There is no Scripture that says Jesus died for your sins; no one can have assurance of this until they have been saved. The biblical command is to repent and believe in Jesus Christ as Saviour (Ac. 26:20; Lk 24:47). Suddenly aware of our sinful state, our complete and utter helplessness, we throw ourselves upon His mercy.
You may have heard the catchy call to 'Decide for Christ,' and perhaps the encouragement to 'Go and tell somebody what you have done here today.' Not what God has done, but what you have done. Having attended both a Pentecostal and a High Anglican church, I regularly witnessed this kind of talk. But is it the case that the unregenerate can just 'decide' to come to Christ, practically on a whim, or impulse? Do these promptings in any way resemble the apostolic proclamation we find in the Bible? But it gets worse. Not only do we have preachers giving this supposed 'gospel message' to unbelievers, but they also fail to convict the unbelievers of their sinful nature and their standing before a holy and righteous God. Where's the conviction of men's hearts before God? Sure, we might, if we're lucky, hear the preacher refer to his audience (and himself) as sinners, and we may hear of repentance, and 'choosing' Christ. We will even hear him speak of the need for Christ... There is only so much of the message you can actually leave out. But these limp-wristed 'acknowledgements' are hardly worthy of the name. The message is so stripped of its punch as to be practically unrecognisable to the one true gospel.
This modern message carries with it some faulty presuppositions. To name but two:
1. The unregenerate are capable of repenting and believing
2. The proclamation that Christ died for your sins, i.e., the sins of every man head for head
Re: 1. Repentance is a moral act since it requires one to change one's mind and hate one's sin. Metanoia means a total change of heart. One must be regenerated in order to have this change of heart. The truly penitent cannot be unregenerate.
8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. 9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to Him (Romans 8:8-9 ESV)
Since repentance is a moral act which is pleasing to God, then it follows that one cannot repent unless one has the Spirit of God.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14 ESV)
It is crystal clear from sacred Scripture that those without the Spirit of God cannot understand the things of God, and therefore cannot do that which is pleasing to Him.
3 Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:3-6 ESV)
Unregenerate man must be born again before he can repent and believe. Until then, he can do nothing to please God.
Until then he is dead in his sins:
1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience - 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ - by grace you have been saved (Ephesians 2:1-5 ESV)
The inspired apostle Paul contrasts the old life with the new, how we once carried out the desires of the body and mind, living by the passions of the flesh. This is precisely the state of the unregenerate. But God made us alive. The Greek here for dead - nekros - means 'deceased', 'lifeless'. Spiritually speaking, when we preach to the unregenerate we are preaching to corpses. There is nothing in man that can move him spiritually apart from the work of God. We must tell the unbeliever of his standing as a rebel in relation to God, his wholesale rebellion and the need for the grace of God and for His granting of repentance.
Re: 2. The presupposition that Christ died for the sins of all men everywhere who ever lived simply cannot be supported from Scripture.
14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep...24 So the Jews gathered around him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." 25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not of my flock. 27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." (John 10:14-15, 24-27 ESV)
Jesus is talking about His sheep. Those whom the Father has given Him. Christ plainly tells the hostile Jews the reason they do not believe is because they are not of His flock. To those Christians blind to their own (or others') traditions, this sounds too radical! They want to change the meaning of Jesus' words to something like, "...but you are not of my flock because you do not (yet) believe." But this is to turn Christ's words on their head!
42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not of God." (John 8:42-47 ESV)
Again, as with so many places in Scripture, we see particularity in our Saviour's very own words. The unbelieving Jews are deaf to Jesus' words. Why? Because they are not of God. They are of their father the devil, and they are content that way.
35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I have said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." (John 6:35-37 ESV)
Christ is making clear that those who have seen Him and do not believe cannot have been given Him by the Father. Right after telling these unbelievers that they have seen and yet do not believe, Christ tells them that those whom the Father gives Him will come to Him, will believe!
Modern evangelism needs to rid itself of the unbiblical message, 'Christ died for you', and return to something resembling the urgency of the apostolic message. Are we living in less urgent times? Is the gospel less important today than it was in the day of the apostles? We are to convict the rebel of his standing before a righteous and holy God. Nothing less will do. We are to preach the gospel. The rest is up to God.
We end with a glorious truth:
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44 ESV)
Soli Deo Gloria
29 comments:
I would change one thing. You say that there can be no assurance that "Jesus died for me" until after one is saved. I would suggest instead that the transformation from "Jesus died to redeem sinners" to "Jesus died to save ME" IS salvation.
