From Pastor Buck's blog:
This video is definitely worth five minutes of your time. It creatively portrays the following truth: “You, dear, children, are from God and have overcome them, because the One who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. . . everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith.” (I John 4:4, 5:4)
The video is basically from a play, contemporary Christian music is the soundtrack, and depicts a young woman experiencing a new relationship with the Jesus character. But then the cares and influences of the world creep in, distracting the young woman, and drawing her away from her loving relationship with Jesus.
Things soon turn bad, as they always do when you forget about Jesus (sarcasm). Jesus is off to the side, wooing her back, but to no avail.
Jesus finally jumps in to protect her from her bad choices (audience breaks into cheers and applause).
What a wonderfully appealing story, if only it were true, as Pastor Buck claims. Being a sensitive atheist guy, I even felt a tug of emotion as I watched Jesus hold back all the bad in the world from reaching the young woman. But as life continually proves, it is just a story. A myth. Strip away the music, the facial expressions, the choreographed dancing, and all you have left is a few sentences in an old book. That's all.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Friday, October 19, 2007
Have I Been Educated?
Pastor Buck posted a list on his blog with numerous comparisons of secular learning-vs-religious learning:
Have I Been Educated?If I learn my ABCs, can read 600 words per minute, and can write with perfect penmanship, but have not been shown how to communicate with the Designer of all language .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can deliver an eloquent speech and persuade you with my stunning logic, but have not been instructed in God's wisdom.... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I read Shakespeare and John Locke and can discuss their writings with keen insight, but have not read the greatest of all books -- the Bible -- and have no knowledge of its personal importance... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I have memorized addition facts, multiplication tables, and chemical formulas, but have never been disciplined to hide God's Word in my heart .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can explain the law of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity, but have never been instructed in the unchangeable laws of the One Who orders our universe .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can classify animals by their family, genus and species, and can write a lengthy scientific paper that wins an award, but have not been introduced to the Maker's purpose for all creation, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can recite the Gettysburg Address and the Preamble to the Constitution, but have not been informed of the hand of God in the history of our country .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can play the piano, the violin, six other instruments, and can write music that moves men to tears, but have not been taught to listen to the Director of the universe and worship Him, ... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can run cross-country races, star in basketball and do 100 push-ups without stopping, but have never been shown how to bend my spirit to do God's will, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can identify a Picasso, describe the style of da Vinci, and even paint a portrait that earns an A+, but have not learned that all harmony and beauty comes from a relationship with God, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I were to graduate with a perfect 4.0 and am accepted at the best university with a full scholarship, but have not been guided into a career of God's choosing for me, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I become a good citizen, voting at each election and fighting for what is moral and right, but have not been told of (or believe) the sinfulness of man and his hopelessness without Christ,... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
However, if one day I see the world as God sees it, and come to know Him, Whom to know is life eternal, and glorify God by fulfilling His purpose for me, THEN I HAVE BEEN EDUCATED!
There is a marquee at a Baptist church in my town that says something like: "Success is gaining eternal life - all else is failure".
That kind of goes along with this "Have I been educated" theme. Looking at it from a purely rational perspective, which is all I have, some Christians would equate a person who has read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, all 20+ volumes, as being less educated than a person who has read only the bible.
It would seem to me that Pastor Buck is equating education with religious belief. Lack of religious belief, lack of education. I will forever wonder how a persons faith can be equated with education.
Is there any non believer who he could then concede is more educated than even the most uneducated believer? Does mere faith in the God of the bible trump all the learning of an engineer or medical doctor, if they do not have a belief in the Christian God?
If that is what Pastor Bucks belief is, it is that primitive belief that kept humanity wading through the dark ages for 500 years. It is just that mentality that the Taliban possesses which restricts females from going to school.
That mentality, while it is music to the ears of the believer, terrifies the non believer. It truly frightens me to think that Christians in my community actually think a non believing college professor is less educated than the little five year old boy who got saved in last Sundays service.
Am I exaggerating? Only if Christians like Pastor Buck don't really believe what he is trying to tell us he believes.
