Q: What is the connection between the Old Testament stories about war and God’s commanding to kill families and villages and the New Testament teachings of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount?
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Why violence in the Old Testament?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Pastor Ron,
You must have been tired from jumping through all of those hoops to defend the old testament for four services this weekend. How is that I, a mere mortal and non-believer can easily think up a more humane way of removing a group of people from a land (if I had supernatural powers of course)than to have soldiers slaughter women and children. It seems to me that these stories were made up by a group of writers who had a different world view and idea of what God would be if he existed than the writers of the New Testament. I feel this is a much more likely explanation of the differences in Judgement/morals between the two books than your claim that it was merely an evolving story. Thank you for this series, but trying to defend the Old Testament is a tall order and you only scratched the surface Sunday. I think it is a telling statement, when you have to end your sermon with "If all else fails when dealing with the Old Testament, just have faith." (Paraphrase)
Thanks,
DWWJ
Yes,down through the old testament it seams God tried many ways to get his point across to mankind. In the end, maby out of frustration for man unwillingness to get it, all that was left was to give Grace and forgivness to all.
Yes, you are right that I barely scratched the surface. Much more could have been said. But, no, it didn't tire me out; I rather enjoyed it! So, help me understand; your explanation is that it was all made up? So, the wars in Joshua never happened? If so, what is scandalous about it, then? Allow me to ask a couple other questions. Are you a pacifist? If so, where does that conviction come from?
DWWJ,
I'm curious from your comment here and in other post on this blog why it is you attend LaCroix??? Are you a believer or not?? I'm confused. You negativity is really a downer.
stayathomemom,
Let me risk answering for DWWJ ... He states he's not a believer so I would assume he's attending La Croix because we invited him and all who have questions, doubts or unbelief to attend. I hope he keeps coming!
I hope you keep coming as well dwwj! You are always welcome at La Croix!
DWWJ, You are right about the last statement. It is very telling to say, "When all else fails, have faith." Having ultimate trust and faith in God is paramount in being a Christian. I think it's great that you're attending. Obviously, you have heard God's whispers, and participating in this blog (and expecting responses from Christians) is a way to get to know God.
Just wanted to add...having faith and trusting in God's plan and decisions may seem ridiculous to a non-believer or someone just beginning to look at Christianity. But in my Christian journey, the stronger my relationship with God, the more NATURAL that faith comes. My faith/trust in God is one of the most REAL parts of my life. That first step of faith and trust has lead to countless blessings that will last an eternity...literally. So Pastor Ron's comment,as you paraphrased, about having faith in God as a way to understand some parts of the Old Testament isn't a cop out at all(as you tried to make it out to be). How sad that you view faith to be such a negative virtue. My prayer for you, DWWJ, is that someday you WILL be able to experience the wonderful blessing of faith and ultimate trust in God. AND...since I have FAITH...I believe you will.
Pastor Ron,
No, I am not a pacifist by any means. I was just pointing out that if you are going to claim that the Old Testament God is also a loving God, he could theoretically deal with this situation in any number of non-violent ways. There didn't seem to be any shortage of supernatural intervention in those days according to the bible, so it wouldn't have seemed odd that a group of people would just float away to a far away barren land as their punishment.) This holds true for any of the violent stories of the O.T.. I mean after all, if you're capable of creating 100 million galaxies with billions of stars in them, just to give us a nice sky on a clear night, would you really be this kind of character that would find it necessary to order the slaughter of women and children? It just seems much more likely that a King would use "God told me to do it" as a convenient excuse to do something like this.
Ron,
by asking me if the "wars in Joshua never happened", I am assuming that you are implying that because there are some historical facts in the bible that this somehow legitimizes the claims of a supernatural God. This argument simply doesn't work. Think about this for a minute. Say a survivor of the Branch Davidians decided to write his/her version of their "saviors" bible, including David Koresh's teachings, life accomplishments and so on. Don't you think that they would include actual historical happenings of our times in these writings. Of course they would! No one would take them seriously if they didn't. But, would that give any legitimacy to their belief that David Koresh was a modern day prophet? Of course not. I know that this "historical facts in the bible argument" is a popular tactic by today's bible apologists, but I wouldn't use it if I were you. It's just too easy to refute.
Anyway, I just like to give people another point of view. I'm attending some of the services in this series because I was invited by a friend. I'm proud of you for addressing these issues. I admire you (Pastor Ron) for being brave enough to do it. I'm always interested in people's views on these subjects. It's unfortunate that everyone doesn't get to hear the other side of the argument. I think its' much more convincing.
