacrifice really) just because it is the right thing to do? If you are going to start with the thesis that individuals decided society was benefitted by individuals laying down their personal rights (or best instincts) you have to say why they decided this rather than just declaring, "Mankind has always known what benefits society benefits individuals." How did they know this?

I think with your comments on slavery, you are saying that: slavery was not immoral until it ceased to be economically important. Is this what you mean? If so, by your definition, slavery is still not immoral for the Sudanese, because it is working there? You say the reformers did not just wake up one morning and decide to abolish slavery because they recognized it was immoral ... Instead, they recognized that it could now be done away with, without causing economic havoc, so they could afford to judge it immoral. But why did they care to? If it was still economically viable, what made them decide it would be the right thing to free the slaves?

I posited that in abolishing slavery, people were moving toward a more perfect standard of Morality. You say no, it was just that they could afford to give up slavery, so then it was better for everyone to end slavery. But why was it better for British/US society at that time? Why would they want to free the slaves at all if they did not feel they were progressing toward some better way? For some reason, the reformers decided to extend the concept of human rights (humanity even) to people who had formerly been property. Apparently not because it was economically beneficial to do so, but because they knew it was the right thing to do (at the same time, you say, as it become economically possible to do so). But possible to do so and beneficial to do so are two different things. What was it that spoke to the slave owners that although it was not necessarily beneficial, it was "right" for them to free the slaves?

As I understand you, and perhaps I still misunderstand, you are saying that changes in the code such as the abolition of slavery, were not progressions toward a more right or better morality, but were simply changes in taste (like poetry, you mention: we like some poems better than others, but none are wrong). If that were the case, then morality would have no meaning at all: any society that decided their lives were worth more than the lives next door could go back to dealing in slaves, or eating their neighbors, and if that worked best for their society, it would be moral.

But surely this is not what you are saying? Donne says he is diminished by another man's death, but is this true in a practical, pragmatic sense that you are defending? Of course not. Donne is a poet. In the pragmatic sense, he is benefited by another man's death: there's more left for him and his family. Pragmatically, "justice" has no meaning, because justice does not put food in our tummies -- it is a concept, an ideal. By your definition of morality, as I understand it, "justice" is not needed at all, as long as injustice benefits someone's concept of society.

Surely this is not what you mean?

I will not say that only things that are intelligible to me are possible, but I will maintain that I have no business attempting to talk about things I cannot understand and pretending that my words mean anything.
You say you have no business to discuss things that you don't understand? But surely that is the basis of science as well as philosophy? Do you think, then, that people such as CS Lewis who discussed the "temporal anomaly" of Christ on earth were simply pretending that their words had meaning? I might be full of hot air as far as it goes, but Lewis? I cannot accept the idea that because we cannot bend our minds around a concept completely, it is therefore impossible and/or useless to talk about.

You give your understanding of temporal and atemporal in such a way that it would be impossible for a God who lived outside time to inject Himself into the earth's timeline -- if He is outside time (atemporal), I believe you are reasoning, He cannot be within time, because then He would not be an atemporal being. But why can He not be both? I am a land mammal, but I don my scuba gear, and I am a marine mammal.

You stated previously that we cannot assign attributes to God, yet you are assigning this one to Him: it is impossible for Him to be outside time and to live as a human in time. But I do not think that because we cannot fully understand the concept, it must be impossible. I do not understand how internal combustion works, but I drive my car ...

I did not mean to ignore your mention of revelation, I just didnt' think it pivotal. I said that God has revealed Himself to us, but all I meant was: we have the Scripture which describes many of the attributes of God: loving, kind, compassionate, just, merciful forgiving, and so on. I was not claiming any personal revelation, and as I assumed you do not believe the Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God, I did not see any reason to bring this argument into play.

[Charn_Tim]

Wow, I have been out of it for a while with school and all, and I have to say that inkspot and Nema you two are doing such an excellent job articulating and discussing without anger or strife, I almost hate to jump in here and say something and ruin it :). Well at the risk of messing things up, I would like to respond to some things here.

In my opinion, inkspot has mostly represented the issues that I would have with a non-essentialist morality, so I'll stay out of that one for now and wait for Nema's response.

However, I would like to clarify something involving the ability of a Deity to operate in time. First of all, I think it might help to list some definitions that have been used in this discussion so far:
atemporal: Independent of time; timeless
transcendent: beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding.
First let me say that orthodox Christianity teaches a transcendent creator in the above sense of the word. He is not atemporal, but transcendent-which is a subtle but important distinction. That is, He is not totally indepenent of time and timeless, but he is above and independent of the material universe and does not experience time in the same way that we do. In this sense, then, it is certainly reasonable to discuss the temporal nature of a supposed creator who has come to earth to put his creation back in a right relationship with Him.

So to tie this back into the discussion at hand, I agree with you, Nema, that atemporal and temporal are opposites. I just think that you have assigned an attribute to God that Christianity and the Bible does not. Hence, I submit that the idea that a transcendent creator has entered into his creation is not a logical contradiction and is thus fair game for speculation and supposition in a rational debate.

[inkspot]

Thanks, Tim, that business about transcendant v. atemporal makes sense. Oh, in the Mere Christianity reading group, I came across a little better statement of what I had been trying to say ...

Some people say that though decent conduct does not mean what pays each particular person at a particular moment, still, it means what pays the human race as a whole; and that consequently there is no mystery about it. Human beings, after all, have some sense; they see that you cannot have real safety or happiness except in a society where everyone plays fair, and it is because they see this that they try to behave decently. Now, of course, it is perfectly true that safety and happiness can come only from individuals, classes and nations being honest and fair and kind to each other. It is one of the most important truths in the world. But as an explanation of why we feel as we do about Right and Wrong, it just misses the point.

If we ask: "Why ought I to be unselfish?" and you reply, "Because it is good for society," we may then ask, "Why should I care what's good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?" and then you wil have to say, "Because you ought to be unselfish" — which simply brings us back to where we started. You are saying what is true, but you are not getting any further. If a man asked what was the point in playing football, it would not be much good saying, "in order to score goals," for trying to score goals is the game itself, not the reason for the game, and you would really only be saying that football was football — which is true, but not worth saying. In the same way, if a man asks what is the point of behaving decently, it is no good replying, "in order to benefit society," for trying to benefit society, in other words being unselfish ( for "society" after all onlly means "other people"), is one of the things that decent behavior consists in; all you are really saying is that decent behavior is decent behavior.

Also noteworthy from Mere Christianity:

When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there would never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality.
This is what I understand Nema to have said in her previous post: that any morality is simply a reflection of that society's behavior, or what works best for that society, so all are equally valid. But Lewis seems to be saying if that is so, then none of us can ever have any moral objection to any type of ethics system, as all would be equally valid.

[Nema]

I'm so sorry for my absense from this thread. I found myself unwell last week. Had I known I'd be kept away for so long, I should have appointed a second ;)

Inkspot, your post gave me much pause for thought. I've attempted to properly refine what it is a want to offer in response; I hope it does justice to your post.

[Y]ou have not answered the question: what gave individuals the insight that what is good for "society" is good for them? Obeying a moral code calls for a personal sacrifice in order to benefit the group. What could possibly compel individuals en masse to sign up for this when our number one driving force is self-preservation? Mothers and fathers will sacrifice themselves for their children, but where in nature do you see animals making the ultimate sacrifice (or any sacrifice really) just because it is the right thing to do? If you are going to start with the thesis that individuals decided society was benefitted by individuals laying down their personal rights (or best instincts) you have to say why they decided this rather than just declaring, "Mankind has always known what benefits society benefits individuals." How did they know this?

Your position presumes that Mankind started out as disparate individuals, living alone, each against the other. In which case, the question applies just as much to your own assumptions as to mine - What could possibly compel individuals en masse to sign up for society when our number one driving force is self-preservation? And yet evidently they did, for we live in society today. Here we move away from theology and into anthopology about which I'm even less qualified to argue. But to follow your appeal to nature, we see many animals who are social without having our ability to reason.

My position (which I'm obviously not getting across as well as I want) is not that individuals decided society was benefitted by individuals laying down their personal rights (or best instincts). That's what society is, even if you hold morality to be an absolute. My thesis explains morality in terms of society. Animals have no concept of "the right thing to do" because they haven't our powers to rationalise moral notions of right, yet in group situations the good of the individual will often give way to the good of the group. Humans alone have the power to analyse this, to call the results good or bad, to construct incredibly complex explanations and rules from experience.

If we might put the shoe on the other foot for a minute, what's your alternative argument? I know it is that absolute morality comes from the Goodness of God, but would you be willing to flesh it out a bit? How do we know it? How do we have access to it? Why has it become more clear to us over the course of time? Why do societies developing at different rates and in different places have a lesser or greater degree of access to this perfect moral truth?

I think with your comments on slavery, you are saying that: slavery was not immoral until it ceased to be economically important. Is this what you mean? If so, by your definition, slavery is still not immoral for the Sudanese, because it is working there?
What I'm saying really is about how morals develop with society - the moral outrage we feel at slavery was not so clear cut an issue in the 18th century as it is now. There are tracts and tracts of Colonial literature surviving which illustrate how slavery was justified by academics who taught (and seriously believed) that slaves were a lower order of animal who did not feel pain as the white man did. To us where we are now, the slavery in the Sudan is morally wrong, and endorsing it in anyway is morally wrong (note, that’s not what I’m trying to do.) However, I very much doubt you would ever find a Sudanese slave owner who feels the same way about slavery as we do. To them it will be justified because it is a necessary evil, or because it is traditional, or because they do not allow that slaves are people in the same way they are themselves. There’s a plurality of moral systems because there’s a plurality of societies.

You say the reformers did not just wake up one morning and decide to abolish slavery because they recognized it was immoral ... Instead, they recognized that it could now be done away with, without causing economic havoc, so they could afford to judge it immoral. But why did they care to? If it was still economically viable, what made them decide it would be the right thing to free the slaves?

Remember, I’m not denying that there is a morality, or that they would have described the abolition of slavery as the right thing to do. But there are many socially emergent factors which lead to the abolition of slavery shifting into the category of morally right at that time - a whole wealth of ideas which had burgeoned from social developments. There was the Enlightenment’s questioning of previously indisputable notions of moral hierarchy and absolute authority, which fuelled the Romanticists emphasis on the individual and personal expression; the re-codification of beliefs and norms necessary to support a stable empire, and especially the terror caused by the French Revolution which had shown just how dangerous a hacked off oppressed class could be.


As I understand you, and perhaps I still misunderstand, you are saying that changes in the code such as the abolition of slavery, were not progressions toward a more right or better morality, but were simply changes in taste (like poetry, you mention: we like some poems better than others, but none are wrong). If that were the case, then morality would have no meaning at all: any society that decided their lives were worth more than the lives next door could go back to dealing in slaves, or eating their neighbors, and if that worked best for their society, it would be moral.
Well basically, yes. However, it’s hard to envision a set of circumstances which would lead any society to develop its moral code in that direction. Nothing changes in society by somebody waking up one day and saying “Cannibalism is the way to go” and having everyone fall in behind him – even if he has compelling arguments. It takes a long time for paradigm shifts in morality to happen, and some that would probably take thousands of years of living under colossally different circumstances to those any of us live in to complete invert our moral code, but essentially I don’t see it as logically problematic to view morality as being in this way generated by societal norms.

Donne is a poet. In the pragmatic sense, he is benefited by another man's death: there's more left for him and his family. Pragmatically, "justice" has no meaning, because justice does not put food in our tummies -- it is a concept, an ideal. By your definition of morality, as I understand it, "justice" is not needed at all, as long as injustice benefits someone's concept of society.
Again, I’m not denying ideological concepts, only that they must have their basis in something with a separate existence in and of themselves. What works pragmatically best for humans has long since moved away from just having food to eat (if indeed that ever was the sum of it, which I don’t know to be true or untrue). Society is a need of humans as we are now, so Donne’s poetry certainly doesn’t sound misled to me. As society is damaged or diminished, so to is the individual within society. That’s the reason I picked that quote – pragmatism needn’t be a bare board concept of food and water.

[Nema]

You say you have no business to discuss things that you don't understand? But surely that is the basis of science as well as philosophy? Do you think, then, that people such as CS Lewis who discussed the "temporal anomaly" of Christ on earth were simply pretending that their words had meaning? I might be full of hot air as far as it goes, but Lewis? I cannot accept the idea that because we cannot bend our minds around a concept completely, it is therefore impossible and/or useless to talk about.