Have I Been Educated?If I learn my ABCs, can read 600 words per minute, and can write with perfect penmanship, but have not been shown how to communicate with the Designer of all language .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can deliver an eloquent speech and persuade you with my stunning logic, but have not been instructed in God's wisdom.... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I read Shakespeare and John Locke and can discuss their writings with keen insight, but have not read the greatest of all books -- the Bible -- and have no knowledge of its personal importance... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I have memorized addition facts, multiplication tables, and chemical formulas, but have never been disciplined to hide God's Word in my heart .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can explain the law of gravity and Einstein's theory of relativity, but have never been instructed in the unchangeable laws of the One Who orders our universe .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can classify animals by their family, genus and species, and can write a lengthy scientific paper that wins an award, but have not been introduced to the Maker's purpose for all creation, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can recite the Gettysburg Address and the Preamble to the Constitution, but have not been informed of the hand of God in the history of our country .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can play the piano, the violin, six other instruments, and can write music that moves men to tears, but have not been taught to listen to the Director of the universe and worship Him, ... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can run cross-country races, star in basketball and do 100 push-ups without stopping, but have never been shown how to bend my spirit to do God's will, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I can identify a Picasso, describe the style of da Vinci, and even paint a portrait that earns an A+, but have not learned that all harmony and beauty comes from a relationship with God, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I were to graduate with a perfect 4.0 and am accepted at the best university with a full scholarship, but have not been guided into a career of God's choosing for me, .... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
If I become a good citizen, voting at each election and fighting for what is moral and right, but have not been told of (or believe) the sinfulness of man and his hopelessness without Christ,... I HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED.
However, if one day I see the world as God sees it, and come to know Him, Whom to know is life eternal, and glorify God by fulfilling His purpose for me, THEN I HAVE BEEN EDUCATED!
There is a marquee at a Baptist church in my town that says something like: "Success is gaining eternal life - all else is failure".
That kind of goes along with this "Have I been educated" theme. Looking at it from a purely rational perspective, which is all I have, some Christians would equate a person who has read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica, all 20+ volumes, as being less educated than a person who has read only the bible.
It would seem to me that Pastor Buck is equating education with religious belief. Lack of religious belief, lack of education. I will forever wonder how a persons faith can be equated with education.
Is there any non believer who he could then concede is more educated than even the most uneducated believer? Does mere faith in the God of the bible trump all the learning of an engineer or medical doctor, if they do not have a belief in the Christian God?
If that is what Pastor Bucks belief is, it is that primitive belief that kept humanity wading through the dark ages for 500 years. It is just that mentality that the Taliban possesses which restricts females from going to school.
That mentality, while it is music to the ears of the believer, terrifies the non believer. It truly frightens me to think that Christians in my community actually think a non believing college professor is less educated than the little five year old boy who got saved in last Sundays service.
Am I exaggerating? Only if Christians like Pastor Buck don't really believe what he is trying to tell us he believes.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Bible...skepticism...archeology...
I visit some Christian blogs from time to time. Well, really only two: Pastor Buck and nakedpastor. I have posted on nakedpastor before. It is a very welcoming place.
I try to keep my comments limited, only posting when I feel I must, when something is said that I feel I really must respond to. I have made a few comments in the past on Pastor Bucks blog.
I realize that I am really wasting my time doing this. There is little hope that anything I might say could penetrate through a long held and cherished religious faith.
I really don't think my purpose in responding to Christians is to get them to consider anything I have to say other than to attempt to convince them to exercise some integrity when it comes to what they consider to be supporting evidence for the claims of their faith. They can believe what they want to believe. All I ask is that they refrain from offering "proof" in support of what they believe, (whether it be scientific or historical findings) without actually examining this "proof" before hand.
A few weeks ago I posted some links in a response on Pastor Bucks blog, when someone made mention of Werner Keller's book, "The Bible as History". I read the book many years ago when I was a bible believer.
Anyway, I really don't want to take up space on Pastor Bucks blog. I mean, it is a Christian blog, and I am not a Christian. I doubt many ministers would want their blog hijacked by an infidel.
Torn between just keeping my mouth shut, or speaking out when I see the need, I try to compromise and speak out just a little when visiting Christian blogs, and then invite them to read my response here...well...at least that is what I will do from now on.