Thanks again,
DWWJ
Over complicating the old testament brings frustration to many a believer. 100% historical acuracy is left to your faith and belief in the hand of the writers and interpeters of the text. What does surely exist is Gods hand in the development of a people. The trial and error of trying to get them to remember his teaching. I say search for faith not in pen and ink but whats woven within the words. If I told you DWWJ that I turned a light on in my home would you know that it was shinning or would you not believe until you saw my electric bill. Or would you even believe then? I still say that more than the trappings of the old testement, the birth and death of Jesus and the comandment given to all people "love God the father keeper of heaven and earth and love you neighbor as yourself" God changed everything. Research historicaly what that statement brought to the context of its time, and don't get lost bickering about what the story does, listen to what the story says.
DWWJ,
I love your spirit and attitude!
Onto your remarks, last one first. No, I was not using the historicity as evidence that the whole message is true. Your reasoning there is solid. Where we would diverge, of course, is that I believe it is all accurate historically. I was just making a simple observation that you can't have it both ways: you can't condemn the stories you find objectionable in the OT and claim they are not true to begin with; if they aren't true, it doesn't matter any more than the violence in Star Wars matters.
Now, concerning the wars in Joshua. Yes, an all powerful God could have simply made the Canaanites float harmlessly off to another part of the world: a humane cosmic relocation plan, I guess. But, first off, it seems that God prefers to use natural means to accomplish most of his purposes. Variations from the natural, the supernatural, are not the norm, even in the Bible. In the case of Joshua, God chose to use the nation of Israel as his instrument of judgment. Modern sensibilities notwithstanding, God acts in history through human beings. This is consistent throughout scripture. When God has a job to do, he finds a person or a people to do the job (e.g. Moses going to Egypt to secure the freedom of the Hebrew slaves). Yes, this was a messy and "controversial" job the Hebrew army had to carry out in Canaan. But, and this is why I asked you about pacifism, the same could be said for any just war in history. I suppose God could have simply made the Nazis float off into space but that would not only go against the natural order of things, it would violate free will. God used the Allies to carry out a just war and defeat an evil reign. There was much suffering by innocents, much blood shed and lots of horror. Most would say it was necessary. The wars in Canaan were also necessary for similar reasons.
DWWJ,
I want to say I'm sorry if my comment earlier came across the wrong way...I do hope you continue to attend LaCroix and grow in your journey with God.
Off into another direction we go-Ron. I don't recall your God making any personal contact with the allied leaders before WWII like he supposedly did back in the day. I think a person could fairly catagorize the just cause in WWII as "self preservation" by several militarily strong nations, and come out with the same end result of the war.
I think you understand where skeptics come from when we ask why your God is so publicly silent now in our age of advanced communication vs. back when these religious texts were being written. I've heard speakers talk about why God is silent now vs. in O.T. and N.T. times, but it sounds like nothing more than a convenient excuse to skeptics like myself.
Thanks for the feedback. Keep it coming and we'll see where this goes.
DWWJ
grandpa,
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I would believe your light was shining if I saw it with my eyes. What I don't see is any evidence for your religions claims. I do see lot's of evidence that contradicts your religion's claims. Also, I would not believe that your lights were on if you handed me an electric bill and I knew that you had an agenda to make me believe in something that I had not witnessed myself. Electric bills can be faked. Just like religious texts (either intentionally or through exxageration/misinterpretations through the years) can be. We know that it happens. Even if you're a Christian, you must believe that humans have a tendency to do this, or other religious texts (from other religions) would not exist. And the believers of these other "made up" texts believe that their's is true just as strongly as you do.
Also Grandpa- Jesus was behind the times with the "love your neighbors like yourself" The "Golden rule" had been around for some time in other cultures/religions before it appeared in the New Testament.
Thanks again,
DWWJ
So you believe my light shines only if you see it with your own eyes DWWJ. There are Biblical stories that offer topic, medafor and introspective thought for you to ponder, so stay in church. Yes the "Golden rule" has been around for a long time but God through Jesus gave this for to EVERYBODY live. It is not "love your neighbor who is like youself" it is "love your neighbor like yourself" and that brings a notion that is hard to bring fully to bare even for me. Look arround, God is among us, see him only one way through the eyes of someone choosing to live out this great comandment.Loose your paranoia for what the story does, listen to what the story says.