I’ll try to keep this bit short, cause it’s not really important to the argument at the moment. Really, I didn’t think the idea I was putting forward here was anything off the wall. The reason we use language is to communicate – if I use language which I do not myself understand, then anything true I say is accidentally true (I didn’t know saying it whether it was true or not, because I didn’t fully understand the words I used). If I use words in a different way to how they are generally understood by others, then until I can properly define them in relation to other words I can’t communicate what I mean. I would have thought both of these were simply truths about language. There’s no contradiction in terms between something which was a land mammal becoming a marine mammal. There is a contradiction in terms between an atemporal being becoming a temporal one, because ‘becoming’ any way its defined will presuppose time.

The reason I brought it up was to illustrate the problem I had with one particular theistic position (I was thinking of the atemporal nature of God put forward by, I think, Leftow.) It was simply because I was asked for one example of a theistic position which I found lacking, and I picked atemporallity off the top of my head.

If transcendentalism is the preferred position, then obviously may example was (unintentionally) not a particularly good one, but it was still only an example. I don’t pretend to know what you mean yet by transcendental, but I would accept it if the term can be clearly defined without contradiction – then of course I’m happy to talk about it even if I cannot understand the signified to which it pertains. As long as we can all agree on what is meant by the word.

However, as it happened the direction which the debate has taken has been of morality as a viable proof for the necessity of God’s existence, so perhaps temporality should be lain to rest. Except for one last point of defense:

You stated previously that we cannot assign attributes to God, yet you are assigning this one to Him: it is impossible for Him to be outside time and to live as a human in time.
I just want to emphasise that that wasn’t what I was doing, because that would undermine my entire position. I was underscoring attributes inherent in language and our most basic law of common logic, the law of non-contradiction. I said that it is impossible to speak sensible about one cohesive thing being both T and not T.


I did not mean to ignore your mention of revelation, I just didnt' think it pivotal. I said that God has revealed Himself to us, but all I meant was: we have the Scripture which describes many of the attributes of God: loving, kind, compassionate, just, merciful forgiving, and so on. I was not claiming any personal revelation, and as I assumed you do not believe the Scriptures to be the inspired Word of God, I did not see any reason to bring this argument into play.

Ah, fair enough. I had thought you were making a much stronger argument in your first post on this, and didn’t want it to remain uninterrogated between us, but this I can live with. :)

I've been fighting a fairly defensive argument so far, in terms of supporting a possible alternative to morallity which does not necessitate the invocation of a Divine Being. Is there anyone who'd like to throw anything new into the mix. Really, any or all challenges are worth having a look at, if only to keep the debate from becoming too narrow in its focus.

[inkspot]

Nema, I am sorry you have been sick! I hope you are feeling much better. I will have to answer tomorrow -- just now I must hurry off. Ciao for now.

[Trufflehunters Twin]

Perfect conclusion to a well-said post

[Trufflehunters Twin]

Sorry, still getting accustomed to chat etiquette. Perfect conclusion, Tom of Tarsus

[Wallis]

For some reason, I cannot get to the last page of this discussion and cannot read the latest posts.

There are a couple of points I would like to express.

#1. Atheism is not always an expressed hatred of God. And, there is some blending of agnosticism under the blanket of the term atheism.

I feel that people become disillusioned with the "packages" that life and other people offer. By "package" I mean a nice, tidy little gift that supposedly wraps up the meaning of life.

All of us at some point in time of our lives, usually during our youth, are very idealistic about life and would like to change the world to fit a certain mode that includes concepts like justice and love and caring for other people. We would love to change the world so that all people have a chance for a "good" life.

Unfortunately, no religion offers a "package" that comes with a solution that will meet this idea. Since we cannot change people, then attention turns to a god that must be at fault. Again, the idealistic view kicks in, and we then expect that this god ought to be instituting all these concepts we feel should be in place. Since this god isn't "listening" to us or refuses to accept our view of what the world ought to be, then we have to conclude that there is no god in the first place.

So, it is not exactly hating God that defines atheism. It is a demonstration emanating from a feeling of despair or defeatism that the world is not going to change. No one cares, especially from some sort of deity that supposedly is in charge.

One of the leitmotifs of the Bible is that whatever mankind thinks or feels or does has no weight with God. Whatever God does is good. Whatever man does is not good. And this is a bitter pill for people to swallow. When we see horrible things happen in life, whether it is to us personally or to others, we just cannot fathom in our very limited minds how these events are "good" in the eyes of God.

Thus, we are left with two basic choices (and probably some subchoices):

1. We place our hope and trust in God that whatever He does is good and will save us because we hold onto that blind faith that often runs smack against human logic.

2. We reject the whole notion of a god because he is not humane. (sorry about the potential of the pun)

Personally, I'll choose option 1.

#2. There are many flavors in this world when it comes to believing in God and incorporating God's love into our hearts.

I've studied Wiccan along with most every other religion existent in this modern world. I even have three or four books still on my shelves that try to explain Wiccan philosophy.

When people incorporate philosophies from other religions and philosophies that are co-existent with and in parallel with Christianity there is no conflict with the Christ living in and shining through our hearts and minds.

There is no "My God is bigger than your god" conflict.

Again, going back to the "package" imagery, number one, God cannot be wrapped up into a nice little package that a person can carry around, ingest, or bring out for show-and-tell to explain to other people.

As the Bible clearly points out: you do not know God; you will never know God; you just have to put your hope and trust in God who is both unknowable and unfathomable.

Now, if the philosophies of other religions help explain or expand our own individual "packaging" of God that works for each of us individually, there is no conflict between Christianity and the other philosophy.

Here is an example of a bare-bones package: "Jesus Christ is your personal savior who died for you; you have to believe in Him so that you will be saved."

Unfortunately, what is not included in this bare-bones package is any kind of philosophy that defines how I am supposed to operate in this world, and so little amendments are placed on this package, which at times become bizarre.

Since modern Christianity has either forgotten the wonderful world of theology existent in the minds of people when the Bible was written or abandoned the notion of this tradition (torah) in the attempt to manufacture a neat little package of God for all people, it is often helpful to go back to the source (the writers of the Bible) and investigate those philosophies that still practice the ancient tradition.

Unfortunately, Christianity has done a poor job in explaining our individual role or place in the world, concentrating more on a personal relationship with God and leaving it at that. In reality, all people are connected to all other people, which means that I am connected to the other nearly seven billion people alive in the world today. In addition, I am tied to the Earth and not separated from it. When reading and understanding other philosophies outside of Christianity help define my life, my relationship with God and especially my relationship with other people, this is not a conflict with Christianity. This is a process of absorbing a little bit more of the unfathomable God and understanding that what He does is always good.

[inkspot]

Your position presumes that Mankind started out as disparate individuals, living alone, each against the other. In which case, the question applies just as much to your own assumptions as to mine - What could possibly compel individuals en masse to sign up for society when our number one driving force is self-preservation? And yet evidently they did, for we live in society today.
I am glad you asked this. What I believe makes humans agree there is a moral standard somewhere, which often points out to us the Right thing to do may be to our detriment yet must still be done, comes from within each human heart as God’s way of saying: “Here I am! This is how I am! You can be like me.” Even in people as far from God as can be, there is this internal tug toward him in the form of the concept of Right and Wrong. This is why so many societies all over the world have similar standards for behavior. They have all received this internal transmission from heaven.

How do we know it? How do we have access to it? Why has it become more clear to us over the course of time? Why do societies developing at different rates and in different places have a lesser or greater degree of access to this perfect moral truth?
I don’t want to drag the Bible in here too much, because I am assuming you don’t ascribe to it, but it illuminates what I believe about this: Some people naturally obey the Law's commands, even though they don't have the Law. This proves that the conscience is like a law written in the human heart. (Romans 2:14-15)

Even non-believers in God feel this pull toward God because He placed it in every human heart. As for why it becomes more clear: people progress in every area — science, math, art, literature — as the ages pass, why not morality? This is true for the question of why societies develop morality at different rates as well: some were busy with bare survival long after others had progressed to intellectual pursuits. Everyone has equal access to it, not everyone has the time and willingness to pursue it.

To us where we are now, the slavery in the Sudan is morally wrong, and endorsing it in anyway is morally wrong (note, that’s not what I’m trying to do.) However, I very much doubt you would ever find a Sudanese slave owner who feels the same way about slavery as we do. To them it will be justified because it is a necessary evil, or because it is traditional, or because they do not allow that slaves are people in the same way they are themselves. There’s a plurality of moral systems because there’s a plurality of societies.
Indeed, there is a plurality of societies, but not a plurality of moralities: if you asked the Arabic Sudanese slave owner whether slavery were Right, he would say yes, because African Sudanese are not human. If you asked him whether it would be Right to enslave his son, he would say no, on the basis that his son, an Arabic Sudanese, is human. Every society agrees: the People Like Us (human) are not to be enslaved. Thus slavery is Wrong, always in all societies — it is the recognition of who’s human and who’s not which gets in the way. The Standard is basically the same.

there are many socially emergent factors which lead to the abolition of slavery shifting into the category of morally right at that time - a whole wealth of ideas which had burgeoned from social developments. There was the Enlightenment’s questioning of previously indisputable notions of moral hierarchy and absolute authority, which fuelled the Romanticists emphasis on the individual and personal expression
Yes, this rather makes my point, doesn't it? As society progressed toward a True Standard, this latent spirit of freedom and equality began to assert itself in the human heart, a call from another world!

You claim these “factors” aided in slavery's abolition as if they were some proof of God's non-existence and the pragmatism of Morality, but I think they are more in my favor than yours. These are movements of the spirit of humanity, and if I understand you to be an atheist, then you will not, by my understanding, believe in a “spirit world” at all. If I understand your viewpoint, you are claiming essentially spiritual movements (which you don’t believe in) sprang up at this time because they were somehow “workable” for society, and thus made slavery immoral.

It seems simpler to me to allow there is a moral Standard and in abolishing slavery we were moving toward this Standard as we had the time and willingness to examine right, wrong and humanity. It seems you are going a long way round to deny the existence of such a Standard ... when in fact without it, there is no Morality at all, except as you term it: morality as a description of how society works, which is untenable, as many societies “work” very badly. In this sense, Morality is useless, or non-existent.

the re-codification of beliefs and norms necessary to support a stable empire, and especially the terror caused by the French Revolution which had shown just how dangerous a hacked off oppressed class could be.
I do not know about the re-codification, so I cannot speak to this, but the French Revolution is, as far as I am concerned, the only evidence you have given so far to support your idea that the abolition of slavery was merely a pragmatic response to what “works best” for society — it seems a small scrap in a sea of Morality.

[inkspot]

As I understand you ... any society that decided their lives were worth more than the lives next door could go back to dealing in slaves, or eating their neighbors, and if that worked best for their society, it would be moral.
Well basically, yes. However, it’s hard to envision a set of circumstances which would lead any society to develop its moral code in that direction. Nothing changes in society by somebody waking up one day and saying “Cannibalism is the way to go” and having everyone fall in behind him – even if he has compelling arguments. It takes a long time for paradigm shifts in morality to happen, and some that would probably take thousands of years of living under colossally different circumstances to those any of us live in to complete invert our moral code, but essentially I don’t see it as logically problematic to view morality as being in this way generated by societal norms.
You are mistaken here. Germany managed to turn morality on its ear, declare an entire Nation non-human and implement the Final Solution of completely destroying them all, in less than one generation. This “paradigm shift” happened very rapidly, and the same kind of “shift” happened even more rapidly in Cambodia under Pol Pot — and those were their own people they were slaughtering, simply because they were intellectuals, wore glasses, or had traveled abroad.

You do not see a logical problem in viewing Nazism’s or the Khmer Rouge’s value system as Morality “generated by societal norms”? Surely this is not what you mean, and yet you say, “Well basically yes ...” If this is what you believe, then my argument perfect Standard of Morality existing somewhere will never touch you, because at the foundation, you do not believe in Morality, You believe only in what is. But please examine this carefully before you live your life by it, because it means you can never argue with anyone else about who is Right or Wrong, because your basic conclusion is that no one is wrong, as long as he is acting within some kind of system.

