New to FriendlyChristian.com? Check out the FAQ page to learn about the site. Wondering who the heck I am? The My Story page is a great place to start. Thanks for stopping by!
Click here to subscribe via RSS.
Click here to have posts delivered by email.
This message will automatically disappear after your 3rd visit.
You gotta love Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. Moreover, you gotta love The Atheist’s Nightmare, Comfort’s attempt to use a banana to debunk evolution. If you haven’t already seen this short video, watch it. As did Brother Barry, this video comes highly recommended.
Yesterday, while methodically working my way through my morning routine, I experienced the supernatural. Looking down to reach for my toothbrush I saw the following:
 |
After a quick zoom and crop in iPhoto I was able to focus in a bit clearer to present an obvious message. |
Two pieces of MY hair had fallen onto the counter and formed a familiar symbol.
What symbol do we use to represent Christianity…could it be……a fish??
Atheists, I only have one question: What now? BAM. Game, set, match. If Comfort and Cameron couldn’t bring you over with their banana, I have full confidence that my two fallen hairs can easily provide all the proof you skeptics could ever need.
The good news: God has clearly proven his existence to me today.
The bad news: I’m losing my hair 
For as long as I can remember, people have been finding Jesus (and other religious obviousness) in french fries, pancakes, spaghetti, and just about every other food out there. I’m willing to bet that eBay has seen its fair share of religious food findings as well.
I wonder if I can cash in…??
First time readers…this is a joke. The hair, however, unfortunately is real.
Popularity: 8% [?]
Loading ...
I absolutely love the Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron video. This by far the silliest and far reaching gross misunderstanding of what the Theory of Evolution says.
Does anyone really take these two tools seriously?
R.
Bill,
Us atheists have been preparing for this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRgEM9WiQi0
Now where did I put my 16 ton weight?http://www.friendlychristian.com/smilies/yahoo_bigsmile.gif
Oh, Ray Comfort…
My fiance is also an Atheist, but first and foremost he’s a scientist, and so his skepticism regarding religion, pseudoscience, and any form of ‘woo’ has more to do with the way they can get in the way of good, legitimate, helpful science (particularly medicine), and he takes evolution very seriously. As one might imagine, Comfort *really* gets under his skin, especially with nonsense like that banana video.
And (nothing to do with Comfort) homeopathy. He really hates homeopathy. Stuff like that offends him personally, as a scientist. It can be kinda funny sometimes, actually.
Anywho, he used to have this masochistic habit of regularly reading Comfort’s blog. He recently couldn’t take it anymore, and has since stopped. This one xkcd strip spoke to him, and he decided it wasn’t worth it anymore.
Bill, you absolutely should apply clear tape to your hairs, to preserve them in their divine state, and just see what happens if you try to sell them on eBay. I’m curious. It can be an experiment!
If it goes over well you could donate the money to charity or something.
If your morning ablutions make your hair fall out then you should move away from that nuclear power station as fast as you can.
I’ve seen this video before but I thought it was a joke. Please tell me it’s a joke. If it isn’t then all the times I’ve laughed at it should have been times that I’ve banged my head against a wall in despair.
You know what else is perfectly formed for the hand and is the right shape for the human mouth?
That’s right. A hot dog.
[...] experienced definitive proof of God’s existence [...]
@Travis McDermott
Wow. What else can I say? A preemptive strike!
@ Robert:
I love the video…of course I would right? I am a “believer“.
The thing that I like most about Ray and Kirk is that they use the same “silly” arguments that athiests use to make their points and yet for some reason they are considered idiots.
The banana theory is a joke and is suppose to be humorous…It’s an ice breaker, like much of the things they do, to set the stage for what they are really trying to say and the points they are really trying to make. It’s a setup for the TRUTH!!!
Psalms 14:1
Jason
It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).
– Richard Dawkins
Tragically, yes. Far too many.
Bill- you always make me smile! Your hair fish is probably a word for you! “go out into the world and be fishers of men” seems to me that you are already doing that , and how about “confimation”? sorry your hair is falling out…but it happens to the best !
I love the comparison between Psalm 14:1 and the (supposedly) horrible Dawkins quote. For those of you who are not familiar with Psalm 14:1, here it is:
The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
there is no one who does good.
The footnote says that the Hebrew words rendered fool in Psalms denote one who is morally deficient.
There is no allowance for inherent spiritual or intellectual abilities, or ignorance, or just plain being wrong. The only explanation for one not believing in God is that they are wicked.
Contrast that with the Dawkins quote:
“It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”
– Richard Dawkins
Dawkins (and myself) does NOT consider wickedness the only explanation for not accepting evolution. It isn’t even the likely or preferred explanation. The first and most likely explanation is ignorance, which is not a pejorative and is curable. I am ignorant of tons of things - 15th century history, the French language, etc. Wickedness is the last thing Dawkins would accuse evolution deniers of being. Wickedness is the first thing the Bible accuses atheists of being.
