Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
Apologetics 101: What would you do?
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Guillermo
(new)
May 21, 2013 08:27PM
I've met some believers who are evolutionary theists, who consider the early stories in the Bible to be allegories. They were simply stories meant to teach a theological idea. Personally, I find that idea to be much more tenable.
reply
|
flag
Guillermo, I understand. I am saying it is good to me, but because I recognize it isn't good for the general public, I am fighting bringing it up out loud.
Actually, I don't care about them. Lee and I agree on one thing, Faith won't be arrived at through logic. As a man of action (those of you who talk an idea to death, wouldn't recognize one of these), I physically search for people who appear to be in severe pain from some self-inflicted causation. Those I try to impute the Good News to (mostly just get a good dosage of persecution, but maybe someday they'll take some positive steps toward salvation).
I'm guessing Robert's argument is that evil proves the truth of the Bible (we're all sinners) so that proves God exists?Pavlo, many Christians (conservative as well as liberal) believe evolution and read the story of Adam and Eve as true but non-literal. One day God breathed the breath of life into his creation, and in that day "man" (with a soul) was formed.
Actually Lee, I have a long, reasoned proof for God that is scientific/philosophical in my upcoming book. When it hits the bookshelves late October, you should read it.
Clark wrote: "You are involved with a Bible study group that meets in a local coffee shop every Tuesday evening. On one particular Tuesday a group member brings a friend we'll call Joey. Joey shares that he doesn't believe Christ ever existed and was merely fabricated by early Christians to support their religious movement. How do you respond? "I would talk about the secular people in the time of the early Christians who talk about the life and death of Christ, giving powerful witness to the fact that Jesus is not some one made up.
For example, Titus Flavius Josephus (37 – c. 100), and Publius (or Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus (AD 56 – 117).
These people weren't Christians, so they would have no merit in writing about an imaginary guy.
Furthermore, I would talk about the apostles. You have to remember, in the early Church, Christianty wasn't cool. In fact, in many places, it meant persecution and even death. All the apostles except John were killed and all were beaten and persecuted for preaching about Jesus. Dude, who gives up their life, suffers, for some imaginary creation? NO one.
Guillermo wrote: "I've met some believers who are evolutionary theists, who consider the early stories in the Bible to be allegories. They were simply stories meant to teach a theological idea. Personally, I find th..."Hi Guillermo! I didn't know you were in this group.
I think allegories are a possibility. But I don't think it's the only possibility.
Robert wrote: "Actually Lee, I have a long, reasoned proof for God that is scientific/philosophical in my upcoming book. When it hits the bookshelves late October, you should read it."I would be happy to review it, Robert. Forward an early copy if you would like an early review.
Bryn, discussing the apostles' martyrdom opens a can of worms, since critical scholars recognize the difficulty in separating fact from tradition in stories about the apostles.
Lee wrote: "Bryn, discussing the apostles' martyrdom opens a can of worms, since critical scholars recognize the difficulty in separating fact from tradition in stories about the apostles."True, but thousands died for the faith. Why would thousands be fed to lions, beheaded, burned, etc. rather than denounce an imaginary guy? You can't deny all of the Christian martyrs. It's a fact they died in great numbers.
Scenario: You meet someone who says they don't believe in God because of all the suffering in the world. I would be open to a variety of answers, depending on who the person is. Are we drinking coffee and having a long conversation at Starbucks?
I agree this is the most challenging issue; it is the one that causes me to doubt the most. I may share some of the traditional arguments - free will, natural law, soul-making. I find each of these helpful, to an extent. Free will - if someone gets drunk and kills someone, that is not God's fault. Natural law - if I like a good steak I need fire, the same fire could burn me. Soul-making - a bit of pain is necessary to grow into a virtuous person, just like physical pain is needed to get in shape.
I find such arguments helpful, but not ultimately convincing. They explain some suffering, not all of it.
I would also argue that simply rejecting God does not solve the problem. If there is no God, who says suffering is "bad" or "ought not" happen to begin with? Where does our horror or dissatisfaction come from? In a godless world, suffering and evil are ultimately just meaningless. I suppose that could be the case, we could live in a meaningless world. But on an emotive level, deep down, I think we resist that.