Anyway, my response is below.
Hi Pastor Buck,
You said,
"The articles seem to be pretty consistent with others I have read from those whose worldview approaches the issue of faith with skepticism."
Of course. But how do you feel about "skepticism"? It is difficult to tell from your comment. Is it a good thing? Aren't you skeptical? Are you not just as skeptical about the historical accuracy of Islamic texts and their claims of inspiration, as, say, an agnostic is of Christian texts and their associated claims? Just a guess, but I would bet that you are.
So could we agree that we are both skeptical, just to differing degrees? Surely you will admit that you view "issues of (other religions) faith" with just as much skepticism as some view yours...?
I read some of the links you posted. I will read further, but I have to comment on what is said right out of the blocks.
From the first link: "Because the Christian faith is based on historical events, Christians welcome any evidence that archaeology can provide, but they do not anchor their faith to it. No lack of evidence nor critical scepticism can disprove God’s Word."
I really have a hard time responding to such a statement. It is so full of "We believe what we believe and there is absolutely no amount of "facts" that will persuade us otherwise because what we believe is true".
Is the Christian faith based on historical events, or is it based on claims of historical events as written down in the bible? How many Christians actually researched the faith before they became believers?....very, very few? And once they are believers, if they do any research, isn't it almost exclusively in literature designed to bolster the faith. How often do you, or your Christian friends, read, I mean really read, with mind open, scientific material that is not written from the Christian perspective, but solely from the scientific perspective? Will you admit, very seldom if ever?
As the statement from the first link above says: "Christians welcome any evidence that archaeology can provide, but they do not anchor their faith to it. No lack of evidence nor critical scepticism can disprove God’s Word.", there is nothing that the non believer can present that will persuade the believer, if the believer is not willing to consider that they may be wrong. It is that simple. I think many claims in "God's Word" can be shown to be false, but in the mind of the believer it will never be dis proven.
I listened on-line to one of your sermons many months ago, on the book "The Da Vinci Code", and you made a statement that went something like this: Archeology has confirmed the trustworthiness of the bible. Excavations of Jericho has proven that the walls are confirmed to have fallen outward.
But, if you cared to look further, you might find conflicting data and conflicting conclusions, even from believers, as to when that happened:
Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua.
Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record. The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned. Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer .
(Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24
(This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.)
Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests.
This link, from a conservative Christian, shows that the above conclusions are most likely correct.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php
My point is not to throw dates back and forth in a battle of evidences, but to just point out that you made a claim based on what...Christian apologetic literature, void of any referencing to non Christian literature, neglecting to do any further research to see if what you were saying was actually based on scientific fact.
From the second link you provided: "Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in the Bible.
Biblical archaeology has silenced many critics as new discoveries supported the facts of the Bible."
I just don't understand how a "faith" can be based on known facts. Doesn't it cease being "faith" if faith is no longer needed after one offers confidence in "known facts"? In other words, once I "know" something as fact, faith in that 'something' is rendered obsolete, is it not?
That first statement in the link - "Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in the Bible." is where this argument begins to fall apart. Right from the beginning, the author misrepresents his own religion. Christianity is not a faith that is based on known factual events. From what I know, Christianity is based, by faith, on the biblical claim of the life, death, and resurrection of the God-man Jesus the Christ. Am I correct?
The authors use of the word "actual" is where problems arise, for we can't even begin to confirm that Jesus was born (of a virgin no less), that he lived, died, nor arose after death. And if we can't confirm, by scientific means, any of those supposed "actual events" how could we even begin to confirm that the Jesus of the bible was God, or that there even is a God?
What it boils down to Pastor Buck, is this: Christianity is a faith. A faith based on the writings in a 2,000 year old book, nothing more. It is not based on any scientific or historical evidence at all. No evidence outside of the bible is needed for anyone to believe what the bible says. No factual confirmation is necessary. Therefore, Christian apologists are wasting their time searching for confirmation in the dirt or in the sky, because what ever they will find (as evidenced by the past conclusions of many a Christian) they will use, or misuse to bolster their faith, when their faith is all that is really needed...correct?
