Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode V!

[Gandalfs Beard]

Pondering further, it occurs to me TBG, that you are a lot like Doubting Thomas , unhappy with Faith alone, you seek to equate it with an Empiricism (by drawing no ontological distinction this is EXACTLY what you are doing). As I said, By Claiming Truth you are in fact Destroying Truth. I meant this in terms of Empiricism, but you are also undermining the Edifice of Faith that so any Christians base their belief on.

John 20:25-31:
25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!"
But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

This is a clear rebuke to Thomas for seeking to put Empiricism on the same level as Faith. So by millions of Christians' standards Faith in things "not seen" is the key to Salvation.

Well TBG, your reasons may be different than Thomas's, but you are doing precisely the same thing, attempting to put Empiricism on the same level as Faith, therefore crumbling the very edifice you hope to place your Faith on.

Thus your abuse of Philosophy not only undermines the value of Empiricism, but also undermines the value of Faith. Congratulations...you killed two birds with one stone.

GB

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

Firstly on the suicide stuff. That brings this admonition:

On this forum, do not even approach anything that resembles a promotion of suicide.

This is not pure discussion and debate. Ideas have consequences. None of us knows who is reading here, and who may be struggling with depression or anxiety that could lead to worse. I know of many members here who have had these struggles. Show compassion for these people, if they are reading; do not make things even slightly worse for them.

Now back to my (likely last) lengthy treatment of these sorts of things.

My life hasn't been hard, in fact an easy one at that. And I think that is why my beliefs can potentially mean something - they are not just a way of dealing with hard times, they are the reality.

Interesting. This could be the result of a society that prizes victimhood and "sticking up for the little guy" overmuch: everybody wants a piece of the action. I can understand someone who's had a hard time thinking a hopeless worldview is the way to go -- that's why I leaned toward that assumption. But someone who's had it easy and just as easily admits it?

This makes me think of spoiled rich suburbanite white kids who want a piece of the seamy-side action, so they get into ghetto hip-hop. There may be nothing wrong with the music, but they're just playing at the whole gritty tough-life thing. The real tough kids would laugh at them.

Meanwhile, you still have to deal with the fact that you are not the only person in your own customized universe (sounds like you are badly in need of the Total Perspective Vortex from The Restaurant at the End of the Universe). What about the "problem of good"? People who've been in situations worse worse than yours turn to God. Who do you think you are to know more than they do, as if you alone have discovered life's hardships? Such a view would be beyond arrogant and uncaring.

While Western atheists turn from belief in God because a tsunami in another part of the world caused great suffering, many brokenhearted survivors of that same tsunami found faith in God. This is one of the great paradoxes of suffering. Those who don't suffer much think suffering should keep people from God, while many who suffer a great deal turn to God, not from him.

Imagine eavesdropping on a conversation between [atheist and supposed "former Christian" author/activist Bart] Ehrman and the very people whose suffering he uses as an argument for disbelieving in God. After hearing Ehrman's case, someone says, "You've lost your faith because of my suffering? But my faith in God has grown deeper than ever. Why would I turn away from the only one who can comfort me, the only one who has planned eternal life for me, the only one who suffered immeasurably, beyond any of us, so that one day I need suffer no longer?"

You won't find the strongest Christian churches in the world in affluent America or Europe, where the problem of evil [as a debate issue has the most traction. In Sudan, Christians are severely persecuted, raped, tortured, and sold into slavery. Yet many have a vibrant faith in Christ. People living in Garbage Valley in Cairo make up one of the largest churches in Egypt. Hundreds of thousands of India's poor are turning to Christ. Why? Because the caste system and fatalism of Hinduism give them no answers. So they turn to a personal God who loves them and understands suffering. I have interviewed numbers of people who take comfort in knowing that this life is the closest they will ever come to Hell.

Later, Alcorn quotes the final "nihilism"-laced paragraphs of Ehrman's book (which is rather cheekily titled God's Problem). First he quotes the man's encouragement to seek money, material goods, nice cars and homes and families and the good life. Then Alcorn goes on:

What we have in the here and now is all that there is. We need to live life to its fullest and help others as well to enjoy the fruits of the land. ... But just because we don't have an answer to suffering does not mean that we cannot have a response to it. Our response should be to work to alleviate suffering wherever possible and to live life as well as we can.

Do you see the inconsistency here? If we follow Ehrman's advice to "drive nice cars and have nice homes" and consume expensive meals and drinks and spend as much as we can—in fact, "the more the better"—then we will not be working to alleviate suffering whenever possible.