In the end, I'd offer Jesus. As a Christian, I believe in a God who did not stay far off and observe our suffering. I believe in a God who came near - God has experienced suffering with and for us. Where is God in the suffering? God is right there. God suffers in Jesus. Not only does God know what its like (because that is only a partial answers too), but there is the hope that one day there will be no more suffering or evil.
So really, you are left with two choices:
1. There is no god - life is ultimately meaningless (though many create meaning, but such creations I find unsatisfactory). Suffering happens and there is really very little you can do about it.
2. There is a god who has suffered with us and for us and promises that one day there will be no more suffering and evil. Admittedly, this does not answer why GOd does not speed up ending that suffering, it does not focus on the "why". It more focuses on what God is doing.
I'd end, hopefully not too sarcastically, by asking what the person is doing to end suffering? If it so concerns you, get out there and work to end it. As a Christian I feel I am called to, as the Lord's Prayer says, work for God's kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. I feel my duty is more to help ease the suffering around me than explain the specifics of why.
Bryn wrote: "True, but thousands died for the faith. Why would thousands be fed to lions, beheaded, burned, etc. rather than denounce an imaginary guy? You can't deny all of the Christian martyrs. It's a fact they died in great numbers."Hey Bryn! Yeah, I joined not that long ago. I'm always looking to find a good religious discussion. I guess that makes me odd as an atheist.
In regards to the martyrs, there's a popular misconception that the early Christians were killed because they were Christians. The Romans were actually fairly tolerant of other religions. You could pray to whatever god you wanted as long as you also prayed to the Roman gods. All any Christian had to do to avoid being killed was publicly pray to the Roman gods. The Jews were the only exception because they already only prayed to one god and their religious belief predated their being in the Roman Empire. However, pagans who converted to Christianity were not given that same exemption since Christianity was a fairly new religion. Any time there was a natural disaster the Romans felt it was a sign of displeasure from their gods and blamed the Christians for not praying to their gods. So it's technically true the Christians were killed for their beliefs, but it was really just that one belief of not praying to other gods that got them into so much trouble. I realize this doesn't address the point you were making, I'm just more making a generalized statement.
David, I find your answer satisfactory. I think you did a good job laying it out.
Bryn wrote: "Lee wrote: "True, but thousands died for the faith. Why would thousands be fed to lions, beheaded, burned, etc. rather than denounce an imaginary guy? You can't deny all of the Christian martyrs. It's a fact they died in great numbers."Oh, I thought you were arguing specifically for apostolic direct knowledge of Jesus as God. Yes, Christians (and others, of course) routinely die for their convictions and beliefs, and it is not uncommon for belief to be that strong.
I am pleased you are arguing not for a specific god (say, that of conservative Christianity) but for evidence from human experience...more in line with the God I recognize.
I am sure an omnipotent, omniscience God is so maleable that He molds himself to human experience.
The philosopher Leibniz gave an argument for why there's suffering in the world that some might be able to agree with here. He basically argued that since God is all knowing and all powerful, he knew all the possible ways he could make the world and this was the best option. If it were possible to create a better world he would have done it, but this was the best. God doesn't bring misery into the world but because we're not all knowing or all powerful we make bad choices. He allows moral and physical evil to exist as a natural consequence of our imperfections and so we can learn not to make these mistakes again.
Guillermo - He miscalculated on His first human creation right in the Garden. Our free will makes everything a crapshoot. All He can do is set down the terms for salvation and see who buys in.
Scenario 6: "I keep hearing more and more about child sexual abuse in the priesthood, or even local ministers in small parishes. How can there be a God who has so little control over his representatives?"(Heard that one just yesterday)
Robert, perhaps I am misunderstanding something but are you saying God miscalculated something?
Obviously, free will in man threw Him for a loop. He may know all and see all, but the future is subject to taking multiple pathways. He gently controls the general path so the end of times outlined in Prophesy is assured, but we have all sorts of ways to get there. Our present behavior seems to indicate sooner raher than later, but that could change with the elimination of liberal Christianity and a return to traditional worship proceedures.