It's interesting when you study the biblical incidents of God speaking "publicly," as you say. Most of God's communications were to individuals, rarely to groups and those were during times of great national stress or calamity. God's usual method of communication is through others, through conscience, through circumstances, and through His word. God still speaks. I've never heard his audible voice but I have most definitely felt led by God, though I'm quite careful about claiming that such leadings are truly from God because I could be mistaken. It is admittedly subjective; I couldn't prove it. Before you cross the line of faith, it seems like nonsense. Once you cross the line, it doesn't.
Take the mystical element out of it and consider the "usual means." Yesterday I heard a speech by MLK, Jr. Many of us believe God spoke powerfully through him and during the civil rights movement. Can it all be explained naturally? Yes. But, I can tell you that MLK, Jr. certainly believed God was speaking to him and through him.
I also believe God speaks to people even when they are oblivious to the fact. Who is to say Roosevelt and Churchill weren't led by God in their campaign against the Nazis? They both were men of prayer though neither claimed, to my knowledge, that God told them to do anything. I see God moving through history, whether or not others acknowledge it. Again, this is quite subjective.
DWWJ,
I'm jumping in to your conversation with grandpa. You are correct that "love your neighbor" was not a new word from Jesus. The OT taught that. Jesus was most definitely ahead of the times when he expanded the definition of neighbor to include people in "out groups." When Jesus was asked, "Who is my neighbor," he responded with the parable of the Good Samaritan. That story rocked their world because Jews and Samaritans didn't associate with one another and yet, in Jesus' teachings, the two are neighbors. Every great moral teaches says "love your neighbors," meaning love those in the "in group." Jesus was radically ahead of the times when he said "love your enemies." No one before him taught that. Jesus ethical teachings about love are unparalleled and unsurpassed.
Pastor Ron,
Please don't take offense to anything I am about to write. My intention is not to put anyone down down for believing any certain thing or any certain way. I am simply stating the way I feel and look at the world. Eventually in this type of conversation the "R" word has to come up (Rational), as in, are people being rational in thinking a certain way, or does a belief system such as Christianity even allow for rational thought? I personally think that all religious belief is inately irrational and does not allow for an objective critique of it by it's believers. This says nothing about a believer's "intellegence", only their "intellectual honesty", in other words, is a believer ever capable of taking a truly objective look at their belief system? I think not. Anyway, the reason I'm talking about this is that as I was reading your last response you wrote "Before you cross the line of faith, it seems like nonsense, once you cross the line it doesn't." As I was reading this, I was thinking how easy it would be to insert "irrational thought" in the place of "faith." It seems as though as soon as people cross the "faith" line, all evidence against their belief system can be magically wiped away by any number of varying explanations, depending on who is speaking at the latest "apologetic" speech that has been presented to them. In my experiences, the issue typically ends there for beleivers. There is no exposure to a counter argument or any further critique of the apologist's "explanation", which would be the next logical step in a truth finding process. I believe whether consciously or sub-consciously, this is what you are providing for your congregation with this series. A sort of "pacifier" for the questions that are becoming more and more public in today's information age. I think the internet is taking and will continue to take a major toll on belief systems in this country, as young people are exposed to arguments against the "supernatural/God" that past generations were not. I have heard about recent polls stating that as high as 20% of graduating highschool seniors are reporting non-belief, which is significantly higher than the typical public polls of adults. This does not surprise me at all considering the amount of information/arguments countering traditional Christian beliefs that is available on the internet.
In response to your response about "love your enemies." I believe a much better version of "the golden rule" is to "treat others as you would want to be treated." I personally see nothing moral about "love your enemies." I not only think it's a bad idea morally, it could very easily get you killed. Apparently most of the Christians in our country feel the same way, since there would be very little support for this type of approach with our current problem of islamic radicals trying to kill as many of us as possible. In other words, it sounds good on paper, but do people really think it's good practical advise. Probably not.
Anyway, I'm enjoying the conversation.
DWWJ.
Not to butt in on the conversation...which I'm very much enjoying, by the way. But I had a thought as I read your post, DWWJ. I'm wondering why your disbelief of all religions is not a belief system. Of course you think it is simply a set of rational principles, but isn't that what people of religion think? Could it be that you are incapable of objective thought outside of your deeply held belief system. Perhaps you are invested so heavily in a combination of enlightenment-age-science and humaism. My rational mind thinks more and more that the hardcore evolutionists are very much in the position you describe. Thanks for being open to discussion, this has been really interesting. I hope you feel the same way.