What percentage of the royalties from Ehrman's best-selling book has he ear-marked for easing world suffering? If it seems unfair to ask, remember that I am merely applying the standard he expects God to live up to: using all of one's resources to relieve suffering. Does Ehrman place himself under the same condemnation he places God? Based on the lifestyle he seems to advocate, the answer appears to be no.

Compared to what other people have been through, I wouldn't claim to have a tough life either, Andrew. Nor is any of this meant to minimize whatever struggles you have been through (though I daresay it seems bad now, mere religious propaganda by your parents or whomever won't seem so terrible after ten years). Instead I simply ask (again): if you are telling the truth about this, why are you letting them control the debate and "frame" Christianity in this way?

I am not enslaved because what I want does not determine what I believe.

I doubt anyone here believes you.

Ask yourself which worldview -- Christianity or supposed "nihilism" -- will be the most helpful if you want to make any of the below choices:

1) Should I maintain posted speed limits?

2) Should I bother about the whole "going to church" thing?

3) Should I sleep with my girlfriend (if she'll let me)?

Now ask yourself how you would decide each of those scenarios (but do not post the answers here, on a "family-friendly" forum).

Stardf29's firm rebuttal stands. (And by the way, in the future try keeping an open mind with the whole "analogy" thing? You took The Black Glove's brilliant J.K. Rowling analogy far too literally and missed the metaphor; and I thought Christians were the "literalists" here. ...)

I only resent god, if he exists.

And that only adds to the proof: your want of resenting God leads to your professed belief. And by the way, why resent a God who (in your religion) is only behaving the way you want to behave -- as a "nihilist"? What is "wrong" (ha!) with Him acting as though there is no right and wrong, and only living His life as if life has no intrinsic meaning or value?

[W]e are supposed to lead others to Christ, so they will lead others to Christ, and to what end?

If you've only ever understood Christianity as a spiritual pyramid scheme, not beneficial to you unless you spread it to others, and as a mere system in which you must work, work, work to earn God's favor (before or after salvation), it won't sound like fun -- better: joy -- to you at all.

Until you see God as the most glorious Being in the universe, perfect holiness and love, more than worthy of your worship, and by comparison your sin as disgusting in His sight, none of this will make sense to you.

You need to know what you say you're rejecting. Maybe others have not taught you the whole truth (I am again trying to assume the best here).

With your reading comprehension it should be no trouble for you to delve deep into a book about God's nature and the reason why it is beneficial for human beings to love and enjoy Him above all else -- and for Him to love and enjoy being Himself above all else: Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist by John Piper.

For a summary of Christianity's solid basis in the doctrine of Christ's death and resurrection, read The Cross-Centered Life by C.J. Mahaney.

An eternity of worshiping him? Sounds like fun.

That depends on how you define "worshiping." Ask me more about the broader Biblical definition of worship if you wish -- only if you ask honestly will I continue to interact about this, and I'd love to do that.

Or go to your library and find the book Heaven by Randy Alcorn, which outlines the too-often-neglected expansive Biblical view of resurrection, not just of Christ's people but the Earth and universe themselves. Also read If God is Good, the natural followup to Heaven about why, if God is good, there is suffering in our world.

[W]e're told it is wrong to lie, fight, and steal, when in reality the natural inclination is to do just that - look at any other animal, in addition to humans.

Yet you later stole from the Christian worldview -- again -- to complain about these very problems:

The world is already miserable, though. Let's talk about this world you're so in love with. In fact one country in the world:

In the United States over 22 million people have alcoholism, in 2008 alone there were over 89,000 reported rapes and 16,000 murders.

Why complain about these? They're the natural result of your selfishness-based worldview, the logical conclusions of "nihilism." And can you point to anything anyone said claiming they're in love with this world?

Again I refer you to the Biblical teaching of resurrection. We only love life here, or love this world, because it reminds us of the next: the perfect world God has planned. Sunrises, parties, holidays, great conversation with friends, learning, debate, science and technology, new things, old things, singing, music, dancing, writing, art -- all these things hint of the New Earth to come. All can be worship, in service to our Creator. That is what true believers anticipate, as they find their joy in the Joyous One.

If you haven't been taught a Christianity that includes these truths, then I am sorry for you. However, at least you're hearing about it here.

If you stand for something in life, it means nothing if you do not stand for it in death.