What works pragmatically best for humans has long since moved away from just having food to eat (if indeed that ever was the sum of it, which I don’t know to be true or untrue). Society is a need of humans as we are now, so Donne’s poetry certainly doesn’t sound misled to me. As society is damaged or diminished, so to is the individual within society. That’s the reason I picked that quote – pragmatism needn’t be a bare board concept of food and water.
Pragmatism, materialism and atheism must go hand in glove, and they cannot, as I understand them, take into account any “spiritual” ideas such as you are espousing here. You say “society is a need of humans as we are now” so this is your pragmatic basis for society ... but in what sense is society a need for humans? If it is any but a pragmatic sense (self preservation), then you have stepped away from “what works best” into the realm of spiritual fulfillment, and this can only come from God. Angels, demons, spirits, after-life — those all go out the window when you deny God’s existence, don’t they? So any spiritual needs of which you are speaking are not pragmatic, but theistic.

Animals have no concept of "the right thing to do" because they haven't our powers to rationalise moral notions of right, yet in group situations the good of the individual will often give way to the good of the group.
If you mean a weak animal will be left for the predator’s dinner while the other animals make good their escape, then yes, the rights of an individual animal are sacrificed for the good of the group. But not with the consent of the dinner item!

I am probably still not understanding you, but it seems you are just saying herd animals do what’s best for the herd, and too bad about the weaker, slower members of it — and at its basis, morality is a description of that same instinct among humans, nothing more (except that we humans are able to rationalize it).

But if it’s our herd instinct which guides us to make rules and obey them, what makes us obey the rules even when it’s to our detriment? A normal herd animal doesn’t choose to fall prey to the predator so the rest of the herd can escape, it just is the weakest or slowest. But a strong human will often turn back to rescue the weaker human — not out of herd instinct, for herd instinct would compel the strong one to run for his life. There’s another thing in play here, not simply a herd instinct codified as morality.

If pragmatism means what is best for the group, then surely the weaklings should be left to die ... but humans do not do this. If your basis for morality is what’s best for the group, why do we not euthanize imperfect babies? Why do we not allow the sick and weak to die? Their loss would enrich the human stock, their burdens would no longer need to be borne by society. Morality is something beyond pragmatism, and I do not think you have explained it yet.


You may be right and this is a rabbit trail we need not follow, but for your consideration:
if I use language which I do not myself understand, then anything true I say is accidentally true (I didn’t know saying it whether it was true or not, because I didn’t fully understand the words I used). If I use words in a different way to how they are generally understood by others, then until I can properly define them in relation to other words I can’t communicate what I mean.
Thankfully Tim defined “transcendant” in his post on the previous page. You can understand what the word transcendant means as we apply it to God, I am sure:

• transcendent: beyond and outside the ordinary range of human experience or understanding.

Are you then saying that because you cannot understand what is outside your ordinary range of experience or understanding, that it cannot exist?

[Azna]

I am atheist, but I'm not one to debate. I'm very emotional when it comes to discussions like this because it hurts me that people are so narrow-minded. Even though I'm atheist, I do not write off beliefs. I'm not anti-religion or anti-Christ, I'm merely an observer. I've never witness anything to prove the existance of God or any other deity. I've never seen ghosts, spirits, or even balls of energy. I've been in many places that were said to be haunted, and witnessed nothing.

But because I am open-minded, I've read a great deal on many different religions. None of which makes full sense to me. So many questions unanswered makes me skeptical. There's only one theory that has intrigued me enough to where if I were to believe in something, that is what I'd believe in. I read a book by Sylvia Browne called Phenomenon: everything you need to know about the paranormal, in which I learned of Lillith (also included in Judiasm), and Azna. Other interests were The Other Side, the Underworld, and the Dark Side. If one is to ever question their beliefs, or are searching for something to believe in, it would be her theories. ... But because I've still never witnessed anything, I still remain atheist.

[inkspot]

Welcome to the discussion, Azna!
I've never witness anything to prove the existance of God or any other deity. I've never seen ghosts, spirits, or even balls of energy. I've been in many places that were said to be haunted, and witnessed nothing.
Me neither! But I wouldn't necessarly take witnessing any of that as proof of the existence of God. Have you given any thought to my posts in this Thread regarding where something which we can see and experience (Morality) may have come from? If it did not develop as a result of pragmatism or materialism (which it seems obvious to me it did not) it must have come from an Outside Force. This is more an issue of logic than anything else ... if you are looking for the paranormal, I'm afraid I can't help you. I did like that TV show "The X Files." That had a lot of paranormal, and it was wicked cool.

[onlymystory]

I am atheist, but I'm not one to debate. I'm very emotional when it comes to discussions like this because it hurts me that people are so narrow-minded. Even though I'm atheist, I do not write off beliefs. I'm not anti-religion or anti-Christ, I'm merely an observer. I've never witness anything to prove the existance of God or any other deity. But because I've still never witnessed anything, I still remain atheist.

I find it interesting that you claim to be both an atheist and open-minded. Actually, I find a lot of atheists claim that and it is a very odd claim. To truly be an atheist you have to be completely against the belief of God in any shape or form. Which to be honest puts you at odds with most of the world. By telling more than 90% of the world that they are wrong seems rather narrow minded to me. Now, while I personally believe that Christianity is more open than any other religion I'm not going to pretend that I accept everyone as right. As a Christian I firmly believe that Jesus Christ became a man, died on a cross as an atonement for my sins, and rose again three days later and that He will one day come again. That is the basic doctrine of the Christian faith. Believe that and you will be saved. I am not going to suddenly decide that some other belief will allow me to be saved. You are free to say I'm narrow-minded for that, but if standing up for my convictions and not riding the fence on the most important issue in life is narrow-minded than so be it.

Now, about your statement regarding never seeing anything to prove the existence of God; I see it all around me. I know of no man or woman who can create a single plant or animal or even a human organ by themselves. To me the evidence is clear. I love how DC Talk put it in their song "Mind's Eye"
"Can you catch the wind? See a breeze? Its presence is revealed in the leaves on a tree. An image of my faith in the unseen."
As a Christian, my job is to reveal the presence of God just as the leaves on a tree reveal the wind.
"Can you see God? Have you ever seen Him? I've never seen the wind, I've seen the effects of the wind but I've never seen the wind. There's a mystery to it."

[onlymystory]

I just wanted to add a little thought separately for us Christians to remember in our discussions with nonbelievers.
"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." Chuck Colson

Lets be sure that our actions reflect our posts here.

[inkspot]

Here is what CS Lewis said on the subject of narrow-mindedness in Christians vs. Atheists:
If you are a Christian, you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist, you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerst ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race had always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most.

There is no getting around this point: if you are an atheist, you must believe there is no truth in any religion, because every religion takes as its starting point, its foundation, that there is a God -- so if they are wrong in that, anything they have to say after that is bound to be wrong, because the foundation was wrong.

Perhaps, Azna, you are really not an atheist, but an agnostic: someone who is reserving judgment on the question of God's existence until you see some proof one way or another.

[Wallis]

Thanks, Inkspot, for the term agnostic came to mind as I read Azna's posts.

There is real proof within one's own perception of the world and that person as an actor in what I prefer to call his or her "universe."

Often people need proof to believe in something, whether it is in the religious arena, the scientific arena, the psychiatric arena, the philosophical arena, or any other arena that you might think of.

There is a great deal of good in questioning, especially those things that you do believe in. Questioning and investigation. By questioning you have to reinvestigate the issues that comprise both the proof and the faith (and, Azna, you do have a faith, albeit you have called it atheism) that you hold. Two things will happen: either you have reinforced what you believe in or you make modifications.

I have witnessed the so-called supernatural. I guess you could say that makes me an odd-ball, but maybe I like being an odd-ball. I even like that program Ghost Hunters, which is one of the best--although overly dramatized in a Hollywood way--shows I have seen in many years that tries to deal with the paranormal. Even with film and sophisticated instruments, there is no way that definite proof can be manufactured that would convince everyone that the paranormal is real. I could tell you stories that might curl the hairs on the back of your neck. But there is no way that anyone could prove to you that the paranormal exists.

The same interesting occurence happens within religion. There is no way that one person can convince another person that God exists (pick a flavor of God; the major point is still valid). The proof of the pudding, if you will, lies within the mind and heart of the individual. An idividual who has experienced something that he or she defines as the "touch" of God can never be persuaded by another of that "proof."

I have heard many arguments that go something like this: If there was a God, then that God would have never allowed such-and-such to happen.

I have written much on this forum and others that people just cannot put God in a nice, tidy little package, put Him on a shelf in their hearts (or minds), and then walk around all day thinking that they "know it all" and are doing good.

In every religion, God is both unfathomable and unknowable. Scriptures of every type try to portray a God acting in the lives of the stories offered in these Scriptures. These Scriptures are trying to convey real-life events that people past, present, and future can identify with. And the message that these Scriptures are trying to make is that we are not alone, that we cannot "make it" alone, and that there is a God who will "save" us despite all of the nonsense that makes up life.

At its simplest, we are all connected. There is a metaphysical belief that all our thoughts, words, and deeds are broadcast throughout the universe--although I just worry about all the connections we have with people on this one planet. And through this connection, there are a lot of things happening that affects us in an individualistic way. I know the above might sound like: "If a butterly flaps its wings, does a hurricane come into being in the South Atlantic." But there is some underlying truth to that old proverb because we are connected to each other.

You may remain an atheist all your life, and I will still love you for it. But I would like to kind of challenge you just a little bit with a mental exercise. Then you can get back to me either on this forum or through a PM.

Sometime when you are all alone in a quiet place and have no interruptions, I would ask you to just relax and think about all the things that have happened in your life. Was there anything that stands out that was unusual? Did something happen to you that could be called "coincidence"? Were you going down one "path" in life when something happened that caused you to go down another "path," and surprisingly everything turned out pretty good?

After you have thought about this awhile, then you can ask yourself this question: How? Was there something both outside of me and within me that was acting on my behalf?

Peace.

[Parthian King]

In every religion, God is both unfathomable and unknowable.

Yet, surely you speak of degree, don't you? Is not the very foundation of the Christian confession built upon the assertion that in Christ we not only can know God through Jesus Christ, but that that is the essence of what it is to be a Christian?

I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me--John 10:14

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be a in you.--John 14:16-18

I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.--John 15:15

Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent--John 17:3

We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ.--1 John 5:20

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles?--Galatians 4:8-9

[inkspot]

Good points, Wallis. BTW, did you go over to the INTERNATIONAL forum and check in on the Philippines Thread? They are yakking away in Tagalog over there, if you care to join in. (I am trying to pick up a few phrases here and there.) Ciao!

[PrinceOfTheWest]

There is also the question of knowing God "truly" against knowing God "exhaustively". I fully agree with Wallis' point that no man can completely know all there is about God - have him in "in a nice, tidy little package", so to speak. But then again, the same can be said about meteorology, which brings us to Parthian King's point. What we know, we can know truly (or, as truly as finite minds can comprehend infinite truth.) The assurance that we can truly know, and know truly, is the grounding for our very being and our relationship with God. Yet being firm in that truth should never be an excuse for complacency, and we should always be seeking to expand our knowledge.

A quote from the Rabbi of Kotzak summarizes this balance well:

"You shall seek the Divine and you shall find Him, but you must search for Him wholeheartedly'' (Deut. 4:29). Even after you have found the Divine, you must continue to search for Him wholeheartedly. The Divine is infinite, and you should not be so complacent as to think that you have already found Him. Keep searching, because there is so much more.

[Parthian King]

Precisely my point. Walli's points are well-made and well-taken when it comes to our limitations in this life. It would be sheer arrogance for anyone to say simply and absolutely, "I know God." Yet on the other hand, I felt that some qualification of what seemed and absolute statement to me (often also felt in simple and absolute terms by many) was in order. Jesus said we could know Him, the Holy Spirit, and through them, the Father.