I guess what it comes down to is this: I would have much more respect for modern Christianity if they would simply and honestly admit the facts;
Christians believe that Jesus was born, died, and arose from the dead.
Christians believe that God is real.
Christians believe that the words in the bible are true.
And when a Christian says to me that I should believe as he does, or I will go to hell, if he was honest, he would end his plea with, "...but that is just my belief, for I actually don't have any factual evidence to back it up."
That would be honest, wouldn't it?
bob
I try to keep my comments limited, only posting when I feel I must, when something is said that I feel I really must respond to. I have made a few comments in the past on Pastor Bucks blog.
I realize that I am really wasting my time doing this. There is little hope that anything I might say could penetrate through a long held and cherished religious faith.
I really don't think my purpose in responding to Christians is to get them to consider anything I have to say other than to attempt to convince them to exercise some integrity when it comes to what they consider to be supporting evidence for the claims of their faith. They can believe what they want to believe. All I ask is that they refrain from offering "proof" in support of what they believe, (whether it be scientific or historical findings) without actually examining this "proof" before hand.
A few weeks ago I posted some links in a response on Pastor Bucks blog, when someone made mention of Werner Keller's book, "The Bible as History". I read the book many years ago when I was a bible believer.
Anyway, I really don't want to take up space on Pastor Bucks blog. I mean, it is a Christian blog, and I am not a Christian. I doubt many ministers would want their blog hijacked by an infidel.
Torn between just keeping my mouth shut, or speaking out when I see the need, I try to compromise and speak out just a little when visiting Christian blogs, and then invite them to read my response here...well...at least that is what I will do from now on.
Anyway, my response is below.
Hi Pastor Buck,
You said,
"The articles seem to be pretty consistent with others I have read from those whose worldview approaches the issue of faith with skepticism."
Of course. But how do you feel about "skepticism"? It is difficult to tell from your comment. Is it a good thing? Aren't you skeptical? Are you not just as skeptical about the historical accuracy of Islamic texts and their claims of inspiration, as, say, an agnostic is of Christian texts and their associated claims? Just a guess, but I would bet that you are.
So could we agree that we are both skeptical, just to differing degrees? Surely you will admit that you view "issues of (other religions) faith" with just as much skepticism as some view yours...?
I read some of the links you posted. I will read further, but I have to comment on what is said right out of the blocks.
From the first link: "Because the Christian faith is based on historical events, Christians welcome any evidence that archaeology can provide, but they do not anchor their faith to it. No lack of evidence nor critical scepticism can disprove God’s Word."
I really have a hard time responding to such a statement. It is so full of "We believe what we believe and there is absolutely no amount of "facts" that will persuade us otherwise because what we believe is true".
Is the Christian faith based on historical events, or is it based on claims of historical events as written down in the bible? How many Christians actually researched the faith before they became believers?....very, very few? And once they are believers, if they do any research, isn't it almost exclusively in literature designed to bolster the faith. How often do you, or your Christian friends, read, I mean really read, with mind open, scientific material that is not written from the Christian perspective, but solely from the scientific perspective? Will you admit, very seldom if ever?
As the statement from the first link above says: "Christians welcome any evidence that archaeology can provide, but they do not anchor their faith to it. No lack of evidence nor critical scepticism can disprove God’s Word.", there is nothing that the non believer can present that will persuade the believer, if the believer is not willing to consider that they may be wrong. It is that simple. I think many claims in "God's Word" can be shown to be false, but in the mind of the believer it will never be dis proven.
I listened on-line to one of your sermons many months ago, on the book "The Da Vinci Code", and you made a statement that went something like this: Archeology has confirmed the trustworthiness of the bible. Excavations of Jericho has proven that the walls are confirmed to have fallen outward.
But, if you cared to look further, you might find conflicting data and conflicting conclusions, even from believers, as to when that happened:
Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua.
Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record. The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned. Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer .
(Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24
(This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.)
Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests.