You are presenting things as black-or-white, both/and, while Scripture (and others here) present this in living vibrant color. Christians do not strive for life with this kind of desperation. Rather, they see life as God's gift and worth defending, though they in Christ also do not fear death.

Pippin: "I didn't think it would end this way. ..."

Gandalf: "End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path ... one that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass ... and then you see it."

Pippin: "What, Gandalf? See what?"

Gandalf: "White shores ... and beyond. The far green country under a swift sunrise."

Pippin: "Well, that isn't so bad."

Gandalf: "No ... no, it isn't."

With that, I draw to a close. Fencer has already made his gracious exit, and now so do I, yet without as much of a good excuse as he has. Instead, I will no longer go round and round about professed "nihilism."

One who claims that suicide, or the death of a child, or any of that is not wrong does not have my respect, and has likely lost it with others here as well. Others (working according to the Christian worldview, even if they are not Christians) would move to help you, and we Christians have even more motivation to do so: because we "selfishly" want to love and care for you the way Christ loves us, and so become more like Him.

I am sorry if others professing Christianity have not shared the "repent, believe, come to Christ and rest" side of Biblical truth, and have instead only promoted a pyramid scheme. However, as I said before, you are hearing it here, from people who care about you, even long-range. They've given you attention, been friendly and welcoming, written you essays, quotes, and respected you like anyone else (age makes no difference there). And they've/we've cited resources you can look up if you truly wish to pursue this further and learn how real Christians think.

You are now responsible for making the choice: what will you do with this information? Ignore it, in favor of your own disposition to "resent" God (for supposedly behaving exactly how you want to be)? Or will you check into this further, thinking "independently" about these ideas and not blindly following your emotional reaction against God or other "Christians"?

I've grown so much and learned so much in these threads. For your civil attitude (against your "nihilism") and for reviving this topic, I am thankful.

However, mere posturing personally motivated propaganda for "nihilism" is already very tiresome. Other participants and topics are getting left out, and I'd love to engage with them as well. It's time to move forward.

If you wish to ask more, I'm sure many others here will be glad to answer about what Christianity really teaches and why Christians believe it.

But if you reply with more ipso facto stuff, as if only your saying it makes it true for everyone, I won't bother about it. Let's have more actual discussion and willingness to learn other views. Friend, you make a lousy "god." And I believe your "case" has been made well enough.

[The Black Glove]

Pondering further, it occurs to me TBG, that you are a lot like Doubting Thomas , unhappy with Faith alone

Quite the opposite---I believe that all beliefs rest on faith, else they would not be beliefs.

Thus your abuse of Philosophy not only undermines the value of Empiricism

I undermine empiricism because empiricism is reductionism. What I don't reject is empirical knowledge---but even this is faith. Again, whenever I assent to a proposition, that is a kind of faith.

So by millions of Christians' standards Faith in things "not seen" is the key to Salvation.

This is where your misunderstanding of biblical text comes to the fore. I don't have to see to believe, but I also know that even when I do see, that if I do not see through eyes of faith, I will not believe. Again, may I recommend the dialogue here.

I am using Tautology in it's Rhetorical (verbal logic) sense.

And I in the sense of formal logic.

Now, let's look at those tautologies:

The principle of non-contradiction: The same thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. The same proposition cannot be both true and false.

Here you oversimplify. The actual principle is a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time or in the same relationship.

My question is how you would argue against this. But let me try: A can be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same relationship.
The law of non-contradiction may be both true and not true at the same time and in the same relationship.
Yet if the law of non-contradiction is true in that relationship, it cannot be false in that relationship.

Ergo the law of non-contradiction is true.

The principle of the excluded middle: Either a thing is or it is not. There is no third possibility.

Not quite: the actual principle is that one can only choose one option when given the following disjunct: A v ~A (again, this is contingent upon same time and same relationship).

My question here is this: what is the third option?

The principle of causality: Every effect has a cause.

Now this is, in fact, the most blatantly obvious one there is, despite its long history of dispute. To say that this is not a tautology is to nit have considered this carefully. An effect is something which by definition has been caused.

The physicist merely demonstrates his ignorance of metaphysics when he says to the contrary.

GB, why do you want to escape from reason?

I don't have one

In other words, you have no counter-model.

Only because what you call truth, isn't.

How do you know? Can you show me that God isn't there or that He doesn't care?

TBG

[stardf29]

No disrespect but that's kind of a ridiculous statement.