Thanks Chris. Agreed. I think the point Danny was making is that telling that to an unsaved person is presumptuous, (though I still tend to do this.)
Hi Chris,
If I'm following you correctly, according to God's choosing of His elect, Christ certainly did die for ME; however, could *I* have had legitimate assurance of this while unregenerate?
And PL is correct regarding my point about the unsaved person.
Blessings
Not before regeneration. Rather, simultaneously, as the mental formulation thereof.
Hi Chris,
I see your point. I appreciate your desire to keep things accurate and concise, and if I did indeed state that there can be no assurance that Jesus died for me 'until *after*' one is saved then I'm happy to edit the post; however, I can only find me saying, '... no one can have assurance of this *until* they have been saved.' (emphasis added)
"We are to convict the rebel of his standing before a righteous and holy God."
I dunno if this has been mentioned before, but if what you believe is true then no one is "rebelling" against God in a meaningful sense right? I mean i am not saying if your God exists he CANT do what he is doing in the bible, but still no one would be "rebelling" against him in a meaningful sense.
Hi Tony J,
Are you asking or asserting? Every creature is duty-bound to worship the one true God, since God is holy and righteous and wholly worthy of worship. But I'll await some substance to your assertion before commenting further.
Anonymous Coward,
Kindly control yourself/your emotions when you're on somebody else's blog. We understand that your atheism is based on emotion, but we also believe you were raised by a mother and (we would hope) father who taught you to employ good manners in the presence of others, and especially in their own 'home,' and refrain from petulant and emotional outbursts. Otherwise you are merely an embarrassment. If only they could see you now...
danny
Hi,
Atheism is not based on emotion-- Christianity is. You use shepherds from the 1st century to guide your life-- based on nothing but hearsay-- the greatest waste of life that there is!
Anonymous,
Can you tell me what atheism is based on? Upon what authority do you make your claims?
My authority is my own mind--(that perhaps your god gave me) and secular morality, which may be imperfect, but is data driven, and is better than the unknown, mysterious, atrocious, non-negotiable authority that you are proposing. The human mind has been able to make it to the moon, create MRI's, and break the sound barrier. I know where you are going with this-- how is the human mind alone capable of morality? But if it is capable of these other things, then I think it can develop simple rules for the self and society. After all, there are plenty of good atheists out there, which put religious people to shame. Don't presume that you know what's best for them-- they certainly would rebuke you in worse language than I have.
I really don't debate Xians anymore, sometimes I do, (I'm semi-retired in this respect.) It is actually very easy to refute Xianity-- the hard part is having Xians acknowledge their mistakes, so invested they are in their delusion. I have often thought that the most intelligent Xians(like yourself) are the ones most entrenched in your delusion. I stand by much of what I said-- no intelligent person would base their lives on the rantings of shepherds from the 1st century--that alone cancels out Xianity. I have a mind of my own, and everything from the gospels is hearsay, so I have a right not to believe it.
Even on something as straightforward as the problem of evil, xians hem and haw, saying "god does evil, but he is really good, etc." much like the essay regarding this on this website. It doesn't make sense.
But I do respect you more than that douchebag DannyM, but I suppose he has a point-- If Xianity does nothing for me, why I am writing on this site? Believe what you want! It's your right, and I would die for your right to do so, even though I disagree.
Anonymous,
A few questions:
1.) What denomination of atheist are you? Buddhist? Pagan? Strict Materialist? Other?
2.) At what moment in time, along the evolutionary timeline, did your mind become an authority? Why should another person assume that what is in your mind has a fruitful connection with reality?
3.) What standard of "secular morality" do you hold to? There are no less than a dozen different ones. Which one can justify an obligation to obey it?
4.) If you don't debate Christian anymore, than what is the purpose of your post?
5.) If Christianity is easy to refute, please do so. You haven't provided any refutation so far, only empty assertions. What mistakes (presumably in thought) are Christians making that you feel they need to acknowledge?
1.) Agnostic.-- but, up here in Salem, Ma, I do admit I lean towards the pagan side of things. MA. and Virginia-- you and I are actually brothers in starting the U.S.! I recently drove down there from here, and it was hot as hell down there. How can you stand it day after day! (sorry about the hell reference).
