Evidence for God from Science

Don't you think after nearly 28 years as a Christian, I would love to be able to salvage my faith?

After reading some of your blog, I think you had faith in something other than the Jesus of the bible. Tell me, who do you say Jesus Christ is?

Why do you think I am presenting these tough issues that caused my loss of faith to begin with, hoping someone could maybe give me some new insights that I have overlooked?

After reading your comments here, and what I read in your blog, you don't come across as a sincere seeker.

No one as of yet has been able to give me credible answers that hold up to logic and reason. Why do you think I am no longer a Christian?

I think you are no longer a "Christian" because you never were. If you are sincere as you say, then answer my question: Who do you say Jesus Christ is?
Prove to us that you are a butterfly, not a moth disguised as a butterfly, whose only purpose in life is
to eat holes in the wool of the Lamb of God.

jlay wrote:

I think discrimination based on those kinds of things is wrong, because I believe all humans should have equal rights.

Fine, I just hope that you understand that this is an opinion. You say the reason it is WRONG is because of what you BELIEVE. Well, I could easily say, I believe you are wrong. It's circular to the core.

First I like to thank you for discussing this topic with me in a rational way. And yes, I do try and read your posts objectively.
You are right, the reason I say it is wrong is because I believe it is wrong, and why do I believe it is wrong? Well, it's because I have an innate sense of morality that says it is wrong to deny people equal human rights based solely on gender. For example: I believe it is wrong to deny a female education because of her gender.

You may ask, where do I get my innate sense of morality? Good question. If my sense of morality is set to a higher standard than I find in the Bible, then chances are I didn't get my morality from the God of the Bible. So there is my dilemma.

jlay wrote:

The same holds true for being submissive; IF the sole reason for a female being submissive to a male is based on gender then it is wrong, because abilities and desires are not based on gender. People should be free to choose and follow their own path no matter what their gender, or race.

Let's look at it this way. There are things in the Bible you don't agree with. Does that mean the Bible is wrong? And when I say wrong here, I am using in the objective sense. If you say yes, then you need to explain the objective nature of such. This is exactly what I've been challenging you to do from the beginning.

You are correct, just because I don't agree with the Bible does not mean it is wrong. The reason I judge certain rules and laws in the Bible to be wrong is because they go against my innate sense of fairness. I feel all people should share equal human rights.

jlay wrote:

The Bible presents rules and laws as being given from God, and Jesus reiterated that by saying not one "Jot" or "Tittle" would pass from the law till all was fulfilled. So, when the Bible says that the Hebrews can own foreign slaves for ever and pass them down as an inheritance to their children (Lev.25:44-45), I take that as a sanctioning of chattel slavery. Please show me where I am wrong in making that assumption.

Couple of things here. The context of "The Law" here was the 10 commands. Jesus even quotes them directly, and has a specific purpose for His teaching. To imply that Jesus is essentially endorsing buying slaves is really ignoring the context and trying to find an objection where none really exists. The Law was for the Hebrews. Not for us. Nor was it ever meant to deal with or condone the slave trade that we think of when the word 'slavery' is used. The Law was fulfilled by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The theocracy of Israel is NOT in effect and hasn't been for almost 2,000 years. Obviously the ceremonial and civil laws, etc. were not to continue, because Jesus Himself appears to Peter and abolishes all the food laws in one fail swoop.

Are you implying that the Ten Commandments are the only laws of real importance, or that they were just for the Hebrews?

jlay wrote:At the end of the day, I will never try to convince you that the Bible doesn't place men in women in different roles, with the woman being in submission to the man. People today wince at being under authority, etc. Even the term 'sheep' which Jesus uses to describe His followers is a term of disdain today.

But at the end of the day, yes, you are correct. The Bible makes provision for buying slaves. Can I give you a satisfactory answer? no. It could be that you will NEVER get a satisfactory answer. But, does that mean that Jesus isn't who He says He is. Does that mean that you aren't a sinner who needs saving? No. And no matter how much you are disatisfied, or disagree, that doesn't change. I can assure you that I don't have all my own questions answered. But at the end of the day I know I'm a sinner who needs a savior. I can't possibly have the perspective I need to have to throw out the entire Bible because God won't bow to my preferences. It's a humbling position, and again, one people simply don't want to take. Independence and self-reliance are touted as virtues today, and in some ways are. But there is also a lot I see wrong with much the world holds virtuous. And unfortunately we are not going to agree on many those points. You have a lens you view the Bible through, and I know from many years of experience that the Bible will never conform to that Lens. But I do know some incredible Godly women who I admire.


Got to run, morelater.