No disrespect taken; I'm a ridiculous person.

Then god chose me to go to hell.

Not necessarily. You haven't died yet.

At the same time, it is true that God has, somehow, "chosen" some people to go to Hell. And yet He is still loving and kind.

I figured I already made one ridiculous statement; what's another going to hurt?

There are reasonings behind those statements, though. Whether you can grasp those reasonings, I'm not sure. They are, after all, "illogical" reasonings. But if you want to hear them out anyway (if only so you can go ahead and mock them for all they're worth), let me know and I'll throw out what I can when I have time (which, for the record, isn't right now).

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

At the same time, it is true that God has, somehow, "chosen" some people to go to Hell.

Stardf, can you explain this further, or is this just another way of wording what I said in my previous post? Thanks

[stardf29]

Another way of wording what you said in the previous post, with a return-connection back to God's sovereignty.

That'll do for now? I won't be able to reply further until this afternoon.

[Lucy P.]

At the same time, it is true that God has, somehow, "chosen" some people to go to Hell. And yet He is still loving and kind.

Hold on! I totally agree that God is loving and kind. But he has not chosen people to go to hell. He allows them to choose hell. There's a slight difference but it's important. Some things God wills positively, others He wills negatively.

Andrew, your determination to love everyone is really admirable.
But if you believe there's no good and evil, what's the basis of love? I always thought it was helping a person towards the good and defending them from evil.

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

Two sides exist to the question and have Scriptural support: God does allow people to choose Hell, but ultimately it is His choice. And as has been pointed out in different ways during the past several pages, our free will is always based on our own desires. Without Christ, people will inevitably choose to sin, because they are dead in sins (Ephesians 1-2).

The Bible's very end describes the punishment due for the wicked. It does not mention their fate being their own choice, but God's. I present it here not to say "nuh-uh, not that, but this," but rather, "yes, that, and this."

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Revelation 20: 11-15

[Andrew]

Dr Elwin Ransom, even if you are leaving the discussion I will answer your points one last time if I may:

What about the "problem of good"? People who've been in situations worse worse than yours turn to God.

It is not a problem, certainly not one of good (which doesn't exist). Desperate people will turn to anything if they're told it will help them.

Do you see the inconsistency here? If we follow Ehrman's advice to "drive nice cars and have nice homes" and consume expensive meals and drinks and spend as much as we can—in fact, "the more the better"—then we will not be working to alleviate suffering whenever possible.

That's Ehrman's fail, not mine. I wouldn't say we should do anything, I plan to work hard and have something when I retire because I want to live comfortably, even if there is no good reason to. Alleviating others' suffering is also a choice.

Ask yourself which worldview -- Christianity or supposed "nihilism" -- will be the most helpful if you want to make any of the below choices:

1) Should I maintain posted speed limits?

2) Should I bother about the whole "going to church" thing?

3) Should I sleep with my girlfriend (if she'll let me)?

The answer to all of these is, it doesn't really matter.

You took The Black Glove's brilliant J.K. Rowling analogy far too literally and missed the metaphor; and I thought Christians were the "literalists" here. ...

I only took it a way in assuming we have free will - if we're predestined, sure it works, and that proves my point even more. Let's say Joann is God and Voldemort is the devil - God made someone just so they could drag others to eternal suffering with them? If that's not love I don't know what is.

And that only adds to the proof: your want of resenting God leads to your professed belief. And by the way, why resent a God who (in your religion) is only behaving the way you want to behave -- as a "nihilist"? What is "wrong" (ha!) with Him acting as though there is no right and wrong, and only living His life as if life has no intrinsic meaning or value?

The belief came first, the resent is more recent. I resent god because of what I have found to be true, not vice versa. And that's like saying I'm going to like someone who's a jerk all the time - it doesn't mean he's "wrong," it means I don't like the way he acts for personal reasons.

You need to know what you say you're rejecting. Maybe others have not taught you the whole truth (I am again trying to assume the best here).

What I was taught about Christianity is that we must accept Christ as our savior, and he takes the punishment of sin and let's us go to heaven. Then one year at church camp the speaker revealed something to me: that wasn't enough to get to heaven. "If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father in heaven." We must also live for Christ, keep his commandments, etcetera. To borrow from a quote I used earlier, "Christians are gambling the only life they may ever have on a dark horse in a race with no finish line."

Why complain about these? They're the natural result of your selfishness-based worldview, the logical conclusions of "nihilism." And can you point to anything anyone said claiming they're in love with this world?