2.) My mind is not an absolute authority, but neither is yours, or any of "god's" messengers. I therefore, as imperfect as it is, have the right to use my own mind, instead of yielding to one of god's pedophile priests. I have come to believe that all "Moral Arguments" for God really come down to the fact that I am not allowed to use my own mind. I am supposed to lean on "God" (a nebulous concept), or, even worse, one of God's self-appointed spokesmen!
3.) I think that rationally humans can easily think of objective sources of moral order that do not require the existence of a lawgiver in the sky. Happiness and well-being are a good start. I could talk to a skinhead all day about whether Hitler was right or wrong, (sorry to bring up Hitler) and neither of us at any point in the conversation would have to make reference to scripture.
4.) On this point you are entirely correct. My apologies to you and DannyM-- I was surfing the Internet and was deeply under the influence when I made my previous posts (lol). I won't bother you anymore and you have been gracious to open your website to people without having them sign in, etc. As an agnostic, I dislike all know-it-alls: that includes religious fundamentalists as well as know-it-all atheists who want to take down Xmas decorations, etc.
5.) If you accept Christianity, then, because Jesus states that "every jot and tittle" of the Hebrew bible is legitimate, you have to accept the entire Bible. The Bible may have some good parts (Eccleasties is my favorite) but ultimately it is so muddled and self-condictorary as to be very problematic. I don't have the time to list all the countless inconsistences here, but an excellent book on this is Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason", where he ingeniously decided to use no outside sources to refute the Bible, but uses the Bible's own teachings against itself.
Even now I am a little under the influence again (sorry) but I won't bother you anymore with my rantings. I do think you deserve some credit for taking a beating with these "drive by" shootings, as you call them, and still maintain the website. I don't know if I will visit again, but if I do, I promise I will refrain from crude postings.
A,
While I can't speak for Puritan Lad, I just want to make a few observations.
Agnosticism is in no better a position than atheism. If the true nature of reality is unknowable then why are you here wasting the short time you have on this planet on something so fruitless? What's the point?
Further, agnosticism is doubly self-contradictory. To claim that the true nature of reality is unknowable is to make a knowledge claim; you must first know something about the true nature of reality in order to know that the true nature of reality is unknowable. Agnosticism is thus self-defeating. It is epistemologically bankrupt.
You said: 'I think that rationally humans can easily think of objective sources of moral order that do not require the existence of a lawgiver in the sky. Happiness and well-being are a good start. I could talk to a skinhead all day about whether Hitler was right or wrong, (sorry to bring up Hitler) and neither of us at any point in the conversation would have to make reference to scripture.'
Response: Without a consistent and objective mechanism there can be no objective goodness. Do human beings have intrinsic value? If so, whence did they derive this intrinsic value? You see, even if on an evolutionary paradigm we came to develop certain common 'ideals' about 'well-being', this says nothing of the objective goodness of these common ideals. On an evolutionary scheme of things you have no foundation for proclaiming the random collection of atoms called Jews had any more intrinsic worth than the random collection of atoms called Nazis.
You said: 'As an agnostic, I dislike all know-it-alls...'
Response: Extraordinary. Agnostics like to pretend they are the more 'virtuous' of unbelievers, claiming epistemic humility out of one side of their mouth while spewing knowledge claims out of the side of their mouth.
You said: I do think you deserve some credit for taking a beating with these "drive by" shootings, as you call them, and still maintain the website.
Response: On what planet in what universe has Puritan Lad or anyone else here at Covenant Theology 'taken a beating'? how far 'under the influence' were you when you said this?
danny
Hi,
DannyM:
Thank you for your responses:
I often hear this from believers: "If there is no God, then what is the point"- something I don't understand. There are almost a billion atheists in the world who have lived proven, fulfilling lives without the need to make reference to anything supernatural. If anything, life is more precious if it has a limit and doesn't go on endlessly. It is simply not true that it necessarily follows that atheists must quit because they have no metaphysical consolation. I have often been amazed that Christians would be willing to believe that an atheist, like Camus, who fought against the Nazis, is damned while Menegle, who was a Protestant, and experimented on child twins, goes to heaven because he believed in Christ. I also wonder why I should be debating morality with Christians at all, when they believe in a loophole anyway, where morality doesn't count, all you have to do is believe in Christ to be saved...
As to agnosticism being false because it is bereft of knowledge, I admit I am not using that definition in the true philosophical sense of the term-- I am only saying that I am not sure that there is a god. I did reference paganism and I am soul-searching. But I know that your certainties based on the Bible are very eerie indeed. I mean, without insulting, did you read the Bible, in its entirety? (Lots of strange passages.) As I said in my last post, Paine, in my opinion, demolishes the Bible, and even though you did not mention his book in your response, I challenge you to check out this book.