This link, from a conservative Christian, shows that the above conclusions are most likely correct.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/bryantwood.php
My point is not to throw dates back and forth in a battle of evidences, but to just point out that you made a claim based on what...Christian apologetic literature, void of any referencing to non Christian literature, neglecting to do any further research to see if what you were saying was actually based on scientific fact.
From the second link you provided: "Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in the Bible.
Biblical archaeology has silenced many critics as new discoveries supported the facts of the Bible."
I just don't understand how a "faith" can be based on known facts. Doesn't it cease being "faith" if faith is no longer needed after one offers confidence in "known facts"? In other words, once I "know" something as fact, faith in that 'something' is rendered obsolete, is it not?
That first statement in the link - "Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in the Bible." is where this argument begins to fall apart. Right from the beginning, the author misrepresents his own religion. Christianity is not a faith that is based on known factual events. From what I know, Christianity is based, by faith, on the biblical claim of the life, death, and resurrection of the God-man Jesus the Christ. Am I correct?
The authors use of the word "actual" is where problems arise, for we can't even begin to confirm that Jesus was born (of a virgin no less), that he lived, died, nor arose after death. And if we can't confirm, by scientific means, any of those supposed "actual events" how could we even begin to confirm that the Jesus of the bible was God, or that there even is a God?
What it boils down to Pastor Buck, is this: Christianity is a faith. A faith based on the writings in a 2,000 year old book, nothing more. It is not based on any scientific or historical evidence at all. No evidence outside of the bible is needed for anyone to believe what the bible says. No factual confirmation is necessary. Therefore, Christian apologists are wasting their time searching for confirmation in the dirt or in the sky, because what ever they will find (as evidenced by the past conclusions of many a Christian) they will use, or misuse to bolster their faith, when their faith is all that is really needed...correct?
I guess what it comes down to is this: I would have much more respect for modern Christianity if they would simply and honestly admit the facts;
Christians believe that Jesus was born, died, and arose from the dead.
Christians believe that God is real.
Christians believe that the words in the bible are true.
And when a Christian says to me that I should believe as he does, or I will go to hell, if he was honest, he would end his plea with, "...but that is just my belief, for I actually don't have any factual evidence to back it up."
That would be honest, wouldn't it?
bob
Friday, August 10, 2007
scenario
A pilot, who is an atheist, is flying over the ocean in a small plane with a friend, who is a Christian.
They run into bad weather and crash on an uncharted, deserted island with no hope of ever being rescued.
They both survive the crash, but suffer permanent amnesia due to a head injuries. The only useful thing that they remember is how to read.
Surviving the crash with them are two books: one is a book on island survival tips, including farming, edible plants, hunting and fishing, and the other book is the Bible.
The survival book suggest, if there is no dry wood available, to use pages out of a book as kindling to start a fire.
The Bible says, "In the beginning, God..."
My questions:
Which book should they use as kindling to start the fire?
They run into bad weather and crash on an uncharted, deserted island with no hope of ever being rescued.
They both survive the crash, but suffer permanent amnesia due to a head injuries. The only useful thing that they remember is how to read.
Surviving the crash with them are two books: one is a book on island survival tips, including farming, edible plants, hunting and fishing, and the other book is the Bible.
The survival book suggest, if there is no dry wood available, to use pages out of a book as kindling to start a fire.
The Bible says, "In the beginning, God..."
My questions:
Which book should they use as kindling to start the fire?
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
could someone please explain it to me?
How in hell did Adam Sandler become this mega-millionaire "actor"? Please!
Years ago, during my on and off years with Saturday Night Live, I would either turn the channel or hit the mute button when a skit with Adam Sandler came on. In my view, he was not funny. He was silly at best, to the point of embarrassing, and the mere fact that he had somehow managed to land a spot on one of the most popular comedy shows, made his lack of talent that much more irritating to me.
Now he has, like many of the former SNL cast members, graduated to the big screen. How? Why? What am I missing? Even now, when a preview of one of his movies runs, I change the channel.
I have never watched more than a minute of a Sandler movie. I just can't stand it. I have never watched more than a minute of a George W. Bush speech for the same reason. No talent. How? Why?