Rob,
I understand what you are asking. I guess I would consider my "belief system" to be different in the following way.
I came to my conclusion about the way I view the world based on what I consider to be "evidence." In other words it required no faith. It doesn't require faith to look at an upright walking "apelike" anscestor and see that it fits nicely into an evolutionary model.
Unlike some believers, I don't think evolutionary science and religion is compatible. Although evolutionary science does not make a statement about the existance or non-existance of a God, I do make that decision on my own when I read the biblical version of the creation of man/the world. I believe it directly conflicts with some very knowable/proveable facts that modern science has attained. As arrogant as this probably sounds, I do feel like I am better equipped to objectively analyze my ways of thinking/viewing the world because I have been on both sides of the fence. I was raised as a Christian, but decided I could no longer believe it when I was exposed and studied the other side and the Christian side objectively. I've always been a naturally skeptical person about many things, so it probably wasn't as hard for me to question Christian beleifs as someone with a less skeptical mindset. Please don't misinterpret the statement about my changing to atheism as me presenting it as some type of argument against belief. Both sides of the issue have multiple people who have switched over to their side, but I don't think that this adds anything to the discussion itself. I think the arguments stand on their own.
Rob, I am interested to hear your opinion on evolution vs. biblical accounts of creation. I'm not trying to turn this into a discussion about science though. I'm just curious since you mentioned it.
DWWJ
First, as an engineer with some scientific background, I see very poor (really no) evidence for cross-species evolution. I clearly see good evidence for evolution within species...small changes that may have been a disadvantage at one time becoming an advantage with environmental change. Second, I guess I'd like to hear the "knowable/provable" facts that you are referring to.
Back to your comment, though. It appears you are pressing for a position of authority ("better equipped...because I have been on both sides of the fence"), yet then you imply that anyone on both sides of the fence who wound up a Christian adds nothing to the argument. Those sound like the kind of predisposed statements you make of believers above. Also, skepticism like yours led a lot of people from atheism to theism...so it can't only be applied to the "Christian side."
DWWJ: Two responses (to your earlier post): The "love your enemy" command is given to individuals so let's not confuse the role of the state as opposed to individual conduct (a point I make in another post). "Love your enemies" is the only way out of spiraling hate and vengeance. Forgiveness breaks the cycle of violence.
Now, concerning your arguments about faith being rational or not, look at my comments in context. My reference to "nonsense" was in regards to the subjective aspects of our faith, experiencing God, knowing his voice, etc.
Faith in God is multifaceted; it involves loving God with your heart and your mind. Matters of the heart are not always logical; the love between a man and woman can be downright illogical at times. Human love is subjective. How do you quantify or prove from a scientific view the feelings of love a parent has for their child or the romantic feelings a man might have for a woman? My comment there was similar to my comments to my (then) elementary age school boys about liking girls when they said "yuck" to a boy kissing a girl. "You'll understand it later," I would say.
We also love God with our mind and, for that reason, Christianity is grounded in reason and its doctrines are not only rational, they have been the material of intellectuals for centuries. Some of the most brilliant people to walk this planet have been and continue to be people of faith. Just because I recently bought his new book, I think of Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project. He is a world renowned scientist and a believer in Jesus Christ. I could go on and make a long list and you could make a similarly long list of brilliant atheists. You may disagree with our conclusions; that does not mean faith in God is illogical.
And, I don't think you want to get into a numbers contest: atheism continues to be a tiny minority position in our world and in the US. At most, atheists comprise 10% of the US population. It is more likely near 5%. Religious faith is growing worldwide at a stunning pace. Just when atheists think they're gaining ground, faith in God in the next generation comes roaring back. Back in the 1700s Voltaire predicted that faith in God would die out. The Second Great Awakening followed next. In 1888 Robert G. Ingersoll said the churches were dying and would soon disappear from America. His comments were followed by the greatest era of church planting in US history. The "God is dead" movement of the '60s was followed by the Jesus Movement and the worldwide charismatic renewal of the '70s. There is nothing new about the claims of the "New Atheists" like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. In fact, a good argument can be made that their near hysteria is a sign of desperation. When your arguments fail, start calling people names! Dawkins, et al, do a lot of that. I'm glad this conversation is taking the high ground; that was our hope and I appreciate your thoughtful posts. If I could only keep up...