3.)As for the foundation of morality, I stated in my other posts, that my mind, though imperfect, is still better suited to develop a morality, rather than a mysterious morality being imposed on me, coming from an unknown source (which, for all I know, could have a extraterrestrial origin) and reveals itself in ambiguous ways (different bibles). I have yet to receive a cogent response from this site about this. And I would challenge you with this question: What would you do without God? Would you still be moral?
As for pretending I am more "virtuous" than others, I am stunned. I apologized for my conduct on this website. I thought Christians were more forgiving. I am not perfect, and, unlike you and other Christians (and atheists), I have not set up a website like Puritan Lad has, to "spread the gospel". It amazes me that believers accuse non-believers of arrogance, when they state the following (from Sam Harris):
-- "The creator of the universe takes an interest in me.
-- this creator approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death;
-- my current beliefs, taken from scripture, will remain the best statement of the truth until the end of the world;
-- everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell..."
I am sorry, but that (above) is arrogance, taken to an almost cosmic extreme level by believing humans.
5.) As for "taken a beating"--it was a bad choice of words. You and Puritan Lad have presented very cogent expressions of your beliefs. I only meant that you have had to deal with people hurling insults at you, and then disappearing. I didn't mean that you were weak or stupid.
By the way, I would ask you to refrain from references to my being "under the influence". I exposed that in good faith, and, I admit, even now, I am under the influence. But, in proofreading my remarks here, I think I have offered some cogent responses without the need on your part to resort to "ad hominem" attacks. If that the way that this site is, however, then again I have encountered the hypocrisy that I have run into time and time again from Christians, and I will refrain from visiting this site.
I have always wanted to visit England, especially the Shakespeare sites. Let me know if you ever checked them out and if it is worth going to.
John, Salem Ma
Hi John,
//I often hear this from believers: "If there is no God, then what is the point"- something I don't understand. There are almost a billion atheists in the world who have lived proven, fulfilling lives without the need to make reference to anything supernatural//
Response: That's not what I said. I said:
'If the true nature of reality is unknowable then why are you here wasting the short time you have on this planet on something so fruitless? What's the point?'
I am asking why, given your agnosticism, you are here on this blog wasting your time on something so fruitless, not why you are living your life at all. Why have you so spectacularly misrepresented what I said?
//If anything, life is more precious if it has a limit and doesn't go on endlessly. It is simply not true that it necessarily follows that atheists must quit because they have no metaphysical consolation//
Response: So atoms and molecules can manufacture a 'more' 'precious' life for themselves than human beings made in the image of God? Can you explain, on a rational and logical level, how that works, exactly?
//I have often been amazed that Christians would be willing to believe that an atheist, like Camus, who fought against the Nazis, is damned while Menegle, who was a Protestant, and experimented on child twins, goes to heaven because he believed in Christ//
Response: I am unfamiliar with the examples you cite. But again this is an emotional response in lieu of an argument. There is an assumption that it is 'right' to fight against the Nazis, and 'wrong' to experiment on children. Do you human beings have intrinsic value? If you say they do, then you need to give an account of where they derived this intrinsic value.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
//I also wonder why I should be debating morality with Christians at all, when they believe in a loophole anyway, where morality doesn't count, all you have to do is believe in Christ to be saved//
Response: This is just meaningless rhetoric. What on earth are you are trying to say here? What you have said above has nothing to do with Christianity. The true follower of Christ does not believe in, nor do they look for, 'loopholes.' Now if you are referring to our 'works' being as filthy rags in the sight of a holy God, then yes. But what has this to do with 'loopholes'?
And being 'saved' requires a little more than just believing in Christ. Being transformed from an unregenerate sinner to a regenerate believer requires a miracle from God. God takes out the heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh. The newly regenerated believer recognises their sin, their previous standing as unregenerate sinners, and their current standing in relation to the holy and righteous God.
/As to agnosticism being false because it is bereft of knowledge, I admit I am not using that definition in the true philosophical sense of the term-- I am only saying that I am not sure that there is a god//
Response: If you are not sure of God's existence then why did you show up here on this blog telling us what you would like to do to the face of Jesus Christ? If you are merely 'unsure' of God's existence or non-existence then would you not be more careful than to make such wild and blasphemous statements? It seems a bit rich for you to now be claiming 'humility.'