Ben I hate to burst your bubble, but I think your understanding of the scripture from Psalms is a bit off the mark.
Your are correct in your understanding that the word “fool” in this scripture carries a moral rather than intellectual meaning, but to say that the Bible singles out “atheists” as immoral is a bit presumptuous.
The Bible is loaded with scriptures that talk about our [man's] true condition and how we are all fools in our own way.
Rom. 3:10-12 says:
There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one.
All of us have sinned and therefore fallen short of God’s glory. The only difference between a Christian and an atheist is that a Christian understands their true [wicked] condition and need for the Savior. While the atheist simply carries on in their pride and contempt for God.
But one thing is for certain - One Day every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord! [Phil. 2:8-10]
For His Glory,
Jason
All Christians are NOT wicked. That’s a load of B.S. Bill is not wicked, Darla is not wicked, Mike Clawson is not wicked…I don’t care who says so, they’re wrong, and they’re rude. Even if it were a being who could create universes.
Ben:
I appreciate your willingness to stick up for your friends. It is honorable of you, and it really shows a lot about your character.
I understand that the idea of how God sees sinners is a hard one to comprehend, but the fact that we struggle to grasp this concept doesn’t make it less of a reality. The truth is that our sin has separated us from the perfection and glory of God.
This world has standards. We say that it is wrong to murder, rape, steal…Those are standards that we have set up. God has a standard for this world as well, perfection, and we have fallen short of His standard. That is why verses like Isaiah 64:6, which tells us that even our “righteous” deeds are like filthy rags in the eyes of God make perfect sense. This world sees deeds like feeding the starving and helping the needy as good deeds because we are judging them based on our own standards, but God sees them as filthy rags.
Why? It is because we are soiled and stained by our sin and the penalty for our sin is death. It doesn’t matter how hard we try to do the right thing, or how hard we work in life to do more good things than bad we can never meet the standard of God because we are sinners. That is why the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is so significant. Jesus Christ is the only one who can atone for our transgressions.
My point was never to disrespect your friends; my point was to simply say that all humanity is in the same boat. We are sinners [me being the chief of sinners] who are in need of a Savior. Thank you Jesus!
For His Glory,
Jason
No. First, God is a fictional character; the concept is not a reality. Second, even if he were real, if he does things like consider all people wicked and deserving of eternal torture, he’s evil.
It’s a perfectly easy concept to both grasp and condemn.
Widening the scope of the insults to all of humanity does NOT make it any better.
“it really shows a lot about your character. ” His wicked character.
“God has a standard for this world as well, perfection” This begs the question: perfect for what? “Perfect” is an ideal of something. Perfection, being a noun, refers to something like a perfect circle or a paragon of virtue.
Do all Christians view humanity as corrupt in some way? I though the point of the Crucifixion was to remove that supposed blight of Original Sin from humanity. Of course, I don’t believe in Original Sin or the sacrificial cleansing of the Crucifixion but quite a few people do.
Question: Are we evil because we demand justice for a man who brutally rapes and kills a little girl? No, we are not evil. The man’s deed was evil and just because we punish him for what he did or recognize that his action was wicked, it does not make us evil as well.
My point is obviously being missed, and I don’t expect someone who refuses to recognize the existence of God to understand, but the greatest issue that is plaguing this world today is sin because it is an abomination to God and as revealed in scripture it is what makes humans wicked. You can argue with that point all you want, but like I said before just because you refuse to accept it doesn’t make it any less of a reality.
Can you explain to me our [humanity's] demand for justice? Why would we care so much that someone is being treated unfairly or that an evil act goes unpunished if we are nothing more that pieces of matter accidentally arranged together? Why do we have such a strong sense of justice? My argument, which is backed up by scripture is that we are all created in God’s image, and He has placed this sense of justice upon our hearts to help us understand not only right from wrong, but also His character as well.
Evolution cannot explain this point. In fact it goes against the very principles of “survival of the fittest”.
Finally, if you have an issue with me calling all of humanity wicked than your problem is not with me…It is with God.
hoverfrog:
I can’t speak for what all Christians believe, but I will say that all Christians should have an understanding of how God sees them because of their sin. That is why the idea of Jesus Christ is such a universal concept. All men [and women] have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.
I don’t believe that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ only paid the price for our Original Sin as you said; I believe that the Bible is clear that Jesus Christ died once for all sin past, present, and future. And his blood alone can redeem all of mankind. It then becomes our decision to accept that free gift of Grace from God, who is just [not evil] and loving, or to continue to reject it and live like we aren’t accountable to anyone but ourselves for our actions.