Rob,
I must have not explained myself clearly. I meant that switching to either side adds nothing to the debate. I didn't mean to make it sound one-sided if that's the way it came accross.
It never ceases to amaze me how much smarter pastors are than evolutionary biologists are about evolutionary biology. So let me summarize and remind you of what you are saying in your previous comment. You feel like you know more about speciation than virtually 100% of scientists from not just evolutionary biology but all fields of science that deal with the subject of evolution. There is no debate among scientists who study this stuff for a living as to whether speciation occured, only how it occured. Yet you have no problem with the "talking snake theory" written by a group of stone age sheepherders. It sounds like your threshold for knowable/provable facts are a little inconsistent between modern science and ancient mythology.
Thanks for your time.
DWWJ
DWWJ,
I apologize if I misread your paragraph. I realize that you said switching one way or the other doesn't add to the debate; but you also said that this very switching, in your case, makes you "better equipped to objectively analyze." I didn't mean to turn things defensive.
My point was that someone switching the other way, because of quesitons they asked about their own atheism due to their inherent skepticism, would say the same thing you are saying. Would they be irrational, and if so, would it be because they came to a different conclusion than you. Remember, my comment was framed by the idea that atheism is a belief system, and as such its adherants may be just as susceptible to discounting all other conversation as irrational.
Many reputable scientists agree that there is poor evidence for speciation. It is why there is a lot of debate among evolutionary biologists about the "how," because once you reach the issue of speciation, you are in model extrapolation. No proof-positive evidence to support the primary theories so all primary theories are still up for grabs. Many Christians, including scientists, would say that there is no doubt God created this world, they just don't know exactly how. As one author says, "I believe in the big bang, I just know who banged it."
Now, back to the question, which knowable/provable facts are you referring to? People can look across a field and clearly see that it fits nicely into a flat-earth model...doesn't mean the earth is flat. I'm not trying to be cute, but evolutionary theories originated from someone noticing a resemblance between apes and humans, and now on the back end that is the proof? Here is a better one; there were tons of proof for Einstein's theories...everything available pointed to fitting the model because the model was constructed out of what could be seen and tested. Oops, then came quantum physics.
My whole point is, let's be careful about what is theory and what is proven fact. You like the support you see of a model, the evolutionary model. From there you make a leap of faith...you believe in the model that is not proven. I see great evidence for a Creator, and I make a leap of faith.
I actually think my threshold for proven fact is higher because I know and fully admit that God creating the world, while strongly supported by good evidence, is not a proven fact...that I am making a decision to believe the theory I see fits the evidence best. I hope you see that the evidence I refer to is more than a sheepherder's writing. I have no problem including that in my "how" model, but it is very little of the "if" evidence.
Pardon me, as I tend to jump in from time to time and express myself.
I can see the faith that DWWJ's christian family assumably tried to raise him with.It's there in his life, but is missdirected (I feal).I see and read so much media to the fact that all in this world has come to be buy pure chance and we as intelagent beings are the top rung of this evalutonary hapenstance.Rob is right this model of evolution also requires much faith. Ever heard the expression "the devils in the details"? We can go round and round-DNA-Evaloution-creation...I have come to know God is larger than all of this and has a hand in all of this, existance. Proof? Well I have my faith, and the Bible were evalutionist have there their faith and scientific journals. I will say that in my faith journey the study of the story of Jesus Christ and his new theory of living, and the expert witness of those around him help me personaly see past the grim reality of "chance".
If, DWWJ your faith journey is on a scientific expadition, be sure and be open to all posabilities. An it sounds like you are, your just looking for in the pudding proof and its not there for either side without a little faith.Frustrating is'nt it?
PS this forum is great-Thank God for it creation and for the leadership at laCroix church.
First of all, I just want to say that it is never a good idea to assume that any one of us is more equipped than another on any topic unless you know that person inside and out. We don't know a stranger's past experiences, education, or personal conflicts. Be careful, DWWJ. As Rob (I think) mentioned earlier, many Christians out there lived part or much of their lives feeling exactly what you do; yet have become Christians none the less. Also, I'm not sure you have actually experienced Christianity enough to say that you know "both sides." Being raised in a Christian household does not a Christian make. I, myself, was raised in a Christian household w/ a youth pastor as a father and a strong Christian as a mother; however, I have only truly come to know Christ (and am working on building that relationship)in the past 5 years. So my question for you, DWWJ, is (since I don't know you inside and out) have you ever truly come to know Christ? Because, if not, then how can you say that you have seen both sides? If you really want to be informed on both sides, then you should continue attending church and allow yourself the vulnerability to experience something greater than yourself.