Years ago, during my on and off years with Saturday Night Live, I would either turn the channel or hit the mute button when a skit with Adam Sandler came on. In my view, he was not funny. He was silly at best, to the point of embarrassing, and the mere fact that he had somehow managed to land a spot on one of the most popular comedy shows, made his lack of talent that much more irritating to me.
Now he has, like many of the former SNL cast members, graduated to the big screen. How? Why? What am I missing? Even now, when a preview of one of his movies runs, I change the channel.
I have never watched more than a minute of a Sandler movie. I just can't stand it. I have never watched more than a minute of a George W. Bush speech for the same reason. No talent. How? Why?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
why do they believe? why do they worship?
I don't know where I read this. I made a few modifications to suit my line of reasoning.
Why do Christians believe in and worship God?
See if you agree with this statement - Christians believe in and worship God because they believe he is loving, and because, in his mercy, they believe he gave his only son, Jesus Christ, to die for their sins.
As a Christian, do you agree with that statement?
I do not agree with that statement. I'll show you why.
Lets pretend for a second.
Take the average Christian. Let's say he or she agreed to the above statement as to why they believe in and worship God.
Let's say that the bible states that God loves us, and that all people must believe in and worship God (pray to him, worship him and fellowship with other believers, financially support his ministers, help spread his word, obey his commandments, etc), basically what the bible actually does say...correct?
Now, let's pretend that the bible says that when we die, Christian or not, you, me, and every human on earth, all of us are condemned to hell forever and ever, no matter what we do or what we believe.
I know the bible says that if you believe in Jesus as your savior you will go to heaven, but we are pretending that the bible says everyone goes to hell when they die. We are pretending that everyone is doomed, but at the same time everyone is commanded by God in the bible, to worship God (go to church, tithe, and follow the laws of God, etc).
Now, with this in mind, (please try to think how you would feel if this was what the bible said) do you think people would worship God knowing that they were going to hell forever, whether they worship him or not?
Take a moment and think about it.
Think.
Think.
I don't think they would.
If the bible said: "Believe in and worship the Lord your God, and when you die, you will spend eternity in hell ", would you worship God?
Think about it.
Wouldn't it be kind of...insane...for people to waste their lives worshipping God, even though they knew from what the bible said, that he was going to send them to hell anyway?
If there were no heaven, only eternity in hell, what would be the benefit of worshiping God? Would there be any benefit at all?
People would not care about religious beliefs because those beliefs simply would not matter. Most likely they would place a greater value on life and try their best to live as long as they could. They would be afraid of war because, if killed, they would meet the wrath of God and his eternal punishment immediately. This world would be a different place. No one would worship God even if they knew for a fact that God existed. We would all probably be angry at him for the punishment that we would face, and that of our children.
Now, according to Christian beliefs, based on the bible, there is a heaven and eternal after-life in heaven for Gods followers, which means none of what I wrote above really matters anyway.
However what it does tell us is actually why people worship God. It's not because he's all mighty, all loving, and all powerful, or all merciful. What it means is believers worship God for one reason: to escape hell. For, as I have shown, if there were no heaven, but only eternity in hell, no one would be worshiping God, regardless of the claims in the bible about his nature (all-mighty, all-loving, all-powerful, and all-merciful).
And God knows all of this because he is all-knowing, correct? This tells us three very important things;
1- People believe in and worship God for one reason; to escape hell.
2- God knows this.
3- No one will go to heaven.
Why will no one go to heaven?
Because God knows that the only reason people believe in and worship him is to escape hell. He is all-knowing remember? And he knows that if there was no heaven, only hell, that all those who worship him, would not be worshiping him. This means that Christians do not worship him because of who he is, but because of what the bible says he will do for them, namely; keep them out of hell.
This is the epitome of selfishness...and God knows this, and since no Christian will admit that the reason they worship God is just to escape hell, they are lying to God, themselves, and all those who they witness to.
Why do Christians believe in and worship God?
See if you agree with this statement - Christians believe in and worship God because they believe he is loving, and because, in his mercy, they believe he gave his only son, Jesus Christ, to die for their sins.
As a Christian, do you agree with that statement?
I do not agree with that statement. I'll show you why.
Lets pretend for a second.