An agnostic is still an unbeliever and has still excluded God as their authority and replaced him with their autonomy. You're still an unbeliever and you still face the same uphill struggle as atheists do.
//I did reference paganism and I am soul-searching. But I know that your certainties based on the Bible are very eerie indeed//
Response: Please present an argument why our certainties are 'eerie'. This would need to entail something more than incredulity.
//I mean, without insulting, did you read the Bible, in its entirety? (Lots of strange passages.) As I said in my last post, Paine, in my opinion, demolishes the Bible, and even though you did not mention his book in your response, I challenge you to check out this book//
Response: Again this is mere assertion in lieu of an actual argument. Bare assertions hold no currency here, John.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
/As for the foundation of morality, I stated in my other posts, that my mind, though imperfect, is still better suited to develop a morality...//
Response: How can your mind 'develop a morality'? Your own subjective self might 'develop' your own preferences, but these would remain just that – preferences. To give an account for objective morality and objective goodness is not merely to identify your own experience or preference; no, lest you beg the question, you must offer an account for how human beings came to have intrinsic moral value given their non-directed, non-conscious, non-personal, and valueless origins. You are avoiding (or simply not recognising you need to address) the deeper 'ontic' level of how human beings came to have intrinsic moral value.
//...rather than a mysterious morality being imposed on me, coming from an unknown source (which, for all I know, could have a extraterrestrial origin) and reveals itself in ambiguous ways (different bibles). I have yet to receive a cogent response from this site about this//
Response: Without an objective source your 'morality' is merely subjective and arbitrary. You seem to prefer the arbitrary 'morality' your autonomous 'mind' has invented than what you term 'mysterious' morality coming from an objective source. You are arguing for an objective morality without having an objective basis for such, yet you deride those who have an OBJECTIVE basis for morality. This is called having your cake and eating it too. Your 'mind' is not an objective source, John.
What has different Bibles to do with morality and God?
God is not an 'unknown source'. Man knows God:
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
(Romans 1:18-23 ESV)
John, you know the God who created you. The reason you are flailing around trying to establish and justify morality is because you are a moral being created in the image of God. On the one hand you are acknowledging God, on the other you are doing your utmost to convince yourself (and us!) that He does not exist. The result of this is corrupt thinking and corrupt reasoning. You have failed to accurately represent Christianity. You are giving us an arbitrary 'morality' and claiming it to be 'objective.' You are refusing to give an account for objective goodness. In short, your reasoning is utterly faulty.
//And I would challenge you with this question: What would you do without God? Would you still be moral?//
Response: Since we believe that God is necessary this question is irrelevant.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
//It amazes me that believers accuse non-believers of arrogance, when they state the following (from Sam Harris): "The creator of the universe takes an interest in me”//
Response: How is this arrogant? If God exists, and if He regenerates sinners, then how is the regenerated sinner arrogant for acknowledging their creator and redeemer?
You see, Harris (and yourself) has his own presuppositions embedded in this objection – he assumes the Christian God does not exist and spews his incredulity accordingly. This just exposes Harris' pre-commitment to his materialist world-view, and is not the slightest bit helpful in advancing the discussion.
//”this creator approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death”//
Response: Again, what on earth has this to do with arrogance? On an internal critique of Christianity, how the blazes is this arrogant? Oh but of course, Harris is not interested in fair representation. This is nothing more than red meat thrown out to his adoring (yet naive) followers.
//”my current beliefs, taken from scripture, will remain the best statement of the truth until the end of the world”//
Response: Are you beginning to see a pattern here, John?
//-- everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell..."//
Response: Pure caricature. Rebel sinners, who love their own sin and who spit in the face of God, will spend eternity in hell. Rebel sinners are DESERVING of hell, not because they 'disagree' with ME or any other Christian, but because they have sinned against a holy and righteous God.
Do you see how Harris (and yourself) caricatures Christianity and Christian doctrine, John? Are you interested in representing Christianity fairly and accurately?
//I am sorry, but that (above) is arrogance, taken to an almost cosmic extreme level by believing humans//
Response: I have just shown you that NONE of it is arrogance. If you are at all interest in fruitful discussion then I suggest you rid yourself of this nonsense and silly caricature.
/By the way, I would ask you to refrain from references to my being "under the influence". I exposed that in good faith, and, I admit, even now, I am under the influence//
Response: I am merely taking my lead from your own admissions, John.