Yes, I do have a lens from which I view the Bible and part of what colors that lens is the fact that I'm female, just as you look through a male colored lens. That is one of the problems with the Bible being written from the viewpoint of the male mindset. The evidence of male influence is very apparent in the nature of the Bible God, all of his qualities are masculine, so consequently the way he views humans is like a man views a woman, which is very different from how a woman views herself.

I am a woman, and it bugs me when I am discriminated against because of my gender, when I know I am as capable as a man. So, why did God create women with the innate sense of being equal, yet turn around and deny them that equality because they are female? A child doesn't feel he is denied equal human rights because he is restricted from practicing medicine, but a woman would when she knows she is capable of practicing medicine equally as well as a man.
-

Butterfly wrote:

jlay wrote:

I think discrimination based on those kinds of things is wrong, because I believe all humans should have equal rights.

Fine, I just hope that you understand that this is an opinion. You say the reason it is WRONG is because of what you BELIEVE. Well, I could easily say, I believe you are wrong. It's circular to the core.

First I like to thank you for discussing this topic with me in a rational way. And yes, I do try and read your posts objectively.
You are right, the reason I say it is wrong is because I believe it is wrong, and why do I believe it is wrong? Well, it's because I have an innate sense of morality that says it is wrong to deny people equal human rights based solely on gender. For example: I believe it is wrong to deny a female education because of her gender.

You may ask, where do I get my innate sense of morality? Good question. If my sense of morality is set to a higher standard than I find in the Bible, then chances are I didn't get my morality from the God of the Bible. So there is my dilemma.

How is it that you adjudge your moral standard to be "higher" than what you find in the Bible? Here you either imply an objective standard outside of both yourself and the Bible, or you are basically just repeating that this is your subjective preference; if the former then you must account for it, if the latter then nobody has any reason to accept your subjective preference over that of anyone else--including the men who wrote the Bible. If you didn't get your morality from the God of the Bible, then you are either claiming special revelation from some other God, or your "innate sense of morality" is just a pretty way of describing your personal opinion.

The Protector wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

jlay wrote:

I think discrimination based on those kinds of things is wrong, because I believe all humans should have equal rights.

Fine, I just hope that you understand that this is an opinion. You say the reason it is WRONG is because of what you BELIEVE. Well, I could easily say, I believe you are wrong. It's circular to the core.

First I like to thank you for discussing this topic with me in a rational way. And yes, I do try and read your posts objectively.
You are right, the reason I say it is wrong is because I believe it is wrong, and why do I believe it is wrong? Well, it's because I have an innate sense of morality that says it is wrong to deny people equal human rights based solely on gender. For example: I believe it is wrong to deny a female education because of her gender.

You may ask, where do I get my innate sense of morality? Good question. If my sense of morality is set to a higher standard than I find in the Bible, then chances are I didn't get my morality from the God of the Bible. So there is my dilemma.

How is it that you adjudge your moral standard to be "higher" than what you find in the Bible? Here you either imply an objective standard outside of both yourself and the Bible, or you are basically just repeating that this is your subjective preference; if the former then you must account for it, if the latter then nobody has any reason to accept your subjective preference over that of anyone else--including the men who wrote the Bible. If you didn't get your morality from the God of the Bible, then you are either claiming special revelation from some other God, or your "innate sense of morality" is just a pretty way of describing your personal opinion.

Hi Protector,

It's fine if you want to call my innate moral sense "a pretty way of describing my personal opinion", or if you want to say its objective, but one thing I know for sure and that is the morality I have is at a far higher standard than much of what I read in the Bible. No one has to accept my morality, but I don't see any reason anyone would not want to, because what I advocate is equal human rights for all people to be able to share fully in the human experience.

I do not claim to get my morality by special revelation from any divine being...so where could it come from?
-

but one thing I know for sure and that is the morality I have is at a far higher standard than much of what I read in the Bible

It only seems better because you fail to understand context, God was working with a people with hard hearts and had to work within the culture of the time.......Rome was not built in a day and neither can you change peoples hearts overnight without effecting the greatest gift free will.

If my sense of morality is set to a higher standard than I find in the Bible, then chances are I didn't get my morality from the God of the Bible. So there is my dilemma.

Butter, I do hope you understand that this is question begging. You presume your standard is higher, because you,...well,....presume your standard is higher. So, sure it would create a dilemma.

The reason I judge certain rules and laws in the Bible to be wrong is because they go against my innate sense of fairness. I feel all people should share equal human rights.