For His Glory,
Jason
I think you missed Ben’s point. Of course rape and murder are horrible and should be punished. But Ben is not a rapist, or a murderer, etc. The thoughts occurring in his head simply don’t include god worship, and because of this mere “thoughtcrime” you think the God you believe in is going to toss him in an eternal fire pit - putting him on par with rapists and murderers. Ben’s under the impression that this is an unhealthy mindset, and honestly, I have to agree.
And I suppose we shouldn’t expect someone who doesn’t have a firm grasp of the actual principles of Evolution and social anthropological theories to understand that humans, being highly social animals and having evolved from tight-knit tribal systems, would act in the best interest of their social group, because survival of the group is survival of oneself as an individual in that group. Things like murder, stealing, and other such social nasties, are disruptive and counterproductive to the well-being of the group, and so individuals in the group understand that such bad behavior should be avoided at all costs and heavily discouraged.
That’s one possible explanation.
Are you saying that without God’s having people write books that tell you how to behave and think, you would be inclined to bad behavior? Then please, by all means, please keep reading that book, for the benefit of yourself and everyone around you.
Not necessarily. Assuming God exists, he can think whatever he wants of humanity, but it is you of your free will who chooses to agree with him.
What boggles me and other Atheists, is the apparent twistedness of a god who punishes his own creation for being the way he supposedly made them. If God exists, and he made us, he made us to be imperfect - he knowingly designed us such that we fall so devastatingly far below his self-set standard that he in turn punishes us, sacrifices his own son (who is also himself) to make up for this, and then again punishes us if we happen to think this whole set up is a trifle sado-masochistic.
It’s sort of like if I were to knowingly and intentionally bake a cake with entirely too much salt in it, and then loath my own cake for being salty and toss it in the garbage.
Putting the man in jail is eminently justifiable to prevent him from doing it again and at least partially justifiable as a deterrent. Effecting an infinite punishment for a finite crime would be evil - especially when there are other methods of preventing the harm.
I would disagree with natural selection counting as an accident, but anyway: Where you have social animals, you have this. We care so much because we have developed empathy to live together in groups, giving us a much better chance at surviving and reproducing. Just like in sports, teams that play together as a team win championships while teams that don’t, lose.
The human demand for justice is entirely dependent on socialization. If you take away socialization, there is no such thing:
http://www.feralchildren.com/en/nature.php
Just as one would expect, where socialization teaches that certain groups are not part of a group’s identity, they are seen as undeserving of justice. You see it in the past with racism, sexism, and today with nationalism. You saw it at Abu Ghraib. You see it in the Stanford prison experiment.
Only if you have an overly simplified idea of evolution. When wolves cooperate, their genes survive in greater abundance, and they behave morally with each other instead of constantly trying to eat every other wolf in the pack. Social animals are very abundant in nature - the idea that pure short-sighted selfishness is the optimum evolutionary strategy is very easily refuted.
Even without that, we are very capable thinkers, and can (and do) choose to value things besides survival and reproduction.
Since you consider God good, you obviously approve of considering everyone wicked. I would have an issue with both of you. You do not dodge reponsibility for your opinions by deciding to adopt them from an external source.
Thanks for bringing up the question. It leads right to a scripture verse on that very subject…(Mat. 5:21-22 and Mat. 5:27-30). These are (2) examples of how God cares about the condition of our hearts and not just the actions that we take!!
I’m not saying that it requires the Bible to be written at all. What I said is that our concept of justice along with our conscience is not something that can be answered by evolution, but instead that it is something God has placed upon each and every one of our hearts.
Yes you can say that we are highly social animals who evolved from tight-knit tribal systems (after we evolved from poop flinging monkeys of course) but it still falls very short of answering the question presented.
I’ll assume for a minute that the decisions we make evolved from the idea that if we as individuals want to survive then we must in turn do what is best for the entire community…But now I’ve run into dilemma because I can’t comprehend why my community who understands the importance of every individuals survival would honor the idea of killing innocent unborn children simply because they are not wanted by an individual. Wouldn’t that go against the very principle of the explanation you raised? If you start looking at specific examples of this theory it begins to break down rather quickly.
The truly important thing that I try to keep in mind is that everything God has done, from the creation of the heavens and the earth, to the creation of beings who have a free will to choose (even if that choice brings their death) is for the purpose of showing his existence and bringing him Glory.
Even the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ [yes he is God] on the cross is symbolic of His justice and His love. I just find it funny that when a soldier jumps on a grenade to save his comrades we call it heroic, and yet when God sends his Son to earth to die for the sins of the world it’s called trifle sadomasochism.
Thanks for the conversation. What good is faith if it can’t stand up to scrutiny?
For His Glory,
Jason
Because the question is not so simple. When, exactly, is the transition from a pregnancy to an independent life? When finite resources become stretched, is it better to bring another baby into the world or not?