[inkspot]

Good points, guys -- PK and I must have been posting at the same time on the previous page, cuz I missed his response to Wallis. All three of your are correct -- God is knowable, and we know Him because of the Scriptures, through Christ and the Holy Spirit. But we cannot know all of Him because He is infinite. I agree. And, there is infinite value in a life-long search to know more of Him.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 1 Corinthians 13:12

[Goldenrod22]

Hi! I don't know whom to talk to on this post, but I just wanted to say hello. My name is Goldenrod, and I thought I'd say something about Christianity. My father was a Christian before he died in a car accident when I was seven years old. His death left a hole in the lives of myself, my young mother, and my four other siblings. He died, in fact, on the eve of my youngest sister's birthday, on his way home.
What I am trying to say is that he left behind a legacy which I doubt many atheists believe is important. He left us with the assurance that he was in heaven with his Savior.
Though countless people who believe in the atheistic view point hold strongly to their independance from God or Jesus Christ, I almost wonder...why?
It could be from pride. It could be from their own theological beliefs that scramble faith into something incoherent. Or maybe it is from loneliness, like the seeker who tries everything but Christianity, or who tries Christ (not for his loving relationship) and is quickly dismissive of Him because of the 'rules' or people in the church that they don't like.
My father stood for something that I know is not a fantasy or delusion. He stood in the army of Christ as a good and faithful soldier, and I know that he is standing now with the man he called Lord.
If I could say something to him today, it would be this:
"Well done, Dad. And thank you for saying yes to Jesus while you still could."

[pegasus62]

I am making this post to ask if anyone here has questions about the theory of evolution. I know it's hard to except the other views on the world be created and not evolving, so if, by support, you have some deep questions, I am sure there are several of us here that would like to lead you along on a different path. I, myself, am a creationist and Christian, and will not try to argue my way, but instead try to support my own views while changing the confusion of you, or others. Please feel free to ask questions and get the answers. :D

[QA48]

i somewhat find it acceptable to believe that evolution happened or happens to animals. but not humans....

[PrinceOfTheWest]

There's a thread on this topic, which starts here (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=101923&postcount=1).

[inkspot]

Pax GR, and welcome back. Haven't seen you in a long while. I am so sorry you have not had your dad with you growing up, but it sounds as if he left you a legacy, all the same. It's great that you honor his memory by living a life he would have approved.

[unleavened]

Thank you for sharing GR. It's alway good to hear an edifying piece from someones life, weather or not you know them. :)

[~Aravis'~Legend~]

I am new to this discussion. It sounds to me that the question of God's existance is at the heart of this. IMO, God has already proved that, if you believe anyway. People talk about needing "proof", but hasn't He done that? He did come to this earth afterall, do we as humans expect him to come here in physical form for every generation to see? (since we are in a Narnia I see this as valid) Even Aslan did not appear to every generation in TCoN. Did that make Him any less real to the Narnian's, and they had "athiests" too.

I think I believe that athiests don't believe in God, because:
1. They don't see "proof" oh His existance.

2. They don't understand how a "loving God" could allow the suffering to continue that occurs in this world.

I'm sure that there could be more, but right now I'm too tired to think any harder than that. To address the first, God's existance here is a quote.Looking for God---or Heaven---by exploring space is like reading or seeing all Shakespeare's plays in the hope that you will find Shakespeare as one of the characters or Stratford as one of the places. Shakespeare is in one sense present at every moment in every play. But he is never present in the same way as Falstaff or Lady Macbeth....
If there were an idiot who thought plays existed on their own, without an author (not to mention actors, producer, manager, stagehands and what not), our belief in Shakespeare would not be much affected by his saying, quite truly, that he had studied all the plays nad never found Shakespeare in them....
My point is that, if God does exist, He is related to the universe more as an author is related to a play than as one object in the universe is related to another.
If God created the universe, He created spacetime, which is to the universe as the metre is to a poem or the key is to music. To look for Him as one item within the framework which He Himself invented is nonsensical.
If God--such a God as any adult religion believes in --exists, mere movement in space will never bring you any nearer to Him or any farther from Him that you are at this very moment. You can neither reach Him nor avoid Him by travelling to Alpha Centauri or even to other galaxies. A fish is no more, and no less, in the sea after it has swum a thousand miles than it was when it set out. ~~C.S. Lewis~~ Christian Reflections, "The Seeing Eye" para. 10-11, 14-16, pp. 167-168

The second, IMO, is to understand the why to the continuing suffering, one must know The Great Controversy. Lucifer challanged God, this created a struggle, and since God's way is a way of choice and love, He couldn't just kill Lucifer and end the whole thing just like that. Think about it, if God had created more than just the angels, wouldn't an explanation of both sides be needed? Even if God had just created angels, he would have still done it this way. He banned Lucifer from Heaven, along with his supporters. He allowed him to come to earth, but restricted him to one tree in the whole of it. When man fell, he was given more free reign. God had a way to save us, to reinstate us, reconcile us to Him, but He had to come here and die to do it. Most people know this much, but then why aren't we all up in Heaven now, if he has saved us?

I believe that He had to let it come to a head, that the worst it could get had to be whitnessed by all. Even now the world has room to get worse, but in order to show the universe how bad sin really is, it has to come to that. We know how bad it is because we live here in this "hell" as some here would call it. Imagine that God didn't allow Lucifer, now Satan, to go to any of the other planets. Isn't it logical to cut him off from the rest and only allow him to use one planet to show his side of the coin? Why let your other creations suffer like we here have to.

Also, suffering is quite another subject, much good has come from it afterall. I have heard many accounts over the years of someone's suffering bringing joy to others, who otherwise, would have none or no comfort. Think of families who have lost loved ones to disease or accident and used that tragedy to help others like them or to prevent other such things from happening. I don't think this would be possible without God, even if you don't believe in Him, He is able to bring us through a crisis and make us better dispite what has happened. I would rather live in world where God will make good come of evil that has happened, than a world with no hope.

[Wallis]

If one wishes to apply "degrees" to the knowledge of God, I could go along with that.

No one can completely know about God, but what we have done is put our hope, trust, and faith in God. In a big way, this is all that we need to know about God, for we continue to see His actions in our own history and experiences.

In other words, we will never know why "things" happen. But we can remain secure in the knowledge that God will save us despite all that the world can "throw" up against us.

[Wallis]

BTW, I don't speak Tagalog either, but I'm learning slooowwwllly.

[Señor Puntos]

OK, here we go...

Atheism...bad.
Christianity...good.
Evolution...bad.

Who can argue with this?

http://www.narniafans.com/forum/images/icons/icon10.gif

Now that you've proven God exists and that every single other persons beliefs are void and stupid how about you try to tackle the meaning of life?

[Gryphon]

Now that you've proven God exists and that every single other persons beliefs are void and stupid how about you try to tackle the meaning of life?
ouch, but your right. Gibby, you cant be so flippant baby. If you want to prove God exsists, its easier just to prove that Jesus rose again. That was the point i was trying to make in another thread i made but it didnt work out to talk about that. hahahaha... so yeah, id rather convince someone Jesus rose for them. If I can do that everything else falls in place.

[Charn_Tim]

Guys I think you are taking Gibby's post a little too seriously here. He isn't "proving" anything or providing an argument or anything of that sort, and I don't see this as making fun of anyone's beliefs as far as I can tell; he's simply giving his tongue-in-cheek opinion, hence the smilie face...There has been much worse behaviour to complain about on these forums-but I don't think this is something to get worked up about.

[Gryphon]

i didnt make it out to be a horrible post. I agree with it, I just think Gibby needs to take it a little more seriously if he/she wants people to take him/her seriously.

[Señor Puntos]

ouch, but your right. Gibby, you cant be so flippant baby. If you want to prove God exsists, its easier just to prove that Jesus rose again. That was the point i was trying to make in another thread i made but it didnt work out to talk about that. hahahaha... so yeah, id rather convince someone Jesus rose for them. If I can do that everything else falls in place.

The thing is, there's no evidence for him rising, so how you're gonna prove it I don't know...

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Where's the body?

[Señor Puntos]

The body? Isn't it in heaven or something? That's what it says in the bible right?

[~Aravis'~Legend~]

When Christ died, there were Roman guards posted in front of his grave to prevent the disciples from stealling it. Back then if you were a guard and you let something like someone stealling a body happen, for example, you life would be forfiet. Yet the pharasies paid the guards to say the body had been stolen.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The body? Isn't it in heaven or something? That's what it says in the bible right?Yes, it does - but the important thing is that it is not in the tomb. That means Jesus either walked out, or was taken out by someone else. If He walked out, that means He rose from the dead. If someone else, then who? And why?

[Peter's Chick]

Jesus was crucified and then was put into the tomb. The roman gaurds were posted outisde and then when Mary Magdalene and the other women came to change the dressing on the body of Jesus, an angle was ther ( the romans were gone) and told them not to be afraid but that Jesus had risen. He told them to go and tell the disciples.

[Señor Puntos]

Yes, it does - but the important thing is that it is not in the tomb. That means Jesus either walked out, or was taken out by someone else. If He walked out, that means He rose from the dead. If someone else, then who? And why?

Actual new evidence says that there might not even have been a Jesus at all, son of God or not.

[Charn_Tim]

Actual new evidence says that there might not even have been a Jesus at all, son of God or not.
Care to cite some of this "evidence" that you speak of?

[unleavened]

Yeah, People have tried that one before and thus far they can't convince anyone who's not willing to be decieved. That's my take on it anyway.

[~Aravis'~Legend~]

I was trying to go a particular direction, and messed up. I remember something about how the documentation of that time (not including the Bible) backs up the story of the resurection. All the pieces fit. Unfortunately, I don't know how to find it, but I've heard about it before. If anyone else knows, please let us know.

[DeplorableWord]

Actual new evidence says that there might not even have been a Jesus at all, son of God or not.

Can you at least explain this "new evidence" for us?

[Gryphon]

The thing is, there's no evidence for him rising, so how you're gonna prove it I don't know...
well, there is evidence that he died. Theres a poet in ancient greece named Tacitus who had this to say about the Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

"Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . ."

this is evidence of Jesus' existance from a NON-CHRISTIAN source. I can actually give you more evidence that Jesus lived and died and had followers who were persicuted in his name.

Now we come ot the second question "Did Jesus rise agian?" Of course i believe that he did but how should i prove it to you? Well, Jesus himself died a horrible death saying he was the son of man. You wouldnt die saying that you were Olympic swimmer if you werent.

So Jesus believed that he was the son of God, was he mad? no he wasnt, people said his teachings made sense and he had several deciples who followed him for years, like C.S. Lewis said "One only has to look at someone and talk to them to know that they are not mad."

So he wasnt mad and he believed that he was the son of God and i can give more evidence that he lived. Not only that but the fact that his life lines up perfectly with and ancient document 4000 years in the making is all but impossible. He fulfilled prophesies that were made several years before.

Some people might think "Oh he meant to fulfill those prophesies." but what about the things he couldnt control? The place he was born was prophesied, the places his parents would take him was prophesied, how people would kill him was prophesied.

Someone did their homework and found out that if you took one inch by one inch squares and put a star under one of them and covered the entire Earth with them and told someone to pick up only one. The chances of that cube having the star under it is more likely than fulfilling just eight of those prophesies. Jesus filfilled ALL of the ones about the messiah and not only that, there were HUNDREDS of them.

My last point is the fact that people died saying they saw him rise from the dead. Again, people wouldnt die saying they an Olympic swimmer, but all of his disciples died saying he rose again. They werent mad because their teachings make sense. I really cant see how Jesus wouldnt have lived, and if he did live then i dont see how he wouldnt be who he said he was.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Actual new evidence says that there might not even have been a Jesus at all, son of God or not.You're about 100 years out of date, Jimmy. The "There Never Was A Jesus" school was in vogue in the late 1800/ early 1900s. Since then textual critics, other sources (such as those Gryphon cited), and historical correlations have put that whole business to a serious death.

Truth is, there never was any "evidence" that Jesus never existed, there was only a school of thought that took every significant event in Scripture and presumed it never happened, then put the onus of proof on anyone who believed in it to prove that it did. This led to some very interesting and embarrasing situations. For instance, the followers of this school accepted that the Exodus never happened, Jericho never fell, there never was a King David, etc. But archaeological discoveries of the late 19th and early 20th century kept proving, with astonishing regularity, that the Biblical accounts were right - even on trivial matters that had no impact on anyone's belief structure. There was even an interesting case of two young skeptics who decided that two pivotal events in early Christianity never happened: the Resurrection and St. Paul's conversion. They set out to "prove" these "facts" - and after much scholarly research and study, both ended up converting to Christianity. One of them was named Frank Morrison, and his account of his studies became the classic book Who Moved the Stone (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=ye4paPuCmm&isbn=0310295610&itm=1), which is still in print.