That's not a problem with God, that's a problem with Religious doctrine. As far as Catholicism is concerned, sanctioning married priests would eliminate most of the dalliances with children.
Robert wrote: "That's not a problem with God, that's a problem with Religious doctrine. As far as Catholicism is concerned, sanctioning married priests would eliminate most of the dalliances with children."That is SO false. Child abuse does not come from celibacy.
Lee wrote: "Scenario 6: "I keep hearing more and more about child sexual abuse in the priesthood, or even local ministers in small parishes. How can there be a God who has so little control over his representatives"Simple. God gave us free will. He gave it to us so that we could chose Him, but we often screw up and choose evil instead.
Guillermo wrote: "In regards to the martyrs, there's a popular misconception that the early Christians were killed because they were Christians. The Romans were actually fairly tolerant of other religions. You could pray to whatever god you wanted as long as you also prayed to the Roman gods. All any Christian had to do to avoid being killed was publicly pray to the Roman gods. The Jews were the only exception because they already only prayed to one god and their religious belief predated their being in the Roman Empire. However, pagans who converted to Christianity were not given that same exemption since Christianity was a fairly new religion. Any time there was a natural disaster the Romans felt it was a sign of displeasure from their gods and blamed the Christians for not praying to their gods. So it's technically true the Christians were killed for their beliefs, but it was really just that one belief of not praying to other gods that got them into so much trouble. I realize this doesn't address the point you were making, I'm just more making a generalized statement. "Yes, well publicly praying to Roman gods is forbidden by Christianity, so they were killed for following the rules of Christianity. I agree that one belief caused their persecution. But it also made them martyrs.
And I also agree with you about the Romans blaming misfortune on Christians, for refusing to worship their gods.
In terms of scenario 6, I agree with Bryn.I don't think child sex abuse stems from celibacy. Men who abuse children are sick. Perhaps there is a draw to the priesthood for men who are interested in children - if you are not interested in women are you more likely to become a priest? Are there any studies on that?
What I am saying is that if these men wanted to, they could get women to have sex with them. The fact they abuse children shows the problem is deeper than simply them being celibate priesthood. Maybe the problem is the stigma against seeking help. If you fear seeking help because you'll be considered "gross" you may try to tackle the problem alone which just sets you up for failure years later.
As for God having little control, that is a tougher question. Why doesn't God free people? Assuming these men entered the priesthood out of a true desire to help, why did God not cleanse them? Assuming they pray for deliverance from their attraction to children, why didn't God answer? In some way, this takes us back to the problem of evil and also to the related problems of God answering prayers, miracles and the silence of God.
I would suggest free will plays a part. That said, our freedom is constrained by other things - an alcoholic is not free to simply say no; addiction is very real. We live in a broken world where all of us have crooked desires that, if we act on them, could harm people. Maybe most of us do not have as bad desires that would harm as many as pedophiles do. But ultimately, it is the same root sickness that infects all of humanity (hey, original sin...kind of).
Not sure if there is an answer there - its a combination of "I don't know", "free will" and that the church and society need to do more to stop this abuse.
You can disagree all you like but megachurches focusing on the family with a HUGE membership do not have near the child molestation problem of even a small parish.
Here is a question someone has asked me recently:
"Why did God decide to punish the entire world because of two people's sin?"
How would you answer?
"Why did God decide to punish the entire world because of two people's sin?"
How would you answer?
Christal, here are a few things I would say:*I don't think God "punished" the entire world because of two people's sins. Most Christians have believed in something called "original sin". Most Christians have not believed, though some have, in "original guilt". Original guilt means you are not just born sinful, but you are born guilty. It is the belief that we inherit guilt from Adam and thus as newborns are already deserving of hell.
I find that belief just wrong. I do think we are born with a tendency to sin. Though I wouldn't blame this on Adam and Eve either. We live in a world that teaches us and influences us to good but also to bad.