Theory is far too strong a term. It’s more of a broad outline.
Jason said “all Christians should have an understanding of how God sees them because of their sin.”
Forgive my ignorance but don’t all Christians believe that God loves them and forgives them their sins? Perhaps I’m thinking of a different deity?
Jason also said: “I don’t believe that the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ only paid the price for our Original Sin as you said; I believe that the Bible is clear that Jesus Christ died once for all sin past, present, and future. And his blood alone can redeem all of mankind. It then becomes our decision to accept that free gift of Grace from God, who is just [not evil] and loving, or to continue to reject it and live like we aren’t accountable to anyone but ourselves for our actions.”
Very clear. You believe that everyone is wicked except that we have had that wickedness expunged. However, your just and loving God will withdraw this salvation if we refuse to follow him. It’s very much a “do as you’re told or I’ll slap you” kind of love in your eyes then? This isn’t the God that Bill talks about or that others tell me about here on FC.
Yes, Christians do believe that God loves them and forgives their sins, but not because we are good people who do good things. It is instead because they understand how God sees their sin and they know that apart from Jesus Christ there is no salvation.
As far as your statement:
I think that if you have a correct understanding of God’s justice and his love work you wouldn’t be able to state it that way. It would be more of a “hey your blind and walking stright towards a cliff. I know I should just let you go that way because it is the path that you have chosen, but because I love you I am calling you to listen to my voice and follow me and you shall live” kinda love.
But if your explaination makes you sleep better at night, then by all means feel free to look at it that way!:-?
For His Glory,
Jason
Snide side comments like this show that you don’t have a firm grasp of the actual concepts of evolution. We didn’t evolve from “poop-flinging” monkeys. We and other primates share a common ancestor. The monkey is not your grandfather; he’s your cousin, so to say.
As Ben said, it’s not a theory, it’s more of a broad outline of an idea, and the abortion issue alone does not quickly break down the validity of the idea, no. Can you think of any other examples?
Besides, abortion is not a monolith, and is not so easy to dismiss as saying the children simply aren’t wanted. I don’t see how you, as a man, can even pretend to understand the agony a woman must go through when trying to decide whether or not she would undertake such an emotional action.
In cases where the mother’s life is in danger - it’s either her or the baby - it makes more sense to save the mother, so that she can have other opportunities to produce more (hopefully healthy) offspring, rather than have the mother give birth to one motherless child.
And let’s go back our hypothetically raped little girl. Let’s say she’s just reached puberty, and her rapist was careless as well as heartless, and didn’t take precautions to ensure he didn’t get his victim pregnant. Now we have a (we’ll say) thirteen year old little girl who statistically speaking is unlikely to be able to afford a child. She and her baby, who is without a father, are poor, and her parents can only do so much to help - because they still have to work, now even more so because now they have a grandbaby in addition to a traumatized teenage daughter to support. And that’s all assuming 1) the parents are supportive, 2) this girl’s an only child, and 3) her parents are still married and that she’s not in a single parent home. If any one or all of these things don’t apply, then the situation is even worse than it already is.
She is incapable of receiving the education she should have because she had the misfortune of becoming pregnant by her rapist and society told her to suck it up. Even if she makes it through high school, college is most likely out of the question because by the time she’s ready for college her child is ready to start kindergarten, and her child should come first. Her resources - monetarily and educationally - to provide well for her child are very slim, and she has to live her life knowing that not only was her body brutally violated, but because of that, she can’t give her child as good a life as she would have if she were given the option of becoming a mother later in life, when she is more fit to be a mother.
On the flip side, let’s say this poor thirteen year old girl was raped, became pregnant, and was not forced to give birth to her rapist’s child. She can continue her education, do well enough to get a scholarship for college, where she can earn a degree that can help her get a well-paying job. While at college she meets a similarly goal-oriented young man, they decide to get married and have children. Now, at that point in her life, she can afford to provide for her child, and feel good knowing that she can succeed as a mother this time around because of the decision she made, and had the right to make. The horror of her rape being but a distant memory that only every now and then reemerges in nightmares, as opposed to every single day of her life in the face of her child.
Which scenario seems to work to the benefit of the individual, the eventual offspring, and society as a whole?
I don’t believe that abortion should be just another method of birth control, but there absolutely are circumstances where abortion would be best for the woman in question and her future children. Abortion is not about punishing the fetus; it’s about ensuring a decent life. If a decent life cannot be afforded, is it right to bring a child into the world? It is a woman’s duty as a mother to provide a good life for her child. If she cannot do that, she should not be a mother, not only for her own sake, but for the sake of the child as well.
There’s a huge difference between these two scenarios. They’re hardly comparable.