Which brings me back to the earlier point. Jimmy, Jimmy, if you're going to come on and pretend to be this knowlegeable skeptic who's going to give us poor, benighted, superstitious believers the benefit of your expansive and open mind, then you're going to have to do a better job of thinking than you are. Let me feed it to you in small bites:

A year after the first Easter Sunday, Jesus' body was either in the tomb or it was out of it. Simple logic, right?

We can make a pretty good case that it was out of it. How? Well, since about that time there was a trial where two of Jesus' disciples were brought up on charges of, essentially, disturbing the peace. They were preaching the Resurrection. The Sanhedrin (Jewish High Court) commanded them to stop preaching the Resurrection, and they refused. The interesting thing is what the Jewish judges didn't do. The trial took place about 300 yards from the tomb. If they'd wanted to shut the disciples up and totally discredit them before the people, all they would have had to do was walk down to the tomb and display Jesus' body. But they didn't do that, even when it would have solved a lot of their problems to do so. Hence we can presume that Jesus' body was not in the tomb at that time.

So, then, the body was gone. That means it either walked out, or was taken. Walking out - well, that's pretty unusual, so let's presume it was taken.

But who would take it? The disciples? Well, that wouldn't square with how they were behaving at the time of the supposed Resurrection - they were hiding behind locked doors, quivering in their boots that they were going to be arrested and killed next. Even when people brought word of the Resurrection to them, they refused to believe it - several times. Yet (remember this:) something happened that changed their minds, and suddenly they were making this impossible claim: that Christ had risen from the dead and was making new life available to all. This caused them no end of problems. The gained nothing (worldly) by saying this: no fame, no money, no influence, no women, no booze, no nuthin'. What they did get was endless trouble, exile, alienation, scorn, hassle, and ultimately death by torture - all but one of them (that one lived to old age). Yet, through it all, every single one of them kept clinging to this outrageous claim about Christ rising, and even at their (gruesome) deaths never renounced it.

Still with me? Okay, because we're about to move from an amble to a walk. Who else might have taken the body? The Jewish leaders? Well, certainly not them: this new sect caused them no end of trouble. They even posted guards to prevent any tomb-tampering. Some other pious group, such as the Essenes? Or maybe a not-so-pious group, like a some kind of Hellenistic mystery cult seeking to get something from the body of such a powerful wizard? In either case, we're back to the problem of the disciples: they didn't just say "oh, we dunno what happened" - they claimed that Jesus had risen, and paid a very high price for that claim.

How about the Romans, then? Maybe they didn't want the grave of a popular leader becoming a shrine, and possibly a hotbed of insurrection? Well, they wouldn't have done anything to destabilize the Jewish government at the time, and the Resurrection certainly did that. Even if they had taken the body with those intentions, it would have much better served their purposes to produce it eventually to quell the nascent sect. Besides, even with the Romans, we're still up against the disciples problem, and the fact that they stubbornly clung to the claim despite getting nothing sensible out of it.

To summarize (this works better on a chalkboard where you can draw a logic tree): Jesus' body was probably out of the tomb, not in it. That means it either walked out, or was taken out. But we can't find a likely party to take it. The disciples don't work, for reasons stated above. The Jews don't work, and neither do the Romans, because it was very much against their interests to have that tomb empty. The idea of "some unknown group" is tempting, but it doesn't explain the disciple's behavior. Hence, unlikely as it seems, we have to settle on the fact that Jesus must have walked out of the tomb.

Follow that?

[Gryphon]

wow, PrinceOfTheWest, i think we need to give some time for Jimmy to swallow all this information.

[Parthian King]

Great stuff, folks. I'll be briefer: We accept the existence of anyone we have not seen personally on authority (meaning through the testomony of others) whether that person hails from our generation or a period of time thousands of years ago. The weight of the authority behind any given testimony has to do with a number of factors, but most of all the number (i.e., quantity) of witnesses and the quality (trustworthiness, spectrum) of them figure heavily.

That said, Jimmy, there is more evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus whom some early followers considered to be especially unique (I'll skip the details; others have provided them) than there is for the existence of George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, or Adolf Hitler. If you care to reject Him, He certainly grants it to you. But for pity's sake, come up with a justification that can stand up against a little bit of scrutiny.

I don't know who you took history from in school, but you ought to sue for a refund.

[Gryphon]

I don't know who you took history from in school, but you ought to sue for a refund.
hahahaha, that sould be in a signature somewhere... thats the best line ive heard in a while.

[Nosferatu]

Actual new evidence says that there might not even have been a Jesus at all, son of God or not.


Dang it! Everytime My school gets harder so I can't get on a interesting dicussion starts :p!

Actuly Sometime in the 1990s a team of people uncovered a Bone box (In ancient israel Youwould put peoples bones in a box and Wright there name on it.{Little info for people who arn't familar with israels Culture}) But it turned out that the Persons bones where james. And on the box the name said "Here lies James brother of Jesus Son of Joseph." Pretty cool huh?

So in conclusion there is no doubt jesus existed.

Think my dad told me this after he read the article on World Net daily. (Anyone else heard of this)

[Parthian King]

Nosferatu, I think that whole thing has been debunked. Still, on the scales to history to compare the overwhelming evidence (indeed, the entire direction of Western civilzation following the birth of Christianity) vs. whether or not an ossuary is legitimate or not is to strain a gnat and swallow a camel. Or, as Lewis would say, to quibble over fern seed while ignoring elephants.

[Nosferatu]

Nosferatu, I think that whole thing has been debunked. Still, on the scales to history to compare the overwhelming evidence (indeed, the entire direction of Western civilzation following the birth of Christianity) vs. whether or not an ossuary is legitimate or not is to strain a gnat and swallow a camel. Or, as Lewis would say, to quibble over fern seed while ignoring elephants.



Could You please Give me the evidence that Debunks that? (Dang That was some of the favorite material) :D

[Parthian King]

Check out this link (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm).

This is a scholarly article, meaning the author carefully and in rather detached (and stuffy) academic language builds the case she is making. Her conclusions are not isolated; it is pretty much where most came down on the issue. On the other hand, the Academy is rarely if ever unanimous; other opinions (http://beliefnet.org/story/115/story_11561_1.html) are out there.

At the end of the day, the matter is inconclusive concerning this ossuary (i.e., its inscription). It doesn't seem to provide the "smoking gun" or (better said) the "slam dunk" we would have it. But then again, let me say that we as Christians are on a quest for truth and compete transparency on these matters. We don't need to be afraid of things like this, either way they go. Especially when someone stands up and and say "Hey, I don't believe there ever was a Jesus," well, let's not start scrambling around, searching for a silver bullet (not that you were doing that). In this day and age of "CSI" and "Cold Case," we are conditioned to think that way. Take a deep breath, step back, and look at the big picture (Prince of the West has covered the biggest issue). Once you do that, whether this box really was the funeral urn of James the brother of Jesus becomes less an issue of concrete, empirical evidence we lean on to sustain ourselves and more an insight into how those people lived and what was important to them, which helps us read the Scriptures with more light and serve Him more faithfully.

[Nosferatu]

Who says I wasn't Gettting out my silver bullet :P!

[Parthian King]

Friend, the Cross and the Resurrection, lived through you in love, the far more feared by the Enemy of our souls than a stone box.

[Queen Helen]

When it is all said and done, each one of us (regardless of faith, belief, religion, whatever you want to call it) will stand before Him with His book open. If you have accepted His grace, mercy & forgiveness, and truly have a relationship with Him, your name will be in that Book of Life...if not...you will not see Him...Revelations 20:15 "And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."

Jesus already knew that there were going to be those that didn't believe, that is why in Matthew 7:13 & 14 He said, "Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it." How many did He say? Just a few????? No, MANY...

We as Christians are to live like Jesus. There are many that will never pick up a Bible, and the only Jesus they see will be us! If we become complacent and think that someone else will show them they way, then we are wrong! If someone had that attitude with me, I may still not know Him. They didn't preach the Bible to me! They never asked me to just visit their church. They lived it, and I saw it, and I wanted it!

One last thought. We are not guarenteed tomorrow! None of us. Furthermore, there will come a time in each of our lives that if we don't open that door (Revelation 3:20) when He knocks, He will stop and your chances of Him knocking on the door will cease (Luke 13:25-27).

When it's all said and done, will you be in the Lamb's Book of Life?

[The Dancing Lawn]

[QUOTE=Queen Helen]When it is all said and done, each one of us (regardless of faith, belief, religion, whatever you want to call it) will stand before Him with His book open. If you have accepted His grace, mercy & forgiveness, and truly have a relationship with Him, your name will be in that Book of Life...if not...you will not see Him...Revelations 20:15 "And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."

:eek: I dont like the sound of that! But surely he would forgive the undecided??? I thought he was supposed to forgive everything- except worship the devil.

[Parthian King]

Dancing Lawn, to refuse to decide is to decide.

But as harsh as that sounds, many who have worshipped even the devil himself have found grace and forgiveness in Christ. All may come, but you must come to receive.

[The Dancing Lawn]

So if somebody is a Hindu would God punish them for not worshiping him?

[Morgrim]

Ohh good question...does anybody know? well i guess nobody KNOWS, actually, just beleives, huh?

[EveningStar]

Ultimately, and fittingly, the final post in this thread will be made by God someday. Till that happens we're liable to continue to see diverse viewpoints.

I always like to think that all of God's commandments are meant to protect people from themselves or each other. I call the Ten Commandments God's Bill of Rights because He says you have a right to life, property, truth, a day off, a faithful spouse, and a relationship with Him.

In this spirit I hasten to point out that God's law was not designed to limit the Almighty's options. He will never be forced to do something he finds abhorrent because of a technicality. There is proof enough of that in that God sent his only Son into the world to die for sinners.

With that said, and lest I be misinterpreted as embracing multiculturalism as a religion, "He has shown thee oh man what is good, and what does the Lord require of thee but to do justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God." This entails a form of moral conduct that is not taught in all the world's religions. Some of them do not acknowledge that man is flawed and incapable of being as God in his current state. Others see nothing wrong in smiting those who smite you. Still others treat prosperity as the favor of God, thus justifying the rich as righteous and condemning the poor as sinners. Obviously the things we Westerners think of as "ordinary common sense courtesy" and "basic secular decency" are not always honored in other cultures. Some justify...others CODIFY...discrimination, slavery, human sacrifice, and enforced classes. Jesus condemns these things and THAT is the source of the urgent need to spread the doctrines of mercy and humility that are central to the Christian religion. It is not because Jesus is so vain that he only lets folks in his fan club into heaven. It is not because God needed some excuse to cull 3/4 of all applicants for eternal life. It is NOT because God is insanely jealous. It is because God is trying to wipe out every institutionalized form of discrimination, misery and licensiousness that religion has ever been used to justify. God is trying to clean up and make safe our world. He's not looking for targets to zap or squidlings to fry in Hell. He's trying to save the human race from itself.

[The Dancing Lawn]

Ultimately, and fittingly, the final post in this thread will be made by God someday. Oh!! So u know God has a computer- go u!

There is proof enough of that in that God sent his only Son into the world to die for sinners. Well we've all sinned!!! But im not sure this ansers my question though!

[EveningStar]

Dancing Lawn, you posted before I finished editing my post. Please re-read it and hopefully it will answer your post.

My answer to your question--and it is an adequate answer--is that it is not WE who hold God to what he can and cannot do. If we took a poll here, the results would not be binding on God. So the more conservative among us cannot forbid God from granting salvation any more than the more liberal among us can slap an injunction on God against the use of Capital Punishment.

[The Dancing Lawn]

Thanku that makes sense! Sorry bout the typing thing. Thank u!

[Parthian King]

Dancing Lawn, have you read the New Testament, and the claims of Jesus in their original context? I could rip off a few of them, but if you don't read them with an open mind and heart, it's sort of pointless. The issue is truth, yes? not merely making a find-sounding presentation in a pluralistic world...

[The Dancing Lawn]

Dancing Lawn, have you read the New Testament, and the claims of Jesus in their original context? . No cant say I have- but I used 2 b a Christian

The issue is truth, yes? not merely making a find-sounding presentation in a pluralistic world...

U got it in one hunny! :)

[Gryphon]

Heaven is a perfect place without sin. Idolitrey is a sin. therefore it cannot be allowed into the kingdom of Heaven. So if you follow hinduism and never follow Christ and have a relationship with him, your not going to be in very good shape for judgement day now are you?