One small addition, DWWJ, so that you know why I am pressing the point about faith as a component of atheism or evolutionary science. You said, "It doesn't require faith to look at an upright walking "apelike" anscestor and see that it fits nicely into an evolutionary model." I agree, just like it doesn't take faith to look at the extreme complexity of the universe or the body, DNA, small cells, the world in general and see that it fits nicely into an intelligent design model. But both parties then require faith to believe the model itself, because neither have been proven.
Okay, so many things to address.
Ron, Human love absolutely can be quantified. It has been studied in detail and broken down into brain activity. Love has an obvious evolutionary component. As a species that evolves in social groups, these subjective feelings played a key role in protecting offspring and other members of the group to increase any one person's ability to pass on their genes. The healthier and more cohesive/emotionally attached a group/family is, the more likely they will protect each other. This stuff is studied all of the time. If you read much Dawkins, he explains this stuff very convincingly and thoroughly. The reason your kids don't understand kissing untill a certain age has everything to do with chemical reactions in their bodies. Not some magical God-given gift of love.
I have read Francis collins opinions on God. I find it interesting how people make religion fit their particular needs. Dr. Collins for instance is unable to reject the overwhelming evidence of the evolution of life on earth because he works so closely with science that strongly supports the theory. However, he also has a need to believe in a higher power for whatever reason, which could be any number of reasons. So in his instance, he is unable accept the literal interpretation of the bible, accepts evolutionary theory and just makes the statement that God made us evolve and that's how he created us. My questions I would like to ask Mr. Collins would be "Where does it say this in the bible? If the bible was divinely inspired, where is the mention of the evolution that he believes happened? It seems logical to me that a God would include at least that much detail in his "inspired" guide to human existance. By the way, this is one of the things that would cause me to doubt atheism, or not become one to begin with-if the bible actually included something about the natural world that the people writing it should not have known, such as the slow progressive evolution of life into what we see today.
Actually, I would like to get into a numbers contest in one area. Among elite scientists, Francis Collins has been and continues to be a small minority with his belief system. The percentages actually do a 180 when you take a poll of the National Academy of Science, which is widely accepted as a group of the top scientists in the world that theoretically would have the best understanding of the natural workings of the world. These scientists consistently report a 90% rate of atheism, all believe in evolution (speciation), none in creationism, and some in an altruistic God.
I do not want to get into a numbers game with Religion within the general public. I realize why people want to believe in a God. Who doesn't want to believe they will live forever? Who doesn't want to believe that they will see their grandma and grandpa again or their son who died of luekemia or their brother who died in a car accident? It's no wonder people find religion so fervently and quickly when a loved one dies, or when a tragedy like 9/11 happens.
It does not surprise me that religion is growing with the aggressive campaigns of Missions in impoverished countries. If you want to surprise me, tell me how quickly Christianity is catching on among well educated and economically sound countries like Japan.
I've yet to see anything I would consider "name calling" from he atheist authors. I would like to see a quote from one of them that you would consider name calling.
Thanks,
Will post again soon to address Rob's last comments.
DWWJ
DWWJ,
I know you will be addressing my comments from before, but I wanted to toss a couple of questions I hope you will address. First, do you think that members of the NSA who recognized some great work by a scientist would vote that person in if he or she believed in Creationism or an intelligent designer, and said so outwardly? Second, what is your definition of the "literal interpretation of the Bible" as that relates to creation? Finally, are the Japanese more intelligent than the South Koreans?
Sorry, NAS. Reading too many Tom Clancy books lately.
DWWJ,
To your last comment first: Saying God is a "psychotic delinquent" (Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 38) is just one example of name calling. Dawkins calls faith "infantile" and accuses believers who teach their children about faith in God of child abuse. Saying churches are “demented in their belief in divine intervention” isn’t exactly playing nice, either. (Hitchens, Slate.com, 2004).
"Human love is ... brain activity." Ah yes, the gospel of reductionism. Though, most wouldn't consider it good news (the meaning of "gospel"). Reducing romantic feelings to neurons firing in the brain will not win many hearts on a date, either. Furthermore, it doesn't advance your point. To quote Philip Yancey, “We reduce in parts, but can we fit together the whole?” Human beings are greater than the sum of the parts.