The first involves a soldier who is fighting in a war he did not start, sacrificing himself in the hopes that maybe fewer people than otherwise will die because of his action. The remaining soldiers can keep on fighting the (hopefully) good fight. Depending on where the soldier is from, there’s a good chance it wasn’t even his decision to fight the war to begin with. Many countries have forced military service. The soldier is left no option but to try to be the best soldier he thinks he can be.
The second involves a god who sacrifices his own son to make up for his having created imperfect beings that he’s decided to punish because they are imperfect.
Apples and oranges, darling.
And just to lighten the mood a bit: this was in one of the passages you linked to:
I’d like to know how the heck this fella is walking that his hands make him trip! Perhaps he’s been taking lessons from The Ministry of Silly Walks…
So, morality is secondary to belief? There are no degrees of good and evil in your theistic outlook. Everything that humanity achieves isn’t good enough for God. It doesn’t matter if you’re a Gandhi, a Sartre or a Mark Twain because your deeds are no more worthy than those of Genghis Khan or Josef Mengele. According to that philosophy it actually doesn’t matter what you do in your life as long as you believe. You could be a despicable child rapist and still get into heaven on the strength of your faith.
And they say atheists have no moral standards. 8-|
Sara, biblical law is clear on the fate of the raped little girl. Deuteronomy 22:23-29 states that she should be forced to marry her rapist who will, of course, treat her in an appropriately biblical manner.
Morality is not secondary to belief. In fact it is the very core of belief. First a person must understand the true condition of their heart and then when they are faced with that reality (and the future it holds) they will understand that they are in need of a Savior.
The message of that Savior [Jesus Christ] was to repent of your sins, which is not just saying oops sorry, but a genuine humility for the wrong that you have committed against a Holy God. True repentance is also a change of heart…You will hate the things that God hates [evil] and love the things that God loves [purity]…It is a growing in holiness…not to be like Gandhi, not to be like Mark Twain, but to be like Jesus Christ…The perfect example of morality!
I’m not sure who “they” are, but I believe everyone has a moral standard…It is just significantly different than the standard of the Creator of all things, that’s all…
Jason said
and
Perhaps I’m seeing a dichotomy between these two statements that you don’t. Would you explain, please, why living a moral life without Jesus Christ is cause for eternal punishment but accepting Jesus Christ into your life but not living a moral life is cause for eternal reward. It seems logical to me that living a good life should be the chief criteria for divine reward perhaps with a proviso for following the teachings of the chosen deity.
The assumption here is that the condition of the “heart”, the moral base from which we live is deficient. You automatically place human beings in a position of sin rather than given us the benefit of the doubt.
I think we can agree that this is the case. I certainly would never order the deaths of entire nations or send a plague to kills the first born sons of an enemy nation. I’m sure you can think of plenty of other “perfect examples of morality”.
I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here, but again, the point remains the same. Our standard for righteousness is not up to ‘par’ with the standard that God has given to us. Your statement above is off the mark because you say we live a “moral” life without Jesus, and Scripture says that without Jesus nobody lives a moral life. [Eph. 2:8-9]
Believing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a “get out of jail free” card. Without a true understanding of why you need a Savior the point of the message is lost. One must first be willing to accept the idea of their true moral condition before the Gospel of Jesus makes any sense at all. That is why believing in God and the Gospel is not an intellectual decision at all. It is a moral decision.
Here’s an excerpt from a blog post on this very subject [Luke 16:19-31]:
I think you have summed up very well where our difference lies on this matter.
Jason
How about believing that the table in front of me is made of wood? Is that morally right or wrong? What about the sun? Is believing that the sun exists morally right or wrong?
@Jason, I think that we have different definitions of what constitutes morality. I’d like to try to dispel some of this confusion. Morality is a system of rules that modifies our behaviour in social situations. It’s about the doing of good instead of harm, and it sets some standard of virtuous conduct. Morality is about deciding on best courses of action in all situations. It is a system of shared values that justify actions.
You can see that this is my definition and it does not come from a supernatural source. The source of our morality is open to debate. I believe that it is simply part of being a social animal that we have evolved. There are other naturalistic explanations but this is the one that I prefer.
You may view it as beating a dead horse but please provide your own definition of what morality is. I think it safe to assume that you believe that this comes from God but please elaborate.
Once we understand each others definitions it will be easier to understand one another’s attitudes. Perhaps then I’ll be better able to appreciate comments like
because it makes no sense at all to me.
Hoverfrog:
You are correct in your assumption. I do believe that our moral standard has been graciously provided to us by God. It is “supernatural” in nature, but if you [*are crazy enough to] believe in creationism then it’s really not that big of a leap to think that the same God who created the universe with its many natural laws [classical mechanics, Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, Boyle's law of gases, conservation laws, the four laws of thermodynamics, etc.] would also be so inclined as to provide us with moral laws to which we are accountable for as well.