Take the average Christian. Let's say he or she agreed to the above statement as to why they believe in and worship God.
Let's say that the bible states that God loves us, and that all people must believe in and worship God (pray to him, worship him and fellowship with other believers, financially support his ministers, help spread his word, obey his commandments, etc), basically what the bible actually does say...correct?
Now, let's pretend that the bible says that when we die, Christian or not, you, me, and every human on earth, all of us are condemned to hell forever and ever, no matter what we do or what we believe.
I know the bible says that if you believe in Jesus as your savior you will go to heaven, but we are pretending that the bible says everyone goes to hell when they die. We are pretending that everyone is doomed, but at the same time everyone is commanded by God in the bible, to worship God (go to church, tithe, and follow the laws of God, etc).
Now, with this in mind, (please try to think how you would feel if this was what the bible said) do you think people would worship God knowing that they were going to hell forever, whether they worship him or not?
Take a moment and think about it.
Think.
Think.
I don't think they would.
If the bible said: "Believe in and worship the Lord your God, and when you die, you will spend eternity in hell ", would you worship God?
Think about it.
Wouldn't it be kind of...insane...for people to waste their lives worshipping God, even though they knew from what the bible said, that he was going to send them to hell anyway?
If there were no heaven, only eternity in hell, what would be the benefit of worshiping God? Would there be any benefit at all?
People would not care about religious beliefs because those beliefs simply would not matter. Most likely they would place a greater value on life and try their best to live as long as they could. They would be afraid of war because, if killed, they would meet the wrath of God and his eternal punishment immediately. This world would be a different place. No one would worship God even if they knew for a fact that God existed. We would all probably be angry at him for the punishment that we would face, and that of our children.
Now, according to Christian beliefs, based on the bible, there is a heaven and eternal after-life in heaven for Gods followers, which means none of what I wrote above really matters anyway.
However what it does tell us is actually why people worship God. It's not because he's all mighty, all loving, and all powerful, or all merciful. What it means is believers worship God for one reason: to escape hell. For, as I have shown, if there were no heaven, but only eternity in hell, no one would be worshiping God, regardless of the claims in the bible about his nature (all-mighty, all-loving, all-powerful, and all-merciful).
And God knows all of this because he is all-knowing, correct? This tells us three very important things;
1- People believe in and worship God for one reason; to escape hell.
2- God knows this.
3- No one will go to heaven.
Why will no one go to heaven?
Because God knows that the only reason people believe in and worship him is to escape hell. He is all-knowing remember? And he knows that if there was no heaven, only hell, that all those who worship him, would not be worshiping him. This means that Christians do not worship him because of who he is, but because of what the bible says he will do for them, namely; keep them out of hell.
This is the epitome of selfishness...and God knows this, and since no Christian will admit that the reason they worship God is just to escape hell, they are lying to God, themselves, and all those who they witness to.
Monday, July 30, 2007
they are not looking
An email to my friend.
Bill,
I have had kind of an epiphany. Goes something like this: As long as a Christian is satisfied with what their faith gives them (emotionally) it is absolutely futile to try to get them to see that what they believe in is based on nothing more than myths and emotions.
As you have experienced before, and I have also, and thousands and thousands of non believers before and after us have and will experience, when you talk to a Christian who is content that what they have is the truth, you will not be able to break through to them. Why? Well, because they are not looking.
Just as if you were trying to get your sister to see that her husband is abusing her. If she is content in the relationship, she will not be able to see what you are talking about.
Same with a person who has a lousy job. If they work long hours and get paid next to nothing, but are reasonably happy, they will never understand why you are trying to tell them to go get a better job.
My girlfriend is happy with her church life. She goes every Sunday morning, sings the songs, gives at least 10%, listens to a 45 minute sermon, is on the finance committee, and never picks up her bible Monday through Saturday. She is happy with that. It would be insane for me to even try to bring up just some generic biblical topic or religious discussion, because we will probably disagree, and she does not care to hear any disagreements. She is content to believe what she believes because she believes she believes the truth. She is not looking.
Same with your Grandson. He believes he has all he needs, and is happy with that. It was a mistake for me to even enter into a discussion with him. There was no way that I could possibly break through his "happiness". He is not looking.