Endless invention, endless experiment,
Brings knowledge of motion, but not of stillness.
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? – T. S. Elliot
I realize that you want the Bible to address the mechanics of how it all happened. That is not its intent. The Bible is more concerned with the Who behind the story, not the how. That’s why science and faith are not in opposition. Each is asking a different question: how vs. why/who? Speaking of science…
Now, you claim that 90% of folks in the Academy of Science are atheists. That may be true, but let's broaden it beyond that club to the larger field of science. Two widely regarded surveys have been conducted among scientists, one in 1916 and one in 1997. Scientists were asked whether they believed in God - specifically, a God who actively communicates with humanity and to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer." (This definition excludes Deists.) Back in 1916 about 40% believed in this kind of God; 40% did not and 20% were not sure. The survey was repeated in 1997, precisely the same questions were asked and the data revealed only a slight increase in atheism (up to 45%). The number of believers remained about the same. Like any other poll, the data can be spun. An atheist could say "most" don't believe in God. It could also be interpreted to say most scientists do not disbelieve in God in that 55% either believe or are agnostic. Now, throw this in: James Leuba conducted the first survey and he predicted that the number of atheists among scientists would rise substantially over the years. Yet another example of religion's rumored "demise being greatly exaggerated."
The same year Dawkins published The God Delusion, three research scientists published books that took a theistic stance. One was the book by Francis Collins I noted in the previous post. Then, there was Owen Gingerich, the noted Harvard astronomer. In his book, God's Universe, he says, "the universe has been created with intention and purpose, and that this belief does not interfere with the scientific enterprise." Then Paul Davies published Goldilocks Enigma, in which he argued for the "fine tuning" of the universe.
One of your own atheistic scientists, the highly regarded Stephen Jay Gould, rejects the notion that science and faith are incompatible. "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious belief and equally compatible with atheism." (Scientific American 267, no. 1). Notice he said "half," not 10%.
I'm sorry you and Dawkins are scandalized by this. It is must be troubling to you that 4 of 10 scientists are numbered among us "faith-heads" (as Dawkins calls us).
Now, let's take your comments from another angle: What does it prove that x% of scientists disbelieve in God? Isn't that akin to saying, "The College of Cardinals is 100% Catholic?" Of course they are! It is a particular group and an exclusive group at that (the Academy). You might be interested in Ben Stein’s new movie coming out this spring, “Expelled.” He documents the suppression of opposing ideas in the scientific community. I’m very interested to see the responses to it.
Japan? You could do better. According to a recent poll among the Japanese, 36% are Buddhists, 11% Shintoists and 11% Christian. Move just a bit north and to the west to South Korea. Christianity is booming there. It has grown from under 5% of the population after WWII to just under 50% today. That tracks along with their amazing economic expansion. Have I surprised you? Or, does South Korea not qualify as being "well educated and economically sound" enough? At the risk of engaging in some name calling myself, you're coming across as a bit of an elitist on that point, DWWJ.
This post is getting lengthy, but fear not. I have something to say about your amazing concurrence with one of the classic arguments for the existence of God. Until next time... Your Faith Head Friend.
Well I'm back for my closing arguments.
Ron, I'm not so sure that I would consider those descriptors as "name calling." I guess that kind of stuff is subjective though.
I'm not sure how you can say that the bible does not address the "how." Genesis clearly addresses the "how" story (how humans first appeared on the earth, in what order things were created etc.
Rob, I'm not sure how to answer your question about the NSA, there would be alot of variables there to consider.
My definition of the literal interpretation of the bible would be the Adam and Eve story.
No, I did not imply that any group is more intellegent and another group (Japanes vs. South Korea). I was only trying to make the point that religious "conversion" or the introduction of a new religion does not go over nearly as well in a stable, well educated society. In other words, if people aren't "searching" for something better than what they have (they're content), they tend to be more skeptical or less desperate to grasp onto something that they percieve as (maybe) making their lives better. There obviously has to be a societal component to the success of Christian Missionaries, otherwise they would have similar success rates in Isreal, Iran and Japan as they have had in South Korea. In other words it has little to do with the convincivness of the story and everything to do with susceptibility of the group that is targeted.