God’s Moral Law:
Exodus 20:2–17
“And God spoke all these words, saying: ‘I am the LORD your God…
ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’
TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’
THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’
FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’
FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’
SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’
SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’
EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’
NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’
TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’
It’s a fairly cut and dry explanation for those who submit to the authority of a Creator God. And for those who don’t I understand the dilemma. But at a minimum, I hope it helps you understand where I am coming from.
Pleasure as always,
Jason
You haven’t touched upon the irony of God punishing the creation that he made imperfect because it is imperfect…
If the what was written on the stone tablets in Exodus 20 is so important, how come God can’t remember what he wrote?
Exodus 34
1 The LORD said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.
2 Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain.
3 No one is to come with you or be seen anywhere on the mountain; not even the flocks and herds may graze in front of the mountain.”
4 So Moses chiseled out two stone tablets like the first ones and went up Mount Sinai early in the morning, as the LORD had commanded him; and he carried the two stone tablets in his hands.
5 Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD.
6 And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,
7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”
8 Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped.
9 “O Lord, if I have found favor in your eyes,” he said, “then let the Lord go with us. Although this is a stiff-necked people, forgive our wickedness and our sin, and take us as your inheritance.”
10 Then the LORD said: “I am making a covenant with you. Before all your people I will do wonders never before done in any nation in all the world. The people you live among will see how awesome is the work that I, the LORD, will do for you.
11 Obey what I command you today. I will drive out before you the Amorites, Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.
12 Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land where you are going, or they will be a snare among you.
13 Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles.
14 Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
15 “Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices.
16 And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same.
17 “Do not make cast idols.
18 “Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you. Do this at the appointed time in the month of Abib, for in that month you came out of Egypt.
19 “The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock.
20 Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons.
“No one is to appear before me empty-handed.
21 “Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.
22 “Celebrate the Feast of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the turn of the year.
23 Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel.
24 I will drive out nations before you and enlarge your territory, and no one will covet your land when you go up three times each year to appear before the LORD your God.
25 “Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Feast remain until morning.
26 “Bring the best of the firstfruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God.
“Do not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk.”
27 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.”
28 Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.
(emphasis mine)
By the way, of the three versions of the Ten Commandments in the Bible (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5, and Exodus 34), the only version that actually uses the phrase the Ten Commandments is the one in Exodus 34.
Jason, your holy moral standard (whichever version or translation you use) isn’t enough. You shall not murder seems perfectly reasonable at face value. Yet some versions say “kill” instead of murder. Is the killing of criminals a form of murder? Is abortion? Assisted euthanasia? Suicide? Is withholding medical treatment murder? Is someone who dies while in surgery murdered? Is combat during war time murder when an enemy soldier is killed? If I kill someone defending myself am I a murderer? What about defending my family? A stranger? Does the law apply to everyone or just to God’s chosen people, the Jews? Does the restriction on killing apply to humans only? Just followers of God? Why doesn’t God obey his own law?
The commandment is absolute and that’s just the easy one.
Please don’t take this the wrong way sir, but who are you to judge if God’s Moral Law is “enough” or not?
Your argument is that we can’t trust this because of the translation of the Bible? Isn’t that another argument all together?
The commandment that you have chosen to attack [the easy one] says:
‘You shall not murder.’
I have stated this several times, but I will say it again. Murder is not just a physical action, it is also an action of your heart. God is not simply concerned with our physical actions, but also with the condition of our heart. See Mat. 5:21-22 and Mat. 5:27-30 for some examples of what I am saying here.
Our world judges every day what is murder and what is not. Bottom line, we also live by the moral code [which comes from scripture] that murder is wrong!
Jason
Jason, until such time as God proves his existence to me and announces an unequivocal moral code for everyone to live by then I am the one to judge what is right and wrong. So is Bill, so is Ben and Sara and you and everyone else here. You say
and I completely agree. We do decide what is right or wrong,
My argument is not that I cannot trust the translation. My argument is that the commandment is absolute and makes no regard to circumstance. The scripture that you cite supports this.
Another hypothetical situation could be that a man is unlawfully held prisoner awaiting execution. Is it right to murder his guard to escape?
We’re back to this again:
http://www.friendlychristian.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=25
Siamang posted this on Friendly Atheist:
Rosemary Lyndall Wemm had a great post in this thread: http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/02/11/g … ent-130892
I’m copying it here.
True_believer asks
Research by behavioral scientists has shown that a person’s moral beliefs and behaviors are the result of the combination of innate trends, education, social development, intelligence. and the influence of mass communication. Kohlberg’s moral development scale, which has been around for half a century, provides a schemata which parallels the stages of intellectual and cognitive development outlined by Piaget.
Here is a summary of Kohlberg’s six moral stages.
1. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey.
