Evidence for God from Science

The11thDr. wrote:So, ive been reading John and it does feel like its leading up to something huge. its kind of different to read it how im reading it now than to skim through it looking for inconsistancies and errors. Esspecially since this version reads much better than the centuries old version.

I think that the slower I read it, the more I take in. I got about half way through before starting again more slowly.now im halfway through the third chapter, this part[with nicodemus] feels significant so im going to mull it over.

Faster isn't always better is it?

Please do - ponder it!
-
-
-

Acts, is a very important part of the new testament in my opinion. Hearing pauls conversion is detrimental to my faith.

Josh, what do you mean about Paul's conversion being detrimental?

Doctor, I hadn't been on a lot lately, so I missed this thread. It's a great thread, with many good and encouraging answers! I also highly recommend Mere Christianity. Many more recently published apologetics books are based on much that is in that one, easy to understand book. As for the NT and what to read, I love all of what John writes.

cslewislover wrote:Josh, what do you mean about Paul's conversion being detrimental?

Doctor, I hadn't been on a lot lately, so I missed this thread. It's a great thread, with many good and encouraging answers! I also highly recommend Mere Christianity. Many more recently published apologetics books are based on much that is in that one, easy to understand book. As for the NT and what to read, I love all of what John writes.

I guess I could have been less vague. Reading and discovering who Paul, or should i say Saul?, was before his conversion and how he went from one extreme to the other was/is very important to new readers of the bible. He was a man persecuting christians who became a persecuted christian EDIT: Became one of the main focal points of the NT. Knowing how he dealt with christians he would have known what would happen to him if he became one, probably would have been worse for him. Its one of those things like the resurection in it I can see nothing but strong truth and gods compassion for everyone including sinners.

I dont think i could ever be a christian. So i dont know why i am wasting my time here. Dont worry though its not your fualt.

Why this sudden change in attitude - you seemed quite open about it before. Has something come up that has changed your view on things?

Silvertusk.

The11thDr. wrote:I dont think i could ever be a christian. So i dont know why i am wasting my time here. Dont worry though its not your fualt.

I can understand I guess... I mean I don't think I could ever have enough faith to be an atheist.

Silvertusk wrote:Why this sudden change in attitude - you seemed quite open about it before. Has something come up that has changed your view on things?

Silvertusk.

Yeah, that's weird. You should read that book we suggested and see what you think then (and you reading the bible - was there a problem?). It's not like a huge book. You can actually read it online for free, Mere Christianity

I feel this way with my faith from time to time, but i always comeback stronger than before. There is no ending to faith, there will always be dips and downs at least for me this is true.

Well the old testement(the way god seems to make morality meaningless for instance) did put me off quite a lot i suppose, miricles in the new testement kind of seem really implausible to me, why go to all the trouble of making the perfect laws of nature just to break them?

I perhaps can accept(this is something in itself right?) some of the things Jesus said, but I dont think I will ever go as far as believing that he is god. I do admit I actuallyf did not read a very lot of mere christianity, maybe it gets more profound after the tiny portion of it that I did bother to read.

I guess the best you could possibly achieve is to try and convince me to be more open to the concept of god, I wouldn't like you to think that I am closed minded. If i had to choose between being comfortable or being correct, then I think that i know what i would choose.

well, I would simply say, why leave? stay and ask questions!

That is a simple proposition, yes if i stay i can ask some questions. But I don't know if there is any good reason for me too, so for now i'll just suggest that maybe I will keep coming.

Did you read this (from Mere Christianity)? And, what are the reasons why you don't think Jesus is also God?


CHAPTER 9
THE PERFECT PENITENT

We are faced, then, with a frightening alternative. This man we are talking about either was (and is) just what He said or else a lunatic, or something worse. Now it seems to me obvious that He was neither a lunatic nor a fiend: and consequently, however strange or terrifying or unlikely it may seem I have to accept the view that He was and is God. God has landed on this enemy-occupied world in human form.

And now, what was the purpose of it all? What did He come to do? Well, to teach, of course; but as soon as you look into the New Testament or any other Christian writing you will find they are constantly talking about something different--about His death and His coming to life again. It is obvious that Christians think the chief point of the story lies there. They think the main thing He came to earth to do--was to suffer and be killed.

Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of this dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity. The central Christian belief is that Christ's death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. I will tell you what I think it is like. All sensible people know that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you good. But the modern theory of nourishment--all about the vitamins and proteins--is a different thing. People ate their dinners and felt better long before the theory of vitamins was ever heard of : and if the theory of vitamins is some day abandoned they will go on eating their dinners just the same. Theories about Christ's death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works. Christians would not all agree as to how important these theories are. My own church--the Church of England--does not lay down any one of them as the right one. The Church of Rome goes a bit further. But I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely more important than any explanations that theologians have produced. I think they would probably admit that no explanation will ever be quite adequate to the reality. But as I said in the preface to this book, I am only a layman, and at this point we are getting into deep water. I can only tell you, for what it is worth, how I, personally, look at the matter.