//But, in proofreading my remarks here, I think I have offered some cogent responses without the need on your part to resort to "ad hominem" attacks//
Response: Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, John, but you have not offered anything in the way of a cogent response. You have misrepresented myself and you have misrepresented Christian doctrine. You have resorted to the most egregious of caricature.
I have not resorted to ad hominem, either. Do you understand what an ad hominem argument entails?
//If that the way that this site is, however, then again I have encountered the hypocrisy that I have run into time and time again from Christians, and I will refrain from visiting this site//
John, empty words and rhetoric do not wash here. Please stop the hard-done-by act and start addressing, first your own errors and caricatures, and then the substantive points both Puritan Lad and myself have offered.
danny
Hi Danny,
You seem somewhat angry and upset, with the long response. I didn't mean to upset you, and I respect your beliefs, but disagree with them. Once again, you referenced my remark about what I would do on the face of Jesus. I don't know how many times I have to apologize. My apology is now sufficient.
As for spending time on this blog, I would say that just because I believe some ultimate truths are unknowable, that this doesn't prevent me from writing on this blog-- see, I am doing it right now, and didn't get struck by lightening yet (lol)!
There are several things to respond to, but, since you are so eager to get me off the blog, I will confine myself to two points:
1.) I noted that you avoided my question: What would you do without God? Would you still be moral? I know that you said something about how the question is irrelevant for you, but please use your imagination a little and get back to me.
Also, saying atheists believe that humans are just atoms seems to be an argument from ignorance. The mind-body problem has never been solved, and yet Christians come along with their "god of the gaps" and conclude that their must be a soul, then there must be angels, a God, Jesus is correct, etc. Quite a leap of Olympian proportions. They take what is unknown, and make it divine-- when it is just unknown.
Thank you, John
Hi John,
////You seem somewhat angry and upset, with the long response. I didn't mean to upset you, and I respect your beliefs, but disagree with them. Once again, you referenced my remark about what I would do on the face of Jesus. I don't know how many times I have to apologize. My apology is now sufficient////
1) So I am angry and upset because I wrote a long response? Please demonstrate how a long response alone equals being angry and upset.
2) My response was necessary as you stumble and fumble with every sentence. It's called attention to detail.
3)) You have not upset me. Your initial post on here offended me as a Christian, of course. But then you knew you would be offending Christians when you posted it.
4) No, you do not 'respect' our beliefs; if you did you would not have written your initial post. Since that post you have been trying and failing to backtrack.
5) Yes, I referenced your remark. It was appropriate since I was comparing it with your claim that you are 'not sure that there is a god'. Here it is again:
'If you are not sure of God's existence then why did you show up here on this blog telling us what you would like to do to the face of Jesus Christ? If you are merely 'unsure' of God's existence or non-existence then would you not be more careful than to make such wild and blasphemous statements? It seems a bit rich for you to now be claiming 'humility.''
Your initial comment is fair game if it clashes with subsequent comments you make.
6) You are flailing around so badly that you have resorted to phoney indignation. Stop trying to make your initial comment the overriding issue in play here. Stop playing the 'I'm being picked on' card. The overriding issues in play are your irrelevant remarks, your silly caricatures, your faulty reasoning – in short, your entirely defunct world-view is being exposed by yourself with every new comment you make.
7) Your apology has been accepted. But I certainly do not take that as some change of heart on your part.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
////As for spending time on this blog, I would say that just because I believe some ultimate truths are unknowable, that this doesn't prevent me from writing on this blog-- see, I am doing it right now, and didn't get struck by lightening yet////
1) Saying 'some' ultimate truths are unknowable implies some ultimate truths are knowable. This is an equivocation. If the ultimate nature of reality is unknowable then no 'ultimate truths' can be 'known'!
2) Let me try to be clearer. If the true nature of reality is unknowable then your being here arguing against the truth of the Christian world-view implies you know something about the ultimate nature of reality that renders the Christian world-view false. But since the ultimate nature of reality is unknowable then you can have no idea whether or not the Christian world-view is true or false. You have a tension here. You have no business pronouncing on the truth or falsity of the Christian world-view given your supposed agnosticism. Thus your presence here is an exercise in utter futility. But then we never really expected you to be consistent. You are ultimately an unbeliever. You are without God. Your ramblings demonstrate a godless/autonomous world-view. I would contend that there are no true agnostics. Professing agnostics lead lives that assume their autonomy and the non-existence of God. Your posts corroborate this view.