2. Children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.
3. (Early teens). Good behavior means having good motives and interpersonal feelings such as love, empathy, trust, and concern for others.
4. People at this level make moral decisions from the perspective of society as a whole. The emphasis is on obeying laws, respecting authority, and performing one’s duties so that the social order is maintained.
5. People at this level believe that a good society is best conceived as a social contract into which people freely enter to work toward the benefit of all
6. The principles of justice require us to treat the claims of all parties in an impartial manner, respecting the basic dignity of all people as individuals. Democratic processes are insufficient because a majority may vote for a law that hinders a minority.
The Yaweh god depicted in the Jewish and Christian scriptures is stuck on the lower rungs of this scale and often does not even make the first rung. Directing his followers to engage in the wholesale and complete slaughter of innocent women and children in neighboring tribes can only be termed “moral” by impressive linguistic gymnastics or by redefining the meaning of that word.
American-style fundamentalist Christians have generally developed morally beyond the god they think they worship but are frequently still stuck in the childhood stages of moral development. They use a text book written from the perspective of Stage One morality, cherry-pick the contents to match their own level of moral development vis a vis current society and then arrogantly assume that they and/or their current leaders can infallibly interpret the passages. They ignore the ominous sign that there are almost as many moral interpretations of these writings as there are followers who believe themselves to be divinely inspired while interpreting them. The result is a group of dangerous individuals who believe that their stage of moral development is benignly divine and who are not open to the higher forms of moral reasoning.
The intention of OP was probably to show similarities, and in that way was positive. Although the amount of ignorance contained there is almost unbearable, that intention makes up for some of it I guess.
As is usual in these kinds of discussions, most of the ignorance is unfortunately displayed by those who believe that they are supernaturally guided. The ignorance which most Christians have about their text book and the development and history of their current belief set is absolutely extraordinary. While all devout Muslims read their religious text book from start to finish on a regular basis very few Christians have managed to read their text in this fashion even once.
The American Gideon Society promotes this by distributing Bibles which are poorly translated from the original languages into a language which no-one speaks and few can fully understand these days. Try asking a Gideon member how long it last took them to read their distribution material from cover to cover. Then ask them why a book which they claim is at least divinely inspired is so unclear and/or unreadable that it is necessary to include instructions on “How to become a Christian” at the front of the manuscript. Can it be because people who do manage to read the book sequentially in its uncensored entirety are unlikely to come up with the same “executive summary” of its contents? Is it put there as an easy-reading alternative to the turgid text to follow in order to lure people away from discovering the moral bankruptcy of the main god described within? It is sad but true that the higher one rates on the Kohlberg moral scale the more likely it is that reading the Christian text book will result in a-theism rather than continuing theism.
And you sir have every right to think that way. I on the other had believe that God has already proven his existance to each an every one of us by the same standard that we use to prove that anything else exists. Creation!
The exchange has been wonderful. Thank you.
Jason
Jason, I can only assume that either
a) you’re choosing to ignore my inquiries,
b) you simply have no answer for my inquires, or
c) you’re still working on a response to my inquiries.
I do hope that it is (c), because I am genuinely curious.
Sara, I apologize for the delay in my response. I guess I just got tied up trying to defend my comments to (3) different people at the same time (I’m a man who struggles greatly with multi-tasking).
Anyway, back to your point. I am having a hard time with the statement you made above. You want me to answer why God punishes the creation that He made imperfect, but you have failed to show me where God made anything imperfect at all.
Although I do believe because of man’s [Adam and Eve] choice to sin we are now all born into sin, I fail to see where God made anyone imperfect. We are all born into sin, but that was not because God made us sin. We are sinners because we have chosen to sin and the responsibilty and accountability for our choices falls directly on us. I don’t understand why the blame would/should be shifted towards God for the choices that we [human kind] make?
There is a huge possibility that I am totally missing the point of your statement, but right now I am at a loss…Can you help me understand your question better?
Jason
I’ll try. here we go:
You’ve said so yourself, many times in many ways:
By our very nature we are wicked…
we are imperfect in his eyes, by his standards…
and apparently nothing is good enough for him.
Yet he supposedly made us that way.
And because we are that way, unless we unquestioningly adore this insatiable god, we are to be punished.
How is that at all appealing?
I would also like to add, perfect creations make perfect choices. Otherwise, they would be imperfect.
Ohhh I am dying laughing. That was awesome. I believe! I believe!
And all because 2 hairs laid so perfectly together. Jesus is Lord!
Great post. =)
Sara:
I answer your question with the following verses from scripture:
————————————————————————————————————-
James 1: 12-15 - Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love him.
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God” for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust.
Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death.
————————————————————————————————————-
We are each responsible for our own choices. God will judge each of us based on the choices that we make, but because of Adam and Eve’s choice to disobey God, all mankind is born into a world of sin.