On my view the theories are not themselves the thing you are asked to accept. Many of you no doubt have read Jeans or Eddington. What they do when they want to explain the atom, or something of that sort, is to give you a description out of which you can make a mental picture. But then they warn you that this picture is not what the scientists actually believe. What the scientists believe is a mathematical formula. The pictures are there only to help you to understand the formula. They are not really true in the way the formula is; they do not give you the real thing but only something more or less like it. They are only meant to help, and if they do not help you can drop them. The thing itself cannot be pictured, it can only be expressed mathematically. We are in the same boat here. We believe that the death of Christ is just that point in history at which something absolutely unimaginable from outside shows through into our own world. And if we cannot picture even the atoms of which our own world is built, of course we are not going to be able to picture this. Indeed, if we found that we could fully understand it, that very fact would show it was not what it professes to be--the inconceivable, the uncreated, the thing from beyond nature, striking down into nature like lightning. You may ask what good it will be to us if we do not understand it. But that is easily answered. A man can eat his dinner without understanding exactly how food nourishes him. A man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works: indeed, he certainly would not know how it works until he has accepted it.

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself. All the same, some of these theories are worth looking at.

The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before-the one about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. Or if you take 'paying the penalty,' not in the sense of being punished, but in the more general sense of 'standing the racket' or 'footing the bill,' then, of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind friend.

Now what was the sort of 'hole' man had got himself into? He had tried to set up on his own, to behave as if he belonged to himself. In other words, fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement: he is a rebel who must lay down his arms. Laying down your arms, surrendering, saying you are sorry, realising that you have been on the wrong track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground floor--that is the only way out of our 'hole'. This process of surrender-this movement full speed astern--is what Christians call repentance. Now repentance is no fun at all. It is something much harder than merely eating humble pie. It means unlearning all the self-conceit and self-will that we have been training ourselves into for thousands of years. It means killing part of yourself, undergoing a kind of death. In fact, it needs a good man to repent. And here comes the catch. Only a bad person needs to repent: only a good person can repent perfectly. The worse you are the more you need it and the less you can do it. The only person who could do it perfectly would be a perfect person--and he would not need it.

Remember, this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a kind of death, is not something God demands of you before He will take you back and which He could let you off if He chose: it is simply a description of what going back to Him is like. If you ask God to take you back without it, you are really asking Him to let you go back without going back. It cannot happen. Very well, then, we must go through with it. But the same badness which makes us need it, makes us unable to do it. Can we do it if God helps us? Yes, but what do we mean when we talk of God helping us? We mean God putting into us a bit of Himself, so to speak. He lends us a little of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His love into us and that is how we love one another. When you teach a child writing, you hold its hand while it forms the letters: that is, it forms the letters because you are forming them. We love and reason because God loves and reasons and holds our hand while we do it. Now if we had not fallen, that would be all plain sailing. But unfortunately we now need God's help in order to do something which God, in His own nature, never does at all--to surrender, to suffer, to submit, to die. Nothing in God's nature corresponds to this process at all. So that the one road for which we now need God's leadership most of all is a road God, in His own nature, has never walked. God can share only what He has; this thing, in His own nature, He has not.

But supposing God became a man--suppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person--then that person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die, because He was man; and He could do it perfectly because He was God. You and I can go through this process only if God does it in us; but God can do it only if He becomes man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God's dying unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man. That is the sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He Himself need not suffer at all.

I have heard some people complain that if Jesus was God as well as man, then His sufferings and death lose all value in their eyes, 'because it must have been so easy for Him': Others may (very rightly) rebuke the ingratitude and ungraciousness of this objection; what staggers me is the misunderstanding it betrays. In one sense, of course, those who make it are right. They have even understated their own case. The perfect submission, the perfect suffering, the perfect death were not only easier to Jesus because He was God, but were possible only because He was God. But surely that is a very odd reason for not accepting them? The teacher is able to form the letters for the child because the teacher is grown-up and knows how to write. That, of course, makes it easier for the teacher; and only because it is easier for him can he help the child. If it rejected him because 'it's easy for grown-ups' and waited to learn writing from another child who could not write itself (and so had no 'unfair' advantage), it would not get on very quickly. If I am drowning in a rapid river, a man who still has one foot on the bank may give me a hand which saves my life. Ought I to shout back (between my gasps) 'No, it's not fair! You have an advantage! You're keeping one foot on the bank'? That advantage-call it 'unfair' if you like--is the only reason why he can be of any use to me. To what will you look for help if you will not look to that which is stronger than yourself ?

Such is my own way of looking at what Christians call the Atonement. But remember this is only one more picture. Do not mistake it for the thing itself : and if it does not help you, drop it.

If those are the only choices, then lunatic is the one I would go for if you ask me now. I dont think mr lewis was writing to change anyone to being a christian and what makes those the only choices anyway?

what would be the other choices?