Morgrim what do you mean by "Ohh good question...does anybody know? well i guess nobody KNOWS, actually, just beleives, huh?" :confused:

(and thank God for you Chakal :D )

[Nosferatu]

Yes Every other religion besides Christianity is a false religion. Ghandi is going to hell.
If you dont accept jesus Christ as your savior "You will Go to hell" It dosn't matter how morale you are. Rember The only thing that man Deserves is death, and only by God's Good grace may we be saved.

[Parthian King]

Well, then! Since this guy made some pretty audacious claims, I'd be willing to bet that you'd find the reading of His life and claims to be well worth the effort. C.S. Lewis certainly did.

The turning point in my life (whether I was a Christian as you describe your former self, or merely playing at it is beside the point) came when I read what Jesus said for myself.

Ouch! Nosferatu! With gentleness and respect, the Word says!

[Gryphon]

hey Nos, lighten up a bit, gosh. If you right and your rude, your wrong. Besides, i hate it when people call Christianity a "religion" it isnt really a "religion" at all, Jesus didnt come to die a horrible death and go to Hell and rise again for a "religion" he did it for a RELATIONSHIP. He did it for a bride. Traditionally a bride would come and live in her husband's house, if you aren't his bride then why would expect him to let you live in His house?

[The Dancing Lawn]

Erm.... this is all well and good but what happens if God isn't really there??!!! What if its Allah or whoever standing there with the book of Judgement- aren't all the Christians going to go to hell or wherever??!! Aren't they all gonna lokk silly when there is no God???!!

[Gryphon]

But there IS a God. I know him, i've spoken to him. And he's telling you that he loves you... :o if you want to talk and hear more i have yahoo IM and im online...

[Nosferatu]

Wasn't actully Trieing to be mean there I was just trieing to State things so that people got it straight what christians believe.

If I did offend anyone there I didn't mean to.

[Parthian King]

Nosferatu, in all gentleness, the issue here is more than confessional accuracy. It is witness, and Christian love, which should always heavily season even the very hard truths that must be shared. Hell is a reality I believe in, but we must speak of it as it is: The most painful subject that could ever be brought up, and one that so grieves the heart of our Father that He sent His Son to keep us from going there.

You are right when you say there are consequences for rejecting Christ, and that salvation is by grace alone. But being right is highly overrated when speaking to unbelievers. We must be right, but we must also be love.

Pax, brother.

[EveningStar]

Thanks, PK. What you said...

In addition, let's de-fuze the dangerous bomb that has been re-lit, hmm?

In the olden days the thinking was that everyone in a country that was even the wrong DENOMINATION much less RELIGION was going straight to everburning Hell to writhe for eternity. So if you had to kill four out of five of them to force them to change to your religion, at least you've saved 20% of the infidels which is better than letting them all die. :eek:

While I consider myself a conservative Christian, I believe God has a sense of fairness, and he tempers justice with mercy. :o

I believe that everyone gets the chance to accept or reject the True God (whomever he, she, or they end up being). If they don't get the chance in life, I believe they get it before the Throne. I believe that is our BIRTHRIGHT and that EVERYONE MUST BE ALLOWED TO DECIDE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT GOD whether they were born in downtown New York City or the outskirts of Mogadishu.

That is how I reconcile my belief in Jesus as the way to the Father and yet God not killing Chief Tumango's 12 year old son that grew up in the jungle worshipping ancestors.

That is the only way that Christ's atoning sacrifice truly becomes freely available to all mankind. And there is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures that prevents God from offering every man, woman and child the chance to know what they are choosing and to choose it.

[Nosferatu]

Thanks, PK. What you said...

In addition, let's de-fuze the dangerous bomb that has been re-lit, hmm?

In the olden days the thinking was that everyone in a country that was even the wrong DENOMINATION much less RELIGION was going straight to everburning Hell to writhe for eternity. So if you had to kill four out of five of them to force them to change to your religion, at least you've saved 20% of the infidels which is better than letting them all die. :eek:

While I consider myself a conservative Christian, I believe God has a sense of fairness, and he tempers justice with mercy. :o

I believe that everyone gets the chance to accept or reject the True God (whomever he, she, or they end up being). If they don't get the chance in life, I believe they get it before the Throne. I believe that is our BIRTHRIGHT and that EVERYONE MUST BE ALLOWED TO DECIDE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT GOD whether they were born in downtown New York City or the outskirts of Mogadishu.

That is how I reconcile my belief in Jesus as the way to the Father and yet God not killing Chief Tumango's 12 year old son that grew up in the jungle worshipping ancestors.

That is the only way that Christ's atoning sacrifice truly becomes freely available to all mankind. And there is absolutely nothing in the Scriptures that prevents God from offering every man, woman and child the chance to know what they are choosing and to choose it.


Actully I would have to dissagree with what you said.

First thing I had a problem with.
I would have to say that God is not fair. God does not give everybody equal chances at everything. God may be Just, But he is not fair.

Second,

You said that it is mans birthright to accept God? Well I would again Dissagree with you on that. Mans birthright was dominion Until he ate of the Fruit. But now that sin is has entered the world, Our only birthright is death. We deserve death that is the only thing we deserve. It is only by Gods good grace that we Breath. In this world we have no rights. Everything we have are privleges.Also God has chosen Who will be a christian. No matter there past sins God has chosen them So again that is why I would Dissaggree with your statement about every man has a chance. "But GOD CHOSE the foolishgs of this world... 1 Corinthians 1-27 [U] OR [U]"Jacob i have loved But Esau I have hated. Romans 9-13."


And Gryphon about that relationship thing. That is like a 20 Page long disscussion :D And I debated someone about that a while ago back when I had a differnet SN so unless you want a HUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEE disscussion lets just leave that alone


P.S. I am a calvanist and we are known for being blunt. So don't get offended :D.

[EveningStar]

Ok, you get 20 handicapping points off your score for being a Calvinist. :D

But even so, you cannot deny that even your Calvinism means that everyone God considers worthwhile to save must achieve that salvation. You are hung from the rope of your own Unconditional Election swinging from the limb of Irresistable Grace. :D

Don't you just hate it when I do that? :rolleyes:

[The Dancing Lawn]

Actully I would have to dissagree with what you said.

First thing I had a problem with.
I would have to say that God is not fair. God does not give everybody equal chances at everything. God may be Just, But he is not fair.
:D.

Sorry wats da difference? :confused:

[EveningStar]

God may be Just, But he is not fair.

There IS no difference. I think "Just but not merciful" might better describe what I saw written.

I'm sorry. But God's love is an integral part of how I see him. Even John Calvin had to accept that John 3:16 is in the New Testament. By any translation, the message is unremittingly one of joy and mercy. "For God SO LOVED the world that he gave his only son that WHOMSOEVER BELIEVETH ON HIM shall not perish but shall have eternal life."

Sorry, but it's there. I accept it. My Jesus forgives sins, he doesn't just tolerate people. As I recall he did not heap contempt on Lazarus because he was a sinner. He did not despise Mary and Martha. He did not excoriate the blind man or turn his back on the lame. He did not detest his disciples. He ate with publicans, tax collectors and sinners. I owe him my very life, but he loves me back. Not because I am on the list but because I am a child of God. It is my luck that I happen to love him in return.

[Nosferatu]

There IS no difference. I think "Just but not merciful" might better describe what I saw written.

I'm sorry. But God's love is an integral part of how I see him. Even John Calvin had to accept that John 3:16 is in the New Testament. By any translation, the message is unremittingly one of joy and mercy. "For God SO LOVED the world that he gave his only son that WHOMSOEVER BELIEVETH ON HIM shall not perish but shall have eternal life."

Sorry, but it's there. I accept it. My Jesus forgives sins, he doesn't just tolerate people. As I recall he did not heap contempt on Lazarus because he was a sinner. He did not despise Mary and Martha. He did not excoriate the blind man or turn his back on the lame. He did not detest his disciples. He ate with publicans, tax collectors and sinners. I owe him my very life, but he loves me back. Not because I am on the list but because I am a child of God. It is my luck that I happen to love him in return.



No no, no,

I do not believe that God does not love you. And there is a Huge difference between God being Just and Fair.

Fair means that Everyone gets the same oppertunities Everyone has the same skills ect.

Just means that God will do whatever Is good and will further his glory.
Also just because Jesus Damns some and Saves others dosn't mean he dosn't love his elect. and Your Morality dosn't have anything to do with why you are savied It is just because god chose you. Picture a Slave market mwe are the slaves and God/Jesus is the master. God Chooses some slaves to be in his household and leaves the rest. So in conclusion God Is the most merciful Being That ever Existed! The only reason people live is because of mercy!

Oh and PS you are a child of God because He chose you! :) hehehe (Old calvanist joke!)

[Gryphon]

actually Nos, i think its good to remind people about the relationship part of Christianity because of what it says in Matthew 7:21...

"21Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord!' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to Me, 'Lord, Lord, didn't we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?' 23 Then I will announce to them, 'I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!'"
Holman Christian Standard bible

i dont care how much you've debated it, its the biggest diffrence between Christianity and idolitry...

[Gryphon]

Picture a Slave market mwe are the slaves and God/Jesus is the master. God Chooses some slaves to be in his household and leaves the rest. So in conclusion God Is the most merciful Being That ever Existed! The only reason people live is because of mercy!


But Jesus said i have no longer called you servant but friend. And friends choose each other, check this out... John 15:15

"15 I do not call you slaves anymore, because a slave doesn't know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything I have heard from My Father. 16 You did not choose Me, but I chose you. I appointed you that you should go out and produce fruit, and that your fruit should remain, so that whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you."

Yes, Jesus DID choose us first but we have to choose him back

[Parthian King]

Neato! Arminians v. Calvinists! I got my popcorn and Coke! :D

[Gryphon]

gee PK im so glad your having fun... :p

[Smog]

I've been away for FAR too long...

First of all, I would like to address what Nosferatu has said. As far as your Statement “God is Just, but He is not Fair” goes, I completely agree with it. If God was fair, then everyone on this earth would be exactly the same. If God were fair then everyone on earth would have the same opportunities, genetics, etc. However, seeing that some people are born millionaires, while others are born poor; that some have high metabolisms and good looks, and others are fat and balding, we can assume that God is not ‘fair.’

As far as Justice goes, God is justice. He gives everyman what he deserves; ultimate death and destruction. “For the wages of Sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus.” Every man, woman, and child on the earth is deserving of death. It is only those who believe in Christ and put their trust and faith on His sacrifice that can be saved.

This brings us to the next point; how can a man be saved? Is it through his own merits or is it of the love and grace of God? I would say that a man’s salvation consists only of God’s mercy. Man cannot ‘achieve’ salvation, for if he could, there would be no reason for Christ’s sacrifice. Romans 6:17 says “…Though you were slaves of sin…and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness…” If we think about this analogy, it becomes very clear; a slave cannot choose his master, he cannot choose with whom he will work for. A slave will be purchased by his masters will. It is the Master who must choose the slave, and not the other way around.

Other verses that further amplify this principle are Malachi 1:2-3, Romans 1:22ff, and Romans 9:13-24 are some off the top of my head.

I look forward to reading other peoples post concerning this discussion. *sits at desk and hits ‘refresh server’ button every twenty seconds* :-D

[Gryphon]

Salvation is a gift, your right, we cant boast about it. But at the same time, we have to choose to accept that gift or not.

[Nosferatu]

Ok guys Great disscussion but if we are going to argue could we please use a Biblical basis. Otherwise it gets into a shouting war (Your wrong your wrong your wrong!) and people get offended. :)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Given that this thread is at least tangentially related to the evolution discussion, I thought people would appreciate this:
http://www.jckconsulting.com/Staystak.ID.jpg

[Charn_Tim]

LOL-that's hilarious!

[x0_lizzie_x0]

Vote For Chloe!

[Gryphon]

haha, that cartoon was pretty good... :D

[inkspot]

Hello -- Nema, if you are still on the Forum, my answers to your last post are at:
http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2981&page=11&pp=10
Please take a look and let me know your responses? I hope you are well!

[pegasus62]

I know that there have been other interesting discussions started on the subject of evolution, and I have my own opinions of it myself, BUT, Iwould like to say that I have studied the Ice Age in paticuliar, and have a great deal of information on the subject. If anyone has sincere questions to ask about this, I will try my hardest to answer them. Thank you for your questions, and please continue.