I would question whether your fairness is innate. I suspect, much like me you've been raised in a culture that views the Bible as out of date, and your sense of 'fairness' has been shaped by such. I can certainly appreciate that all humans should share equal rights. Of course this begs the question, "what are the basic human rights, and what is their source?"

Butterfly wrote:Are you implying that the Ten Commandments are the only laws of real importance, or that they were just for the Hebrews?

I would say they were ONLY for the Hebrews. Now, understand that murder isn't wrong because it's in the Bible. It was wrong before a word was ever penned. Murder is wrong, and it is wrong objectively. The Law was given to Israel, period. THat doesn't mean it isn't useful for teaching, correcting and training. It is. But even considering it this way, we still see how the entire Law has different functions. It's overall role was to govern a specific nation, Israel. Was the Law perfect? It was perfect in what it was intended for. To lead an imperfect people to Christ.

Butterfly wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:The problem with the God of the Bible is that he not only allowed his children (the Hebrews) to abuse others by denying them equal human rights, but he also mandated laws that were specifically biased in favor of the Hebrew male. It is one thing to teach people in a gentle manner if they have been abused, and quite another thing to accommodate them when they are practicing abusive and discriminatory behavior to others based solely on gender or race.

While God may have instilled many good behaviors in the Hebrews, he also allowed and mandated many abusive behaviors that violated the human rights of others.

Exactly by what standard are you judging God?

Good question

When I was a Christian I would have told you that the standard by which I judged was imbued in me when I was created in the image and likeness of God, which always sorta bugged me...especially when it seemed my judgments on issues were higher and more moral than his. Now that I am no longer a Christian I know my moral intuitions come from my own self, which have been developed through my own reasoning and logic and the examples of other people.

The Golden Rule in all its variations is an excellent standard to live by. Treating others the way you wish to be treated, not doing unto others what you don't wish done to yourself, and loving others as yourself, are some of the many ways to apply a standard of equal human rights to all people. As I'm sure you are quite aware of, the biblegod does not live by his own moral standards...

Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

It seems that you are taking you VIEW of God and interpreting things based on THAT view.
I don't think you know the bible as well as you think you do.
You have obviously made a decision that, according to how you view God and the Bible, you don't want either as part of your life and we all must respect that view of course.
I am not sure what happened in your life to bring you to this point but it saddens me that it has happened.
I think it is a good thing to live by the "golden rule" and, while you may not agree, it seems to me that you have taken what you want from Christianity ( the morals) and disregarded what you don't like ( the notion of God and all that goes with it).
It is good that you are open to debate and discussion about these thing still BUT at the same time, it seems that you have made up your mind, no?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

but one thing I know for sure and that is the morality I have is at a far higher standard than much of what I read in the Bible

It only seems better because you fail to understand context, God was working with a people with hard hearts and had to work within the culture of the time.......Rome was not built in a day and neither can you change peoples hearts overnight without effecting the greatest gift free will.

So, are you saying peoples hearts were harder back in say 500 BC, then they were in the first century when Jesus came, or even today in some Muslim countries? If I recall correctly the Bible contains much compassion and love, along with much brutality and wickedness. And even if people as a whole are more focused on human rights today, it's not because of God working through people. The last revelation that anyone received from God was two thousand years ago and things got really bad for a long time afterwards, pretty much right up until 20th century.

What it looks like is God just let people work things out for themselves...
-

It's funny that we hear how the bible is full of evil and wickedness ( as it is of course filled with the good stuff too) as a critique of God.
If that bible was NOT "full of evil and wickedness" the first critique that would be leveled at it was that it WASN'T real because it didn't have the obvious failings we would expect to see of a "historical book".
Sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't thing" it seems.
It's funny because I used to have these very issues with the bible, when I used to impose MY views on what the bible SHOULD be/have been and when I was not taking the bible for what it was/is.
That the bible shows the reality of the situations, how bad and flawed even the "chosen ones" were, is to me, evidence of how real the bible is.
What is written and what happened in the bible is what I would have expected to happen if God was working WITH people and going against free will, it is what would happen when failed and flawed people ( like we ALL are) are in control and have power and exert influence over each other ( same things that are going on right now still), what I would expect to find when scribes and law makers put themselves above the Word of God.
The bible is brutally honest and that is what, I think, makes many people very uncomfortable.

Butterfly, I can't let you get off without answering my question. Let's see if you're really open as you say:

If you are sincere as you say, then answer my question: Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

Well?

jlay wrote:

If my sense of morality is set to a higher standard than I find in the Bible, then chances are I didn't get my morality from the God of the Bible. So there is my dilemma.

Butter, I do hope you understand that this is question begging. You presume your standard is higher, because you,...well,....presume your standard is higher. So, sure it would create a dilemma.