I am not the one who sees anything as inherently right or wrong - YOU are. I'm not complaining, I'm stating facts. That's the world your supposedly loving god created.

But if you reply with more ipso facto stuff, as if only your saying it makes it true for everyone, I won't bother about it. Let's have more actual discussion and willingness to learn other views. Friend, you make a lousy "god."

I don't feel inclined to say this for the 4th time, but I will: I don't ask anyone to accept what I say merely because I said it. I want people to find the truth for themselves. And I don't want to be god.

Dr Elwin, you pick and choose from what I say the easiest things to answer and ignore the difficult points - the ones that undermine your biblical God. Not that this is necessarily wrong, just interesting.

How do you know? Can you show me that God isn't there or that He doesn't care?

No, no more than you can show that he is and does.




I will end with a quote by stardf29, that makes my point for me:

[/quote]At the same time, it is true that God has, somehow, "chosen" some people to go to Hell. [/quote]

Edit:

But if you believe there's no good and evil, what's the basis of love? I always thought it was helping a person towards the good and defending them from evil.

Love is putting someone and their needs before your own - the opposite of what the Christian God did.

[equustel]

Love is putting someone and their needs before your own - the opposite of what the Christian God did.

So what was Christ's death, then?

Wait, I know what you will answer. "Jesus was not the son of God." But that is irrelevant. With the statement I quoted above, you are making a sweeping generalization about the Christian God and the Christian worldview, and in that generalization completely ignoring the very thing that the Christian worldview is centered on: the selfless death of Christ, God dying on behalf of mankind, giving up every right He has on behalf of His creation.

I have spoken with many an atheist and agnostic before, but your statement might be the single silliest thing I've ever heard someone say against Christianity.

Even then, it is all beside the point. You dodged Lucy's question. She was asking how, in your worldview, love can even exist, since love is defined as selflessness - and there is no room for that in nihilism. There is not just no need to love as defined by you, there is no basis for it to exist at all. How then do you explain the fact that it does? That we are drawn to sacrifice on behalf of others, something that stands in stark contrast to all of our "natural" selfish tendencies?

[Andrew]

With the statement I quoted above, you are making a sweeping generalization about the Christian God and the Christian worldview, and in that generalization completely ignoring the very thing that the Christian worldview is centered on: the selfless death of Christ

Perhaps I didn't word that as well as I could have. I think I should have just said god, not Christian. Either way, it does not effect my definition of what love really is.

She was asking how, in your worldview, love can even exist, since love is defined as selflessness - and there is no room for that in nihilism.

No room for that in nihilism? I think you misunderstand what nihilism is, perhaps - it merely states that nothing has meaning or value. It has nothing to do with selfishness in and of itself. We can be selfish, sure. But we can also be selfless.

You see, nihilism doesn't change the way the world is, because the world is already this way. Some people are selfish, some are not. The fact that it all has no purpose does not effect everything.

For example, alot of people (I daresay most people) follow hedonism, the principal that pleasure is the only purpose in life. I was like this myself once. But then you realize that those small pleasures don't last, and once you have achieved any goal you realize it means nothing once you are there. The journey getting there is the (artificial) purpose.

If I may re-state my original post, here is the basis of my beliefs about God:

If he created us to serve him, he is selfish. If he created us and abandoned us, he is indifferent. If he created us to harm us, he is malicious.

[The Black Glove]

it doesn't mean he's "wrong," it means I don't like the way he acts for personal reasons.

In other words, it's just irrational emoting on your part.

I want people to find the truth for themselves.

Then stop trying to lead them to it.

I'm stating facts.

And you know this how? How did you come to the conclusion that there is no good or evil?

And I don't want to be god.

You want to be a law unto yourself---that's playing God.

I only took it a way in assuming we have free will

Again, define free will. I hold that everything is predestined and yet at the same time, we do make responsible free choices.

Seriously, Andrew, you are being irrational. You are angry at a God who may or may not be there based on a standard that only applies to you which you hold based on a set of "facts" that you still haven't told us why you believe. Honestly, you need a good splash of cold water in the face, Hamlet---wake up!

You say you don't like God? You like setting your own standards? Sir, you have a classic case of bad taste.

Love is putting someone and their needs before your own - the opposite of what the Christian God did.

Wrong: God didn't have to create us at all. He didn't have to come and die, to suffer as no human has suffered before or since. He didn't have to enter our story at all. Yet He did.