3) What has being 'struck by lightening' to do with your inconsistency?
////There are several things to respond to, but, since you are so eager to get me off the blog, I will confine myself to two points////
1) No one is eager to 'get you off' the blog. Drop the 'persecution complex,' John.
2) You are going to tell me below that I 'avoided' a question from you, yet you attempt to address just two of the many substantive points put your way. You're a card! Please go back and address my points.
CONTINUED
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
/// noted that you avoided my question: What would you do without God? Would you still be moral? I know that you said something about how the question is irrelevant for you, but please use your imagination a little and get back to me////
1) I avoided nothing. Your question is irrelevant to the Christian since without God there would not only be no morality, there would be no order, no uniformity, no intelligible experience, to name just a few. A materialistic world-view can account for none of these things. The fact you formulated such a question presupposes God's existence.
2) I'm imagining, John. Unfortunately I cannot stretch to such imaginary concepts as order and uniformity from disorder and chaos, life from non-life, consciousness from non-conscious processes, intrinsically moral beings from non-conscious, non-personal, non-directed, non-purposeful and valueless processes.
3) How about you 'get back to me' on where human beings derived their intrinsic moral value? Not to mention all the other points you have swerved.
////Also, saying atheists believe that humans are just atoms seems to be an argument from ignorance. The mind-body problem has never been solved, and yet Christians come along with their "god of the gaps" and conclude that their must be a soul, then there must be angels, a God, Jesus is correct, etc. Quite a leap of Olympian proportions. They take what is unknown, and make it divine-- when it is just unknown////
1) Your own ignorance is shining through once again. I never said atheists believe this. Atheists do not really believe this. Atheists are in conflict with their professed world-view. An internal critique of that world-view reduces atheism to such absurdities.
2) The mind-body 'problem' is only a problem for atheists.
3) The Christian God is the God of EVERYTHING. There are no 'gaps' on Christianity.
4) Speaking of gaps, you've heard the mantra 'We do not know (fill in conundrum) yet, but science is working on it and will get there one day.' These mantras are faith statements and can be classed as 'science-of-the-gaps' arguments.
5) Christians have a ready answer for why there exists an immaterial mind. The only 'gap filling' comes from the side that cannot account for such things. You know, those atheistic philosophers and non-philosophers who try to reconcile such things with their professed materialism. On a Christian scheme of things, how is it 'gap filling' to say the immaterial mind exists because God is immaterial and He chose to endow human beings with a mind? No, the 'filling of gaps' comes purely from your side. I mean, on your world-view there are 'Olympic leaps' going on left, right and centre!
6) Christians do not 'take what is unknown, and make it divine'. More caricature. The Christian does not take what is unknown and THEN 'jump to God.' The Christian PRESUPPOSES God and has no need to arbitrarily 'jump' from a state of affairs to 'God exists.' It's because God exists that we have such states of affairs!
Now please go back and address all of the substantive points put your way.
danny
Hi Danny,
I only need to note that you yet again dodged my question: "What would you do without god? Would you still be moral?"
Extraordinary. Xians keep harping on this moral argument, yet they do not even want to answer one simple straightforward question about it. There is nothing standing in your way here. I have therefore come to two conclusions:
1.) Visiting this web site is a waste of my time, as you want me to "go back and address" all your points when you cowardly refuse to respond to my ONE question, but instead, like the Octopus with the ink bag, hide behind phrases like "you're just emotional" or "it's irrelevant to me", etc. As you once said, that doesn't "wash". I don't want to waste my time fielding your questions when you have ran away with your tail between your legs regarding my one humble question. Therefore, this will be my last time visiting the site.
2.) I also have to conclude that, since you could not come up with a response to this question, despite having almost a month to think about it, that I have won this part of this debate.
Thank you,
John, Salem MA
Hey John,
Sorry for the delay in responding. My job currently has my online tome limited
1.) What would you say is the source of your agnosticism? Wouldn't a consistent agnostic not only have to acknowledge that God might exist, but that He also is capable of making himself known? Perhaps you are seeing a little of the ramifications os your worldview. You profess agnosticism and paganism, yet adamantly defend atheism. We aren't going to make any headway if you keep jumping ship. Pick a worldview and go with it. As far as the weather, it actually has been very mild this year. I prefer warmer summers for the beaches and such.