Good morning,
Well, the reason I say my standard is higher, is because it is. I am able to use my human reasoning (which is all any of us have), as a standard by which to measure against some of the immoral behavior I see in the Bible.

jlay wrote:

The reason I judge certain rules and laws in the Bible to be wrong is because they go against my innate sense of fairness. I feel all people should share equal human rights.

I would question whether your fairness is innate. I suspect, much like me you've been raised in a culture that views the Bible as out of date, and your sense of 'fairness' has been shaped by such. I can certainly appreciate that all humans should share equal rights. Of course this begs the question, "what are the basic human rights, and what is their source?"

Since early childhood I have had a passionate sense of fairness and equality, even though I was raised in a non-religious household and didn't become a Christian till I was in my twenties, so my sense of morality was shaped by many different forces. You ask "what are the basic human rights, and what is their source?" I think the key to knowing what human rights are is to restate the question as "Do I share EQUAL human rights with others?". In that manner we can tap into the universal understanding of human rights, as to the source, well that is what I addressed in my OP on this thread.

jlay wrote:

Butterfly wrote:Are you implying that the Ten Commandments are the only laws of real importance, or that they were just for the Hebrews?

I would say they were ONLY for the Hebrews. Now, understand that murder isn't wrong because it's in the Bible. It was wrong before a word was ever penned. Murder is wrong, and it is wrong objectively. The Law was given to Israel, period. THat doesn't mean it isn't useful for teaching, correcting and training. It is. But even considering it this way, we still see how the entire Law has different functions. It's overall role was to govern a specific nation, Israel. Was the Law perfect? It was perfect in what it was intended for. To lead an imperfect people to Christ.

If murder was objectively wrong before the Bible was written, then how can you say it was given from the Bible God?
-

RickD wrote:Butterfly, I can't let you get off without answering my question. Let's see if you're really open as you say:

If you are sincere as you say, then answer my question: Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

Well?

Hi Rick,

I will answer this one question then I have to run, my womanly duties are calling...

Right now, from my non-Christian perspective, I say that Jesus was an historical figure who claimed to be the son of the Hebrew god, Yahweh...and god himself.

-

Greetings. May you all live and prosper.

In reviewing this thread, I have noticed an adamant rejection of the idea that the near universal moral intuition of the Golden Rule could be used as the basis of objective moral values. This seems inconsistent with the argument put forth by the eminent Christian philosopher William Lane Craig who appeals merely to it being "obvious" and that "we all know it" as proof that objective moral values exist. Here is the relevant quote:

The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality
And could anything be more obvious than that objective moral values do exist? There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. ... The fact is that we do apprehend objective values, and we all know it. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior--they are moral abominations. As Ruse himself states, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5." By the same token, love, generosity, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good. People who fail to see this are just morally handicapped, and there is no reason to allow their impaired vision to call into question what we see clearly.

I checked his other writings and could find no logical foundation for his assertion. He supports it merely by appealing to the subjective experience of humans. Such an appeal has been soundly rejected in this thread. Would not logical consistency demand a similar rejection of Dr. Craig's argument?

There also seems to be an inconsistency in his examples of things that are objectively immoral. Specifically, he says "Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior--they are moral abominations." This seems inconsistent because we see genocide (the slaughter of every man, woman, and child) commanded by God in the Bible. This appears to be a direct contradiction. If anything is objectively immoral, we must agree that genocide is objectively immoral. If we reject this proposition, would not Dr. Craig's examples of "obvious" immorality fail?

It is my hope that our discussion will clarify and resolve these logical conundrums.

Again, may you all live long and prosper!

Butterfly wrote:

RickD wrote:Butterfly, I can't let you get off without answering my question. Let's see if you're really open as you say:

If you are sincere as you say, then answer my question: Who do you say Jesus Christ is?

Well?

Hi Rick,

I will answer this one question then I have to run, my womanly duties are calling...

Right now, from my non-Christian perspective, I say that Jesus was an historical figure who claimed to be the son of the Hebrew god, Yahweh...and god himself.

-

Thank you for attempting to answer my question. Going with what you say here, I can see that your interpretation of the bible shows you that Jesus did claim to be God. Do you say Jesus is God? Do you say Jesus is a historical figure who was merely human, and by claiming he was God, was a complete lunatic?

I didn't ask who you think Jesus claimed to be. I asked, "Who do you say Jesus Christ is?"

Butterfly wrote:If murder was objectively wrong before the Bible was written, then how can you say it was given from the Bible God?

Because it was written on your heart by the very creator you deny.