I guess the question could be: "is the broken world Adam and Eve's fault?" In other words, are we all stuck in a world of tornadoes and murders because of Adam and Eve? I don't think it is that simple. If I took the traditional view that Adam and Eve sinned which led to the fall of creation, I still couldn't blame them. The reason I couldn't is because I am humble enough (haha, let's say realistic enough) to realize I wouldn't do any better in the same situation.
Ultimately, if there is punishment from God, it is for my own sin. I would emphasize that above all else. God will not punish you or anyone for your parents' sin, let alone people who lived millennia ago. You are responsible for your life. If you are a jerk, thinking only of yourself and tramping on others and God punishes you (whatever that looks like) that's a you problem. Don't blame someone else.
I would also, depending on the person, point out that lots of Christians question whether Adam and Eve were literal real people. Either way, I think the story in Genesis is not meant to make us blame Adam, Eve or anyone for the condition of the world. Instead, it is to show that human's have the tendency, ever since there were humans, to take the good things of God and corrupt them through our own wrong choices. Whether Adam and Eve were real or not, that is the point.
Try this one out:"If God knows everything, he already knows whether I'm going to heaven or hell. Nothing I can do to change that. So leave me alone and let me do what I want."
I'm mostly just curious to see how differently we all respond, I'll bet it highlights our different apologetic approaches.
Well,1. I don't think heaven/hell is the point.
2. This is only a problem for Calvinists, I think. There is a difference between God knowing what you will choose and God choosing it for you. The first, you still have free will. You could say, "well God knows what I am going to choose, so what's the point", but God would know you would say that. The onus is still on you to make the choice, embracing your freedom.
3. So if you said, "leave me alone..." that is your choice, not God's. Don't blame God. This person sounds like a petulant child. Now, if you feel desires to sin and conclude God has not chosen you or life would be different, then maybe that is a route to go and I'll let a Calvinist explain that one. I could see it leading to a fatalistic view - "I'm not chosen so who cares!"
4. I would also share the idea of open theism. I think it is okay for an apologist to share a variety of Christian views, even ones she does not accept herself.
The reason that one stays in my mind is it was the comment of a cranky friend when some J/W's came to the door (I overheard). I imagined the response to be something along the line of "don't sweat it, at your best you're likely going to spend eternity right here on earth" or something like that, but I never asked him.
I've missed some fun ones.Scenario 6: "... child sexual abuse in the priesthood, or even local ministers in small parishes. How can there be a God who has so little control over his representatives?"
Who says these are God's representatives? I don't. Did Jesus not tell the religious rulers of his day that they were children of Satan. Guess What? We still have religious rulers who are children of Satan. This shouldn't surprise any Christians.
I'm pretty sure if people actually looked into these Priests theology it would be easy to see confusion in more areas than just child-abuse and sex.
Who says God NEEDS representatives? Read the Bible for yourself. It's a blessing for us to be involved in God's glory.
Scenario 6+: "If God knows everything, he already knows whether I'm going to heaven or hell. Nothing I can do to change that. So leave me alone and let me do what I want."If that is someone's attitude and heart then...you get what you asked for. You probably wouldn't like heaven anyway.
No one knows who is saved and who isn't. But God disciplines his children and guides them through this mess. This isn't all about us (that would be the first sign of a problem.) it's all about Jesus' Kingdom and the Bride of Christ that God has chosen some of us to be.
Most church goers need to read the whole Bible: It isn't about people and our comfort.
John Macarthur responded to the question of How Do You Know You Are Saved: (rough quote)
"Do you love God's Word? Desire what he desires? Then you're saved."
Scenario 6++:""Why did God decide to punish the entire world because of two people's sin?"Who says were being punished? This was just phase 2 of God's plan. Many humans have wonderful lives.
I think it's amusing when I hear people say that God was really angry with mankind for sinning and ruining everything. God is not angry in Genesis 3. God created and allowed Satan in the garden. God also left Adam & Eve to be alone with a talking snake - all part of the Bride of Christ and it's journey.
God wasn't even angry in Genesis 6 when the world became wicked and evil - he was SORRY! It's his project after all. And it's going just the way he KNEW it would.