Ron, I would like to comment on the quote from Dawkins about "religion being child abuse." I know this sounds very offensive to you, but I want you to understand why people like myself and Dawkins believe that there is an element of unhealthy psychological "bullying" of children in your religion. Imagine hearing this in any other capacity other than within the context of your religion: Child, you should believe that 2,000 years ago someone sent an entity to save all of humans from there sins. This entity was supernatural and did magical things. The reason we know these things is because we have a book written about it. If you don't accept the things written in this book and accept this entity as your savior, When you die-you will go to a horrible place and suffer for all of eternity under the rule of an evil monster.
I can imagine what is going through your head as you read this crude interpretation of your religion. Unfortunately, there is some truth in this interpretation. Even if not at your facility, there are plenty of children around the world who are getting this message loud and clear through their particular sect's teachings. And even though I know you could "sugar coat" this part of your religion all day long,(Ron-I know enough about you and your church to know that you focus on the positive messages of Christianity) every child reared in a Christian environment will eventually hear this message. In my opinion, I find this particular message of Christianity to fall squarely under "psychological child abuse".
I could go on about this, but it's getting late.
I will leave you with a few interesting quotes from Martin Luther himself.
"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has:it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason."
"Reason should be destroyed in all Christians."
Thank you for your time and attention to my opinions. I have great respect for the positive things you do with your faith, however, I personally don't feel that faith is necessary to accomplish the same.
DWWJ
DWWJ,
Did you know there are two creation stories at the beginning of Genesis that emphasize different things? Did you know that it isn't until much later in the Bible that we are told that God created the earth and the "heavens" (universe) out of nothing, but in the Genesis account, nothing is not the condition at the beginning of the description? That's not contradiction, it just raises the question, at what point are we picking up creation in the story? Did you know that the sun and moon and everything that is related to our tracking time isn't created until the "fourth day"...so how were the first three days measured...by whose time? The emphases of the Genesis account are these things: God is orderly and not chaotic, he produces light without the sun, then creates the sun...guess what most of the civilizations worshipped. Unlike every other religion - everything created was good as created, not an equal ying-yang combo of good and bad, and that a significant way in which we are created in God's image is that we were made for relationship. These are not "how" questions. I teach a Bible Basics class and say, "it's fine to ask the other questions in time, but first question is 'what does this tell me about God, humanity (including me), and the God-human, human-human relationships.
btw, sorry to hear you are closing...but i understand how time consuming this is. i hope you'll visit us again. thanks for being respectful and issue oriented in your posts.
DWWJ: Again, I appreciate your thoughtful, respectful dialog. A couple quick responses.
Your proposition that evangelism is not successful in prosperous, educated nations does not hold up. If you used the scientific approach, the results of the testing must be consistent for the theory to be true. The success of evangelism in South Korea and the USA invalidates your hypothesis. Both are quite successful materially and well educated. I would argue – as a growing number of secular writers are beginning to recognize – that prosperity in and of itself is meaningless and empty. We all know lots of people with an abundance of the world’s goods who could be poster children for the U2 song: “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for.” That’s because we are more than material beings. We are spiritual, as well. As C. S. Lewis says, “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.”
I understand the gist of what you’re saying about child abuse – though I find the point offensive (the point, not you!). I see where someone might see logic in your viewpoint … unless, of course, the teachings of Jesus are true. Then, it could be argued that the greatest negligence a parent could be guilty of is not preparing their children for eternity. It is the ultimate parental failure. In the words of Jesus, “what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?”
I appreciate your observations about La Croix and our positive approach to faith. We don’t use hell as a blunt instrument to beat up people with. But, because we take Jesus’ teachings seriously, we would be careless and unloving if we failed to warn people of the danger and steer them toward heaven. Most parents teach their children not to use illegal drugs and warn them of the consequences. It is fair to warn our kids about the hell of addiction and the hell of prison. Truth is hard, isn’t it? To warn someone of consequences to their actions is actually the loving thing to do.
Also, I would like to see the evidence that such teachings are detrimental to a child’s wellbeing and development. Both Hitchens and Dawkins have chapters in their books that make the child abuse claim. I find it interesting that these two writers, both of whom are enamored with the scientific method, don’t cite scientific studies to prove their case. They are personally repulsed by the teaching of religion to kids, so therefore it is wrong. Doesn’t sound very scientific to me! If their hypothesis is valid, the children of atheists would consistently be more emotionally stable than children of Christian parents. Yet, they offer no proof.
Speaking of child abuse, may I ask, what makes it wrong? How does an atheist ever determine if something is right or wrong? Isn’t it just so many chemical reactions and brain waves? Who are we to say that love is better than hate, for that matter?
Post a Comment