2.) How do you know that none of God's messengers are an absolute authority? No one wants to prevent you from using your mind of make you blindly submit to a priest. God's Word is the authority, not those who profess to teach it. However, your mind, as you have already admitted, is not autonomous. You are a creature of God, and you will never be able to escape your own creaturehood. The point is that the reliability of your mind is itself dependent on God. To quote C.S. Lewis, "...if minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees...”. You yourself admit that "The mind-body problem has never been solved". The very fact that youi recognize such a problem is a defeat of metaphysical naturalism. Do you realize the ramifications of that statement? You cannot justifiably claim to know anything at all. Therefore, I must accept Christianity and it's revelational epistemology due to a lack of any valid alternative. Metaphysical naturalism certainly cannot give us one, the logical conclusion being genetic and epistemological determinism, ie. we are what our genes say we are, we think and act the way our neurons tell us to think and act.
3.) You didn't explain how "happiness and well-being" can account for "an objective source of moral order". In fact, I can't of anything more subjective (and arbitrary). The very idea of a moral standard is based upon the assumption that human thoughts and actions are not controlled by the impersonal laws of nature. You will need to account for that idea before you can pass judgment upon any sort of thought, idea, or behavior, including those of Hitler, skinheads, or pedophile priests. To quote Richard Dawkins, "In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, and other people are going to get lucky; and you won't find any rhyme or reason to it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music." So to answer your question: "What would you do without god? Would you still be moral?" There no morality without God, per Dawkins own admission "no evil and no good". Any discussion of morality in a godless universe is an exercise in futility.
4.) No reason to apologize. My question was meant as a question, not a criticism. There are no right or wrong ideas without an valid epistemology. Until you can provide one (see #2), debating is rather useless.
5.) I don't expect you "to list all the countless inconsistences [in the Bible] here". Let's start with one.
Thanks.
Hi John,
////I only need to note that you yet again dodged my question: "What would you do without god? Would you still be moral?"////
Now your whole post is premised on this assertion. Everything you say after this depends on this assertion here being true. Is it true? Go to the top of my very last post before your current post and you will find this:
'1) I avoided nothing. Your question is irrelevant to the Christian since without God there would not only be no morality, there would be no order, no uniformity, no intelligible experience, to name just a few. A materialistic world-view can account for none of these things. The fact you formulated such a question presupposes God's existence.'
How on earth is this 'dodging' your inane question? Are you actually reading what I'm writing, John? Perhaps the answer is not to your liking? Either way, it is AN ANSWER – and you have once again proven yourself utterly inept. But let's take the rest of your post and demonstrate how inept you really are.
////Extraordinary. Xians keep harping on this moral argument, yet they do not even want to answer one simple straightforward question about it////
1) As we have just seen, your inane question was answered, and everything you say hereafter merely demonstrates your utter inability to comprehend/follow the debate.
2) To further the absurdity, you have failed to establish anything other than an arbitrary morality, therefore rendering your super-duper question entirely irrelevant on its face since you have not even attempted to establish an objective morality to begin with, something I have been challenging you to do from the beginning!
////1.) Visiting this web site is a waste of my time, as you want me to "go back and address" all your points when you cowardly refuse to respond to my ONE question, but instead, like the Octopus with the ink bag, hide behind phrases like "you're just emotional" or "it's irrelevant to me", etc. As you once said, that doesn't "wash". I don't want to waste my time fielding your questions when you have ran away with your tail between your legs regarding my one humble question. Therefore, this will be my last time visiting the site.////
1)So by this logic (refusal to answer = coward) you must be the biggest yella belly in all of Christendom, John. How many times have you been refuted and then dropped the point? How many times have you failed to answer challenges put before you? Should I go back and document them all in order, John?
2) As has been shown, I RESPONDED to your question... and please, before you go around calling your question 'humble' it might be an idea to start to attempt to address the topic of morality – this would entail addressing whether or not human beings have intrinsic moral value and, if so, from where they derived this intrinsic moral value... you know, John, what you have been 'cowardly' avoiding thus far?
////2.) I also have to conclude that, since you could not come up with a response to this question, despite having almost a month to think about it, that I have won this part of this debate.////
It's like your mouth is falling down the stairs, John.
1) Since I DID respond to the question (and I responded in a day or two – so nice try with the 'month' card - as if you presented some conundrum!), then your whole post is moot.
2) Following your 'logic' to its rightful conclusions then, John, I have 'won' EVERY part of this debate, since you have single-handedly dropped EVERY point once you have been refuted and/or challenged.
Seriously, John, were you born this inept or did it take years of practice?
danny
Post a Comment