Had they followed the commandment of God, sin would not have entered into this world, but since they chose to disobey God’s commandment they [and therefore us] are punished with death - Romans 6:23 “the wages of sin is death…”
God desired for Adam and Eve to be perfect, but he granted them the ability to choose for themselves. God is most glorified by us, when we are most satisfied in Him.
God gave Adam and Eve everything that they needed in the Garden of Eden. They were not lacking in anything. However, Satan was able to persuade Eve that God’s commandment not to eat of the tree of knowledge was not to “protect” her, but was instead to keep her from enjoying the fullness of life.
Was there any reason for Eve to believe this? Absolutely not. Had God let her down or given her any reason to doubt His intentions? Now way! But the devil is an evil charmer and he was able to twist the word of God and convince Eve that the God who had shown her nothing but love was actually full of evil ambitions. Because of this, the devil was able to convince Eve to disobey God.
Adam and Eve chose to sin, and because of their choice, every human now lives under that same curse which is death. Rom. 5:18-21 touches greatly on this concept and why it is only through Jesus Christ that we can be saved.
We can’t shift the blame for our choices on God because he has given us the free will to choose to disobey Him. The responsibility of our choices falls directly on us and our ancestors. However, our story doesn’t have to end with death! God loves mankind enough to offer us atonement for our transgressions against Him, through the life, death, and resurrection of his one and only Son.
What an amazing story!
Thank you Jesus.
And the omniscient, omnipotent god couldn’t foresee that his creation would do this? He should have known better.
Don’t think of a Pink Elephant.
Don’t push the Red Button.
Don’t open That Door.
Don’t eat from That Tree.
Whether or not we’re wicked by nature is, as evidenced by this conversation, debatable (ever the optimist, I think not; just for the record). I’d argue though that what’s not debatable is that we are curious by nature. Human nature is ever enticed by such commands as those above. God didn’t know this when he created humans? I can’t help but think that if he never told Adam and Eve not to eat of That One Tree it never would have intrigued their curiosity to begin with, sneaky snake or no.
My ancestors have rather little to do with the decisions I make, seeing as the world I live in now is (although certainly influenced by the world they lived in) so very different from that world they lived in. Our circumstances don’t belong to one another. They are not responsible for my choices, and I am not responsible for theirs.
Modern humans being punished for “original sin” also makes no moral sense to me. Why would we be held accountable for Adam & Eve’s actions? We had no say in that. That’s ridiculous. My great-great uncle was a drunkard who literally beat his obedient little wife senseless (and went to church every Sunday). Should I be held accountable for his faults? If I’m held accountable for Adam & Eve’s faults I might as well be held accountable for his too.
How about you? Whose faults are you accountable for? Besides Adam & Eve’s and your own?
I do however agree with what you said there that I put in bold: that we are responsible for our own actions. That’s one of the core tenets of a Humanist moral standard.
That’s something, at least, right?
I am accountable to God for my own sin, just like every other person in the world. We are not accountable for the actions of Adam and Eve, but we do pay the price for the choice that they made.
The situation of your uncle, which is rather sad and unfortunately not uncommon which might be even more upsetting, is a great example. Although he made the choice to get drunk and abuse his wife she paid the price for his choices. So did his family, friends and anyone else that his actions affected.
Here’s another example. Take a disease like AIDS. If a parent gets the disease for whatever reason, blood transfusion, sexual intercourse, sharing a needle…When that parent has a child the disease has a risk of being passed on to the child and it continues on down the line. Is the child responsible for the action that the parent took to contract the AIDS virus? Absolutely not, but that child will pay the consequence for their parents actions.
* I apologize in advance for the analogy, it’s not exactly the same, but it is the closest thing I could come up with on the fly to help prove the point.
Sin is like a d disease, and because of the choice of Adam and Eve it is passed on to all humans. Did God know this was going to happen? Yes He did. Could he have stopped it from happening? Yes He could have, but how would that have glorified His name? How does it benefit a child if their parent always intervenes in their life to prevent them from making mistakes? Do they learn, do they grow, do they really have freedom?
Remember, God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him!
That is our purpose for being here and that is why God gives us the freedom to make choices on our own, regardless if they are right or wrong!
Sara, thank you kindly for the discussion. I think for me, this is a good place to end on this subject. You have made some very interesting and well stated points and arguments. It is easy for me to see that you are a very smart cookie. All I can do is ask that you think about what I’ve said and not chalk it off as easy as fictitious (not that you do or would). Please understand that there are a lot of intellectual people who have an understanding of God and his Son Jesus Christ and it is not just something that people fall on because they don’t know the truth.
Thanks again, and God Bless…
Jason
As you wish; I won’t push you. Though I do have a couple more questions… So if you ever feel up to it again, feel free to stop by my blog for a Friendly Continuation.
Cheers