Who knows not Love, let him assay,
And taste that juice, which on the cross a pike
Did set again abroach; then let him say
If ever he did taste the like.
Love is that liquor sweet and most divine,
Which my God feels as blood; but I, as wine.

Really, you think that God owes you something. Well let me tell you that He doesn't. He has given you much and here you go throwing it selfishly away. You want to make yourself out as a great tragedian, the face of your brave new world, sticking it out with the stiff upper lip against the blows of God and man alike. "Better to reign in Hell than in Heaven serve," am I right? It's childish, really. You throw a tantrum because God doesn't do what you want Him to, even though He knows better than you what is good for you.

But Andrew, it's not too late. You want to see love? Then look for Him! No, rather He's chasing you. The Hound of Heaven is on your scent and He won't give up until you do. The cross awaits, lay your burden down at its foot. You can be forgiven: you can be free of doubt and sin, free to live an abundant life in Christ.

That is the offer: take it or leave it. I too will now bow out of answering. You have demonstrated that mercy is as foreign to you as love, but it is still offered.

If he created us to serve him, he is selfish. If he created us and abandoned us, he is indifferent. If he created us to harm us, he is malicious.

"The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." ~Westminster Shorter Catechism, question 1.

TBG

[Andrew]

I will make one final post on this issue before I too, will leave this topic. If anyone has any questions about it feel free to PM me, as many of you already have. There is no point in continuing to go in circles.

In other words, it's just irrational emoting on your part.

Exactly.

And you know this how? How did you come to the conclusion that there is no good or evil?

There is no way to define either without the other. Good cannot stand without evil, and evil cannot stand without good. Neither exist in reality, only in imagination.

You want to be a law unto yourself---that's playing God.

I do not need to be a god to make a law for myself.

Again, define free will. I hold that everything is predestined and yet at the same time, we do make responsible free choices.

If God predestined everything, how can we be responsible? Is the fictional Voldemort responsible for killing Harry's parents, when it is JK Rowling who caused it to happen?

you are being irrational. You are angry at a God who may or may not be there based on a standard that only applies to you which you hold based on a set of "facts" that you still haven't told us why you believe.

My standard does not apply only to me, but everything in existence. I believe because of evidence I have already shown throughout the last 5 or 6 pages.

God didn't have to create us at all. He didn't have to come and die, to suffer as no human has suffered before or since. He didn't have to enter our story at all. Yet He did.

By creating us, he entered our story. You're right, he didn't HAVE to create us, but he did - that's why he's selfish.

Really, you think that God owes you something. Well let me tell you that He doesn't. He has given you much and here you go throwing it selfishly away.

I don't think God owes me anything, I think he left us to whatever end. He hasn't given us anything but what exists in this universe.

"Better to reign in Hell than in Heaven serve," am I right?

Yes.

You can be forgiven: you can be free of doubt and sin

I'm already free of both. And I didn't need anyone to do it for me.

You have demonstrated that mercy is as foreign to you as love, but it is still offered.

We will find out once we die, I suppose.

A Christian will undoubtedly respond that we do have freedom, the one choice that God gives us: Eternal servitude in Heaven, or eternal Suffering in Hell. You decide for yourself which would be the greater punishment; spending forever with the one who created this horrible existence, or spending it with the one who had the courage to stand up against him, and was sentenced to damnation for it.

As you can see, it is impossible that God – if he exists – to be both personal and loving. If he is personal, he is like a young child who grows an ant farm so that he can use a magnifying glass on them. If he were truly loving, he would never have created us and so saved us from this fate of suffering, injustice, pain and torment. A common answer to this is that if God did not love us, he would not have sent his “son” Jesus to die on the cross and take the place of our sins, saving those who believe in him from sin. What is my explanation for this? Jesus was a martyr, he may have believed himself to be the son of God, maybe not, maybe he was just crazy, either way he was a man who died for what he believed in just like thousands of other martyrs. I have been told that if he was a liar or crazy, he would not have died for what he believed. If martyrdom is substantial proof that a belief is true, then that would mean that the Kamikaze pilots of World War II proved that their leader was divine. Also, it is physically impossible for a human that has been dead for more than 5 minutes to survive, at least without irreversible and severe brain damage, and the Bible claims that Jesus rose from the grave after 3 days. Christians might respond to this by saying that it was a miracle from God, but using one unrealistic idea to prove another implausible idea is neither logical nor valid in any argument.