Now, if you come across a Christian who is looking, well, now there is a chance of getting through to them. Why, because they are not satisfied with their faith. They are either dissatisfied with their church, or their own "spiritual condition", or both, or, they are new to the faith and the cement has not had time to cure.
When I was a Christian I was never satisfied. I always wanted to "grow in the Lord" but could never seem to reach an even plain, could never rest in where I was. I always felt I was lacking in some area of "spiritual service or worship". So, I was never happy with where I was. I was always looking.
But, I am guessing you are similar to me in that, you enjoy discussing with people of faith, what they believe and why you don't believe what they believe. I greatly enjoy that, especially when it is a civil discussion. But, as I am just now realizing, it will most likely not be civil if the person we are talking to IS NOT LOOKING. If they are perfectly happy where they are, in their religious faith, leave them alone, let it go, zip it shut.
From now on, if I am approached by a Christian, and they show some interest in my lack of faith, the first thing I am going to ask them before we discuss anything about belief-vs.-non belief is -
Are you prepared to accept that idea that you may have it all wrong?
Are you prepared, finally, to give the idea that there may not be a God, that the bible may not be the word of God, and that there is a chance that everything you now believe concerning your Christian faith may be simply based on nothing but myths and emotions?
If they can't give me that, they are not looking, and if they are not looking, our dialogue will end badly.
So, my late new years resolution is to follow my own advice above.
Bill,
I have had kind of an epiphany. Goes something like this: As long as a Christian is satisfied with what their faith gives them (emotionally) it is absolutely futile to try to get them to see that what they believe in is based on nothing more than myths and emotions.
As you have experienced before, and I have also, and thousands and thousands of non believers before and after us have and will experience, when you talk to a Christian who is content that what they have is the truth, you will not be able to break through to them. Why? Well, because they are not looking.
Just as if you were trying to get your sister to see that her husband is abusing her. If she is content in the relationship, she will not be able to see what you are talking about.
Same with a person who has a lousy job. If they work long hours and get paid next to nothing, but are reasonably happy, they will never understand why you are trying to tell them to go get a better job.
My girlfriend is happy with her church life. She goes every Sunday morning, sings the songs, gives at least 10%, listens to a 45 minute sermon, is on the finance committee, and never picks up her bible Monday through Saturday. She is happy with that. It would be insane for me to even try to bring up just some generic biblical topic or religious discussion, because we will probably disagree, and she does not care to hear any disagreements. She is content to believe what she believes because she believes she believes the truth. She is not looking.
Same with your Grandson. He believes he has all he needs, and is happy with that. It was a mistake for me to even enter into a discussion with him. There was no way that I could possibly break through his "happiness". He is not looking.
Now, if you come across a Christian who is looking, well, now there is a chance of getting through to them. Why, because they are not satisfied with their faith. They are either dissatisfied with their church, or their own "spiritual condition", or both, or, they are new to the faith and the cement has not had time to cure.
When I was a Christian I was never satisfied. I always wanted to "grow in the Lord" but could never seem to reach an even plain, could never rest in where I was. I always felt I was lacking in some area of "spiritual service or worship". So, I was never happy with where I was. I was always looking.
But, I am guessing you are similar to me in that, you enjoy discussing with people of faith, what they believe and why you don't believe what they believe. I greatly enjoy that, especially when it is a civil discussion. But, as I am just now realizing, it will most likely not be civil if the person we are talking to IS NOT LOOKING. If they are perfectly happy where they are, in their religious faith, leave them alone, let it go, zip it shut.
From now on, if I am approached by a Christian, and they show some interest in my lack of faith, the first thing I am going to ask them before we discuss anything about belief-vs.-non belief is -
Are you prepared to accept that idea that you may have it all wrong?
Are you prepared, finally, to give the idea that there may not be a God, that the bible may not be the word of God, and that there is a chance that everything you now believe concerning your Christian faith may be simply based on nothing but myths and emotions?
If they can't give me that, they are not looking, and if they are not looking, our dialogue will end badly.
So, my late new years resolution is to follow my own advice above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)