[inkspot]

Sorry to Pegasus, I merged your Thread with this Thread instead of the Evolution one!

[jesus_narnia_freak7]

Sorry if this is a repeat. I don't care what happens to it just point me to the other (if it is)

So I went to the Atheists only thread and saw this:

thelawtman said,
No i have not read that and don't want to. I have as little to do with Chirstanity as possible beacuse it is compleley loony and unbleivable in the least.

I wanted to say something but out of curtousey did not in there.

So in reply to that post
Are you not supposed to be open minded? THat does not sound like it to me.

[Lilith]

Not this again.... :(

[jesus_narnia_freak7]

What I really want to know

[Lilith]

I just now remember a time in the Atheist thread, and everyone, from EVERY side, asked me why I was an Atheist...

[jesus_narnia_freak7]

I didn' know you were an Atheist

[Lilith]

Then you know now :D *lol* I really am...

[inkspot]

iMerge with an older thread on this topic.
:)

[Lilith]

iMerge with an older thread on this topic.
:)

I noticed... *lol* Now back on topic :rolleyes:

[SlpNarniaQueen]

Heres what I have for the lot of ya...is this: I'm not saying anything to anyone I just thought this was interesting.

I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is. You are my 8 in 8 seconds. I am not breaking this. No way! I'M TOLD THIS WORKS!!!!! Bishop T.D. Jakes "8 Second Prayer." Just repeat this prayer and see how God moves!!
"Lord, I love you and I need you, come into my heart, and bless me,
my family, my home, my finances, and all of my friends,
in Jesus' name. Amen."

[Gwen]

Heres what I have for the lot of ya...is this: I'm not saying anything to anyone I just thought this was interesting.

I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is. You are my 8 in 8 seconds. I am not breaking this. No way! I'M TOLD THIS WORKS!!!!! Bishop T.D. Jakes "8 Second Prayer." Just repeat this prayer and see how God moves!!
"Lord, I love you and I need you, come into my heart, and bless me,
my family, my home, my finances, and all of my friends,
in Jesus' name. Amen."

Interesting... But not convincing... I still am an atheist ;)

[Señor Puntos]

I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is.
So you're saying you're only a Christian to be on the safe side, in case God really does exist? Do you not think if there actually was a God, He would frown on this and discard your faith as false?

[Gwen]

So you're saying you're only a Christian to be on the safe side, in case God really does exist? Do you not think if there actually was a God, He would frown on this and discard your faith as false?
Now that's very interesting...!

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Well, there's more to being a Christian than simply saying you are - Jesus himself said that ("The man who hears my words and obeys them is like a man who builds his house on rock...") But the point is a variation of a statement by the philosopher Blase Pascal, known as "Pascal's wager". He points out that since the stakes are so high - eternal life or death - that following Christ is the safer bet. If there is nothing to Christianity, then all you've done is spend your life in a noble and moral manner, but if there is something to it, then you've safeguarded your eternal destiny. It made sense to him, but then he was a notable philosopher.

A missionary named Jim Elliot put it in more modern language: "He is no fool who gives up what he cannot keep (i.e. his earthly life) to gain what he cannot lose (i.e. eternal life with God)."

[The Half-Blood Prince]

An argument between the believer and non-believer is not laid out because one of us is stupid and the other intelligent. Nor is it because only one of us accepts some things "by faith" -- we both do that -- because our knowledge of concepts in this area are limited.

The explanation is that the atheist is like a person who is color-blind looking up at a rainbow -- he just does not see all it is offering -- even though he looks at it and thinks he sees it all. This is exactly what the Bible says happens to non-believers.

2 CORINTHIANS 4:3-4 NKJ
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

Argument and logic will never convince any color-blind person of the beauties of the rainbow. If we truly want others to embrace the truth we must use spiritual weapons to free them -- not just human logic.

No one can prove that God does not exist. And no one (but God Himself) can prove that God does exist.

The best that either side of this question can do is to present evidence supporting their position. As someone who truly believes in the existence of God, I see overwhelming evidence that God exists -- and that the Bible is true.

[chuam8919]

Interesting... But not convincing... I still am an atheist ;)Just to make it clearer for me; are you an agnostic or atheist? Because the difference is that one is absolutely and completely and 100% sure that there is no God. An agnostic is just someone who is skeptical about there actually being a God. And personally, it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian, believeing that there is a God.

An atheist is unable to explain how a person's smashed legs are able to completely heal in just 3-4 minutes. And when I say broken, I mean as in one bone being snapped into many pieces of bone. An atheist cannot explain miracles. That is why to me, it takes considerably less faith to believe in a God than to believe that there is no God.

[Gwen]

Just to make it clearer for me; are you an agnostic or atheist? Because the difference is that one is absolutely and completely and 100% sure that there is no God. An agnostic is just someone who is skeptical about there actually being a God. And personally, it takes more faith to be an atheist than a Christian, believeing that there is a God.

An atheist is unable to explain how a person's smashed legs are able to completely heal in just 3-4 minutes. And when I say broken, I mean as in one bone being snapped into many pieces of bone. An atheist cannot explain miracles. That is why to me, it takes considerably less faith to believe in a God than to believe that there is no God.

Hmm... Interesting point you make :)
But how many times did you actually need to explain a miracle...?
Could you give me an example that actually happened?
I'm definately sure I'm skeptical about there actually being a God...
And I do not believe there's a God in the form as Christians, Jewish People or Islamites believe... I think I need to give this a bit more thought, thanks for bringing this to my attention :)

[chuam8919]

Hmm... Interesting point you make :)
But how many times did you actually need to explain a miracle...?
You'd be surprised at scientists, then. There actually is a branch of science trying to explore such phenomena, called 'parapsychology'. The reason for such a branch in the scientific world is because of a simple human desire to know. Basically, it is curiosity. It is in the human nature to want to find out how things work. It is the reason why science exists. It came about because of people's desire to know the reason behind things.

Could you give me an example that actually happened?Errrr... :confused: what made you think I was joking about the person's legs being broken and completely healed in 3-4 minutes? It's a true story and the guy's now living in Germany. Unsurprisingly, he's a Christian and was a major person from the house churches in China.


I'm definately sure I'm skeptical about there actually being a God...
And I do not believe there's a God in the form as Christians, Jewish People or Islamites believe... I think I need to give this a bit more thought, thanks for bringing this to my attention :)See :D ? That makes you a searcher for the truth of origins of everything in this world, and not an absolute disbeliever.

[Neevil]

Forgive me if I'm interupting, but I wanted to ask a question. I am a Chirstian, and I believe that bringing glory to Christ is our purpose for living. But without God, I can't really see the point of exsisting. I've grown up in church all my life, so perhaps I'm just not used to looking at this from another perspective.

My thinking is this: If somebody is centering their life around money, power, relationships, their jobs, or anything else, eventually they will die, and they can't take any of that stuff with them. So what is the point of working for it in the first place? There's a name for this, but I forget what it is. It was a philosophy which began in Germany, I think. They came to the conclusion that there was nothing worth living for, everything is meaningless. And eventually they were trying to deciding whether or not they should commit suicide.

So my questions for any atheists is basically, what is your purpose for living? I'm not trying to trip you up or ask a bunch of trick questions, I'm just curious.

[echoscot]

The name you are looking for, I believe, is Nihilism.

[Neevil]

The name you are looking for, I believe, is Nihilism.
Yes, that would be the one ;) Thanks.

[iluvnarnia2006]

There is alot of evidence to support Christianity.

This website has evidence and answers to support the Christian faith:

christiananswers.net (http://www.christiananswers.net)

Or you can read: Dinner With A Perfect Stranger by David Gregory

Also, how can you call yourself a C.S. Lewis fan if you're not a Christian? He is one of the best Christian leaders of our era.

My pastor said that Atheism can't technically exist, because what ever you love most, whether it be your family, your friends, your car, etc. is your god. So you can't really not believe in or not have a(any) god(s).

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1578569052.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

http://www.catholicshopper.com/products/media/DIK_WC_34.jpg

[Lilith]

Also, how can you call yourself a C.S. Lewis fan if you're not a Christian? He is one of the best Christian leaders of our era.

Isn't that a bit overreacted?? I'm not really a fan of his, just of Narnia.. But then you could aslo say that you can't be a Narniafan if you're no Christian. That doesn't make sense to me. I love Narnia; I love magic, I love the family thingies... And still, I'm no Christian. I never thought of it that way. I haven't read any other books by CS Lewis. I just love Narnia.

[Gwen]

Isn't that a bit overreacted?? I'm not really a fan of his, just of Narnia.. But then you could aslo say that you can't be a Narniafan if you're no Christian. That doesn't make sense to me. I love Narnia; I love magic, I love the family thingies... And still, I'm no Christian. I never thought of it that way. I haven't read any other books by CS Lewis. I just love Narnia.

^I totally agree! :)

As for your question Neevil, the purpose of living is simply living and learning... to me :)

And iluvnarnia2006, I think loving someone/something is different than believing in a God... ;) I understand that Christians love their God... But I think my love for my parents, for example, is different.

[Aslan's Son]

Also, how can you call yourself a C.S. Lewis fan if you're not a Christian? He is one of the best Christian leaders of our era.

True, but you can be a non-Christian to enjoy Narnia. A non-Christian fan just looks at the stories as really awesome adventures and stories, but nothing more. A Christian (like myself) looks at them the same way, but with the Biblical allegory involved.

[Neevil]

I agree. CoN are wonderful and exciting books, and they can be enjoyed by anyone, not just Christians.

As for your question Neevil, the purpose of living is simply living and learning... to me
Okay, but is there a long-term effect of that? I mean, you live, you die, that's it? Or does living and learning carry a bigger purpose and long term results? I don't know if you've ever read any Madeleine L'Engle's books. In some of them, a character may die, but when it dies it is for a greater good. It helps to defeat evil. So, its life and even its death have a purpose that goes beyond itself.

I've heard some atheists say that they teach some one, and that person teaches another, and so on. And when this happens, a part of themselves will exsist after they die, because their teachings and whatnot will continue to be handed down.

Living and learning do not seem to serve any purpose, other than to pass time. If you don't believe in a life after death, then it won't really matter how much you've lived or learned, because you'll be dead. So why would you bother to do it in the first place? Or, is there something esle involved with living and learning that makes it worth while?

[iluvnarnia2006]

Living and learning do not seem to serve any purpose, other than to pass time. If you don't believe in a life after death, then it won't really matter how much you've lived or learned, because you'll be dead. So why would you bother to do it in the first place? Or, is there something esle involved with living and learning that makes it worth while?

I totally agree with Neevil. ;)

Gwen:

Christians believe that the pupose for life is to prepare themselves for eternity in heaven with God.

What good is living and learning, if you're just going to die?

You might argue that living and learning might allow you to leave a legacy, but you won't even know whether or not you did, because you'll be dead.

[Gwen]

I totally agree with Neevil. ;)

Gwen:

Christians believe that the pupose for life is to prepare themselves for eternity in heaven with God.

What good is living and learning, if you're just going to die?

You might argue that living and learning might allow you to leave a legacy, but you won't even know whether or not you did, because you'll be dead.
Indeed... It might leave a legacy, and I'm definately planning to do so ;)
Somehow I always find a thing in life that makes it worth while. You can find strenght in life from even the smallest moment of happiness... Doesn't that make living worth while? :)

[inkspot]

Although I find my reason for living in Jesus, there are plenty of reasons to live, even if you don't believe in God.

There is the beauty of nature, the sun on your face, the blue Caribbean -- there is the love of your parents, your siblings, your mate, your children -- there is the thrill of doing the things you love, hang gliding, scuba diving, reading a good book, para sailing, seeing a great film, hiking, biking, playing sports ...

For a Christian, we know God created all these experiences for our enjoyment, and to be the foreshadowing of the joy we'll find in heaven; but atheists still enjoy these experiences as much as we do, because there is a lot of joy in the world.