If God exists, he cannot be personal and loving. Even if he cares about us, which I doubt, it is only in the sense that a boy ignites ants with a magnifying glass. However, he takes it one step further by raising an ant farm merely to produce the ants to ignite. I for one would not even want to spend eternity with somebody like this. We can waste our lives trying to please a God who – if he exists – does not even care about us, or we can enjoy life while we’re living it, make the most of it, and spend the time doing as we see best. It is the only way to live.

[Avra]

Ask yourself which worldview -- Christianity or supposed "nihilism" -- will be the most helpful if you want to make any of the below choices:

1) Should I maintain posted speed limits?

2) Should I bother about the whole "going to church" thing?

3) Should I sleep with my girlfriend (if she'll let me)?

The answer to all of these is, it doesn't really matter.

If I may, let me just say something here.
A few months ago, a woman on my road chose not to obey a stop sign. According to you, Andrew, her choice didn't really matter; and this very same choice led to a car wreck, her death and the orphaning of her young daughter.
My question is---does the woman's choice to disregard the stop sign still not matter? Do the consequences of that choice not matter?

Yes, pain and suffering are very real in this world. Yes, it can be very ugly out there, but I don’t understand how someone can look at all that and say it doesn’t matter. How can pain or grief or suffering not matter? It would take a very cold, loveless person to look into the eyes of that little girl, still waiting for her mother, and say “It doesn’t matter”. I’m not saying you are cold and loveless, Andrew, all I’m saying is would you want to be friends with the person who could do that?

To have something to live for is a very important need all humans have. This is, in part, why I am a Christian. Loving God and following His commands to love my neighbors is a huge reason to live. . .and those reasons will not die when I die. My God has promised eternal life to all who love Him; and what’s more, eternal life filled with the reasons I live and love this life. To me, this sounds very fun.

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

Note again that I didn't say I would exit permanently, or refuse to engage in discussion with you at all, or anything like that. I'm still open for honest questions about what Christians truly believe, for example, while moving forward and -- as has already begun to happen -- talking with others.

(I'll make the very rare recommendation that others do the same. Keeping on like this does not help any of us to learn, or the discussion to develop.)

Instead you'll recall I pointed out that, as you apparently agree, the conversation is going in circles, and suggested you instead begin to learn about the faith you claim to reject forever. You proved that again here:

What I was taught about Christianity is that we must accept Christ as our savior, and he takes the punishment of sin and let's us go to heaven. Then one year at church camp the speaker revealed something to me: that wasn't enough to get to heaven. "If you deny me before men, I will deny you before my father in heaven." We must also live for Christ, keep his commandments, etcetera.

Have you even thought of asking any of the Christians here whether that speaker was actually speaking the Biblically based truth? Or do you just accept that guy's word as the debate-ender, acknowledging his right to frame your views of Christianity entirely, a dictator over your mind?

Come on. You're smarter than that.

If this counts at all: a true Christian won't want to deny Christ. In the Christian worldview, this is true of other good works God expects from his people. The "whoever denies me before men, I also will deny" text, read in its context (Matthew 10), and read in conjunction with the rest of Scripture, shows clearly what Jesus meant, and means about His people.

Either your camp speaker said this wrong, or you heard it wrong. But with this kind of blind acceptance of anyone's misreading of Scripture, and a clear refusal to check up on him, few people will have any respect for you.

But one can have love for you without respect. That's what I've seen from everyone here. Do keep that in mind, and be assured either a Christian or someone borrowing the Christian ethic of compassion and caring is standing by to help if you're in trouble. I daresay I'd prefer a Christian paramedic on the scene of an accident like the one Avra described above, rather than a paramedic living out what you claim are you views. Notice I said "claimed" -- you not could actually make moral decisions consistently according to your professed belief. And it's to God's credit, and Christian worldview traces in you, that you wouldn't.

We will find out [if God has offered people mercy] once we die, I suppose.

Again, if God only waited until you die to tell you this, He's an idiot and doesn't care, and you have vindication. Have a hard think about what, exactly, it is you claim to expect God to do to let you know in advance.

That's the world your supposedly loving god created.

As if you are unaware of Genesis 3 and the account of the Fall? Or the fact that a good God could bring even greater good from a corrupt world?

Let's say [J.K. Rowling] is God and Voldemort is the devil - God made someone just so they could drag others to eternal suffering with them? If that's not love I don't know what is.

This only works if we assume it is unfair for the Author of life, the universe and everything to receive due glory for whatever happens in it.

I do not need to be a god to make a law for myself.

In effect, yes you do: a god in your own mind. Again, you in supposing yourself to have this level of "wisdom" seem to think you should have the right to be "nihilistic," but if there is a God, He would not have that right.

But that is irrelevant. With the statement I quoted above, you are making a sweeping generalization about the Christian God and the Christian worldview, and in that generalization completely ignoring the very thing that the Christian worldview is centered on: the selfless death of Christ, God dying on behalf of mankind, giving up every right He has on behalf of His creation.

(Equustel, I hope you stick around, for I wish I had said that.)

To carry on the novel metaphor, it's similar to how the Harry Potter series' high stakes "glorifies" the main characters, and even more so the author for her brilliance in creating a world where all the details work out in the end. The analogy breaks down only when we recall that Rowling, of course, did not create the world. God did. Thus He deserves all the glory, and furthermore, He is the greatest good and source of joy that ever a person could have. In His selfless act of dying for His people, God was glorifying Himself. He has that right. He made the world. And it is fitting to "grant" Him that right. And His "self-interest" is to our benefit.

Again, I hope you will consider any of the books I have suggested, and not rely on half-truths and lies others have told you about Christianity.

Dr Elwin, you pick and choose from what I say the easiest things to answer and ignore the difficult points - the ones that undermine your biblical God. Not that this is necessarily wrong, just interesting.

(I love it when others pick up on my habit of boldfacing usernames!)

Even if that were true, that would simply mean we are dead-even, friend. For days you have been highly selective in responding to my questions, such as the whole borrowing-from-the-Christian-worldview-whenever-convenient thing, the Problem of Good, the Christian truths of resurrection and respect-for-life-yet-no-fear-of-death, your wrong readings of Scripture, the broader definitions of worshiping God, etc.

But all that assumes you're right that I've ducked your questions. Not true. Rather, you simply don't like the Bible's answers, and do not agree with them; we have different worldviews. As The Black Glove said, "it's just irrational emoting on your part." And indeed, if you are truly as fatalistic and devil-may-care as you claim, it shouldn't bother you if I not only ducked your questions, but started typing the Budapest phone directory in response, or sent you a computer virus, or abused my mod "powers" to ban you forever from the forum, or anything like that. ...

I know, I know. "It doesn't matter," etc. ... Easy for you to say, when you're totally safe on the forum, protected even if I were to go rogue! And the same is true in the real world. One can hardly blame the Hobbits for going about their idealistic existence when all along their land was being guarded by benevolent Rangers from the West, but what if a Hobbit, made aware of this fact, were to despise those Rangers?

Hmm. One related point: a "nihilistic" story, with characters behaving in the ways you've described, would be quite boring and dull, wouldn't it?

More on that in a moment.

And that's like saying I'm going to like someone who's a jerk all the time - it doesn't mean he's "wrong," it means I don't like the way he acts for personal reasons.

These are all personal reasons -- the same ones that fail to prove "there is no right and wrong" or any of the other just-because statements.

The answer to all of these is, it doesn't really matter.

It's only your opinion that it doesn't matter.

Even if true, it also shouldn't matter that the discussion ends, or that I avoid further participation -- or have the proverbial "last word."

Anyway, this is more self-deception. You are not an android. You have a body, desires, longings, emotions, and worst of all, the ability to be attracted to something or someone. Typing on a message board won't fake out anyone. The emperor has no clothes. So why not get dressed in real garments, come out and play with the rest of us?

One recalls the words of a brave Marshwiggle's expression of "blind faith," although I'm convinced that while saying this he knew again that trees, water, the sun, Narnia and Aslan were real and that all of them had meaning and purpose. But he told her off wonderfully, even if in a worst-case scenario she was right.

What do you think, Puddleglum?

"All you've been saying is quite right, I shouldn't wonder. I'm a chap who always liked to know the worst and then put the best face I can on it. So I won't deny any of what you said. But there's one thing more to be said, even so Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things—trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom of yours is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia. So, thanking you kindly for our supper, if these two gentlemen and the young lady are ready, we're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend all our lives looking for Overland. Not that our lives will be very long, I should think; but that's small loss if the world's as dull a place as you say."

[Lucy P.]

Andrew, your definition of love happens to be pretty close to mine. (a person's needs are good, which another person should help them with).

But if nothing we do matters, why the heck do you want to love other people?