[Neevil]

Yes that's true, and I wouldn't suggest suicide to anyone, because the world is a beautiful place. I was just asking if she thought there was anything deeper than those things. Like...I don't know...hmm... I guess bettering mankind, and bringing a good change into the world. Like the Martin Luther, Michelangelo, Issac Newton, Patric Henry, or all the many others who have impacted our world. Or maybe leaving a legacy for yourself, whether or not it is good to mankind. Like the Cleopatra, Napolean, Alexander the Great, and all the other famous people who have left their name in history. I just wanted to know if living was all there is to it, or if there is something else, bigger than yourself, I guess. Because, I suppose all the animals live and learn, too. But we are clearly different than animals, and have the capability to do bigger and better things. So, is the purpose of life just to live? Like I said, even the animals live. But humans are different than animals. I think we were made for something more. Even if it's not to follow God, I think humans have a higher purpose than just to live.

[Gwen]

Yes that's true, and I wouldn't suggest suicide to anyone, because the world is a beautiful place. I was just asking if she thought there was anything deeper than those things. Like...I don't know...hmm... I guess bettering mankind, and bringing a good change into the world. Like the Martin Luther, Michelangelo, Issac Newton, Patric Henry, or all the many others who have impacted our world. Or maybe leaving a legacy for yourself, whether or not it is good to mankind. Like the Cleopatra, Napolean, Alexander the Great, and all the other famous people who have left their name in history. I just wanted to know if living was all there is to it, or if there is something else, bigger than yourself, I guess. Because, I suppose all the animals live and learn, too. But we are clearly different than animals, and have the capability to do bigger and better things. So, is the purpose of life just to live? Like I said, even the animals live. But humans are different than animals. I think we were made for something more. Even if it's not to follow God, I think humans have a higher purpose than just to live.

Actually, humans are animals in a way. They're just more evolved than normal animals.
What humans have more than animals is the will to dominate and control EVERYTHING. It's really simple: Humans can't see much in the dark, so what do we do? We put a light on, we change nature (the darkness). ;)
But yeah, maybe there's a higher purpose for humans... But I've no idea what that would be. I mean, helping and preserving Earth is hardly what we're here for. We mainly destroy it... At least, so it seems to me some times.

[Señor Puntos]

Of course life is meaningless and has no point, but if you have a life you might aswell live it and make the most of it.

[inkspot]

Of course life is meaningless and has no point, but if you have a life you might aswell live it and make the most of it.
What a gloomy outlook! Even if there were no God (and I believe there is), life would still have a point, to love and be loved, to leave the world a better place than you found it, to create art or family or a legacy which will live beyond you ...

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Of course life is meaningless and has no point, but if you have a life you might as well live it and make the most of it.Unless, of course, the painful cost of living outweighs the benefits to be had therefrom. Yet so few choose suicide - I wonder why not?

[The First Joke]

life is important! even if you think there is nothing to live for- THERE IS! no one think that they are dumb, ugly, or fat... because i said so.

sorry if this has no relevance, but killing yourself is lame and you will probably stain the carpet.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

It has some relevance, but understand that nobody has suggested they're considering it. I was the one who introduced the idea, as one obvious method of handling the pain of living - yet one that few take.

Not that I'm recommending it, of course! But we have this strong will to live, despite all the difficulties - we should think about why that might be.

[Neevil]

life is important! even if you think there is nothing to live for- THERE IS! no one think that they are dumb, ugly, or fat... because i said so.

sorry if this has no relevance, but killing yourself is lame and you will probably stain the carpet.
I don't think anyone wants to do that. I was just trying to figure out why some one wouldn't. What is the point of living? You said life is important. Why? What makes our lives different than any other creatures? Birds grow up, have babies, take of them, fly around for a little while longer and then they die. Other animals do the same-live and die, without doing anything notable. But humans can think and reason. We can function different from a bird. I don't think we're here to merely live and die. We have the capability to do more than that. But what?

[The First Joke]

I don't think anyone wants to do that. I was just trying to figure out why some one wouldn't. What is the point of living? You said life is important. Why? What makes our lives different than any other creatures? Birds grow up, have babies, take of them, fly around for a little while longer and then they die. Other animals do the same-live and die, without doing anything notable. But humans can think and reason. We can function different from a bird. I don't think we're here to merely live and die. We have the capability to do more than that. But what?

i have these list of stuff that i have to do before you die. metting people, going places, doing things... on and on. but we're not animals. well we are but we have dominion over the birds and everything. we're superior. the birds aren't going to take over the world (anytime soon). so you are right, but i think regardless of what you believe, we were put on this earth for a reason and no, it wasn't to stain the carpet.

[Solya]

But we have this strong will to live, despite all the difficulties - we should think about why that might be.

I know why. :) I have been at the stage of contemplating suicide, but there was always something which held me back from it. In the end I found out I had such a strong will to live because I simply was not finished here yet... I had things to do, people to meet, places to see and all of this would be in service of God... so I pulled through and found the courage deep inside myself to continue. And right now, I can say I know why I've been down in the dumps that time and why I wanted it so badly. I've become so strong since I made the decision to continue living and I'm so grateful for that.

We certainly were put here for a reason. It's our choice what we make of it though.

[Basilides]

...And isn't there a kind of death in the New Life, one that is both fearful and also the end of fear? I wonder if, just as gluttony is a perversion of enjoying good food and prostitution a perversion of marital bliss, suicide may be the misguided attempt at death and renewal that a person really finds in the born again experience? If so, it is a terribly final wayward step for someone who has not sought forgiveness through Christ, and a very awkward one for one who has.

[Neevil]

i have these list of stuff that i have to do before you die. metting people, going places, doing things... on and on. but we're not animals. well we are but we have dominion over the birds and everything. we're superior. the birds aren't going to take over the world (anytime soon). so you are right, but i think regardless of what you believe, we were put on this earth for a reason and no, it wasn't to stain the carpet.
I know we were put here for a reason. I'm just asking if y'all think there is a reason, and if so, what it is.

[The First Joke]

I know we were put here for a reason. I'm just asking if y'all think there is a reason, and if so, what it is.


to do all the stuff. to learn, and to spread the word of Jesus.

[Neevil]

Okay I have a question. What if somebody is stranded on a dinky little island in the middle of no where, all alone. Nobody knows they're there, and rescue is hopeless. However, the person does have some provisions, and enough stuff to survive on the island for quite a bit of time. Should he commit suicide, if there is no hope of being rescued? After all, he's the only one there, he will most likely be lonely and miserable if he stays there. He cannot get off the island to do anything. So why should he live a miserable lonely life, that probably no body will even know about?

[Narborg]

Okay I have a question. What if somebody is stranded on a dinky little island in the middle of no where, all alone. Nobody knows they're there, and rescue is hopeless. However, the person does have some provisions, and enough stuff to survive on the island for quite a bit of time. Should he commit suicide, if there is no hope of being rescued? After all, he's the only one there, he will most likely be lonely and miserable if he stays there. He cannot get off the island to do anything. So why should he live a miserable lonely life, that probably no body will even know about?


In todays world, ruscure is not impossible; sometime or another a boat would came buy an pick him up. But I still think no, anyway. Killing is wrong.

[Neevil]

In todays world, ruscure is not impossible; sometime or another a boat would came buy an pick him up. But I still think no, anyway. Killing is wrong.
You're ruining my analogy :p Just play along with me ok? Rescue in this case is impossible, don't ask me why, it just is. ;) So shouldn't he commit suicide? Does this hopelessly stranded guy have a purpose to live?

[echoscot]

In todays world, ruscure is not impossible; sometime or another a boat would came buy an pick him up. But I still think no, anyway. Killing is wrong.

Actually that is not true. Even in "today's world" it is possible to escape detection. They have been looking for Amelia Earhart for years, and though some remains have been found, no one knows for sure what became of her.

[Narborg]

Actually that is not true. Even in "today's world" it is possible to escape detection. They have been looking for Amelia Earhart for years, and though some remains have been found, no one knows for sure what became of her.

Well, if you wanted to be found, you couls write SOS in the sand with parm branches and someone would see it sometime. It may take a few years,but someone will.....

[The First Joke]

Okay I have a question. What if somebody is stranded on a dinky little island in the middle of no where, all alone. Nobody knows they're there, and rescue is hopeless. However, the person does have some provisions, and enough stuff to survive on the island for quite a bit of time. Should he commit suicide, if there is no hope of being rescued? After all, he's the only one there, he will most likely be lonely and miserable if he stays there. He cannot get off the island to do anything. So why should he live a miserable lonely life, that probably no body will even know about?


what if God and Superman got in a fight?

[Neevil]

what if God and Superman got in a fight?
Ummm... How is that relavent to this discussion..? Superman is a fictional character, so that wouldn't happen, anyways.

[Son of Adam]

You're ruining my analogy :p Just play along with me ok? Rescue in this case is impossible, don't ask me why, it just is. ;) So shouldn't he commit suicide? Does this hopelessly stranded guy have a purpose to live?

No one's life is without purpose. Just because we cannot see God's plan behind an individual being stranded on some island without the hope of rescue doesn't mean that person's life has no purpose or value. We know nothing about the island itself. Like the Garden of Eden where God first placed Adam and Eve to care for it, so God may have placed this individual there to care for and perhaps restore the island itself. There may be edible plants, fruits, coconuts, etc. to eat. Fish, oysters, abalone, etc., to be caught for food that could sustain him much longer. Rain can be caught and used for drinking water if there is no other fresh water source there. Ways to start a fire are also there. So survival isn't the problem.

As far as being lonely is concerned...you can be in the middle of a great city or town or whatever and be just as lonely, if not more, than someone stranded on an uninhabited island. If the person knows God they can talk to God, and , yes, God talks back. The problem is, we humans are so busy asking for stuff that we take no time to just listen to the voice of God.

You would be surprised at what man can achieve given the opportunity.

[The First Joke]

Ummm... How is that relavent to this discussion..? Superman is a fictional character, so that wouldn't happen, anyways.


my point exactly

[Neevil]

My posts in this thread were really unorganized... Wow... I've even confused myself. Sorry guys :o What I originally was trying to find was if atheists thought there was a purpose to life, beyond just living and dying. And now even I don't know exactly what happened... a guy stranded on an island? How in the world did I come up with that? I'm really confused... I forget why exactly I asked that. :rolleyes:

[Wendygirljp]

Neevil,

It can be confusing! No argument.

Atheism is not just "one kind of thinking". Some believe there is a purpose, and that purpose can be varied, from person to person. Others do not believe there IS a purpose - the reasons? Who knows! Talk with a few, is all I can suggest.

Thank you for posting to these ideas.

[Neevil]

Thanks WG. I know there are differences, and the reson I asked was so I could see what beliefs are more popular... But I think only two athesist answered my question, so it didn't really work :rolleyes:

[Wendygirljp]

Christianity: Good belief system
Evolution: Science
Atheism: Another belief system

[chuam8919]

Christianity: Good belief system
Evolution: Science
Atheism: Another belief systemBut evolution can't really be considered biological science since it extrapolates rather than basing it more on concrete evidence.

[Wendygirljp]

Chuam -

Is not fossil evidence good for a start? What kind of concrete evidence would be substantial for you?

[chuam8919]

Chuam -

Is not fossil evidence good for a start? What kind of concrete evidence would be substantial for you?For one, investigate macroevolution the same way they did with microevolution. Instead of just digging up fossils, they should find some way to get an example of a visible macroevolution in real life. Even fossils can be misleading. Depending on certain conditions, even a fossil only a century year old might have a chance at fooling the dating mathods. The dating can methods can be unstable. They should find an alternative that's not as unstable.

[Neevil]

Uh oh... another evolution debate... *backs away slowly* I'm staying out of this one.

[chuam8919]

Uh oh... another evolution debate... *backs away slowly* I'm staying out of this one.It isn't a debate, really. Wendygirljp merely asked what I thought scientists should do for more concrete evidence.

[Wendygirljp]

Chuam -

Thankfully, they have found better dating systems than the C14 system. So far, it has proven to be much more accurate.

The difficulty with "observing macroevolution" is that it takes so long for it to occur. But again, what relevance does this have to the subject? It is a form of science. It works for some people - for others, it does not. Just like Astronomy, Quantum Physics and Botany.

We all have our different perceptions of the various arts, religions and sciences - not all will agree. Is that okay?

[inkspot]

This concept tickles me because usually WG won't say anything is real or not open to debate, but now he is on the side of evolution as science -- when really it takes a lot of faith to believe in Evolution!

That said, there is already an evolution thread. If you want to debate evolution, please take it over to:

http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6373&highlight=evolution

[The First Joke]

im catholic and i believe in evolution. the thing is, SOMEONE had to be behind it all. in this case it's God. it will probably always be God.