Posted by Hemant Mehta in Jared is a seminary student.
How did he get involved in that career path?
I got involved in a large ministry and traveled all over Eastern Europe doing missionary stuff both while I was finishing school and a little bit after school. Then I worked for corporate America for a few years and I realized I needed to be in ministry. Not that I think everyone should be in ministry, but I have a gift for teaching, and I really enjoy preaching, writing, and helping people through tough times. So with a wife and two kids, I came to seminary. I hope to get a masters degree which will prepare me to be a pastor or a church in a largely “unchurched” area. I want this because I prefer to be around people who aren’t steeped in “church culture.” I believe Christianity has a lot of answers for us, but sometimes it is easier to talk about those answers to people who want to know them. I have found that often “church folks” think they have all of them already and don’t really want to learn more. Often it’s the people who wouldn’t immediately claim to be Christians that want to find truth. I believe the story in the Bible holds truth and I want to teach other people how to find the truths it holds.
…
I am not all the kind of guy who wants to “evangelize” everyone I see. I do believe the Bible is the only truth, but I would rather see an intelligent person explore truth and come to believe something else (an untruth), than to blindly accept the truth and not understand it.
He describes his future goals this way:
After school I want to plant a church in a community that is what I would call “post-Christian” or “un churched” Not because I want to reach the heathens, but because I feel more comfortable in a community that does not cling to what is commonly thought of as “traditional Christianity.”
It’s not all that often you get a chance to ask questions to someone who is currently studying to be a pastor.
Well, not the atheist crowd, anyway 
If you have questions for Jared, let him know in the comments. He’ll respond to them directly in this thread.
[tags]atheist, atheism, Christianity[/tags]
I have a question for Jared:
You state that you feel more comfortable in a community “that doesn’t cling to [...] traditional Christianity.” I’m wondering what characterizes the type of Christianity you wish to teach and how it differs from “traditional Christianity”? You mentioned that “church folks” often do not want to learn any more about their religion, but what would be different about this new Christianity itself?
Wouldn’t that entail the person in question going to hell for refusing the foremost tenant of Christianity: worship Jehovah and only Jehovah? Is that something you’re comfortable with, actually encouraging a member of your congregation to turn their back on the only way to salvation?
And I don’t mean to be rude, but please don’t say that Christianity isn’t the only way to salvation; other religions worship the same god in different ways. Because it simply isn’t true. Religions are mutually exclisive, either one and only one belief system is correct or none of them are.
Comfortable? not at all… i would much rather see them understand that Christianity is correct. But at least they would have thought about it.
You are right, religions are mutually exclusive, but that means only ONE of them can be right… it does not mean none of them can be right. A good study makes it seem that the truth claims of Christ are the most reasonable. Surely they could all be wrong, but they can’t all be right.
A minister who thinks that your intellectual integrity is more important than your soul, eh? That’s a church I wouldn’t have any problem with.
Just how do you feel what you are doing is different from evangelism?
Hi Jared,
I’m curious as to why you are confident Christianity is *the* truth, in the sense that other religions must have their picture of the supernatural grossly wrong. What is it you are convinced by? The historical / archaeological evidence, by the content of the Christian / biblical message, personal experience of the divine, etc.?
“Renacier said, ‘A minister who thinks that your intellectual integrity is more important than your soul, eh? That’s a church I wouldn’t have any problem with.’”
Correct me if I am wrong Jared, but you are exactly saying that. Would it not be more accurate to say that you merely respect the individual’s right to choose? Not putting any one thing above another.
If I am correct in my interpretation, I applaud you. If Renacier is correct, I have to say, Huh? That is a bit contrary to the Christianity I know.
Jared, how do you deal with (explain) the factual errors and blatant contradictions in the bible, as well as the fact that it was put together by men? What is your view on the gospels that didn’t make it into the final version?
Christianity teaches us that all death and suffering entered the world when Adam sinned. If man arose through evolution, then by definition, his predecessors lived and died. (Billions of them). Therefore, belief in evolution requires acceptance that a basic tenet of Christianity is blatantly wrong.
So my question is: Do you believe in evolution, and if so, how do you reconcile this with the conflicting tenets of Christianity? Also, what is the purpose of Jesus if death and suffering were not caused by Adam? Was Jesus not sent to redeem mankind for the mistakes of Adam?
Jared, a question for you:
Hypothetically, a Christian dad claims that God saved his child from cancer, once he learns that the tumor has gone into remission. The dad connects his own constant prayer to God’s mercy.
Elsewhere, a family of Christians prays for their youngest member, also child with cancer. Unfortunately, the child dies. The Christian family attributes this to the fallen state of humanity, and the laws of nature that were once set forth by God.
In the first case, the Christian man claims God preferred his child over the child of the other Christian family. He also claims he and God have a better relationship than the entire Christian family, since his single prayer was answered while their multiple prayers were ignored. Lastly, this man claims he knows the mind of God and “God’s Plan”, and that he knows his child is part of God’s Plan, while the other family has no such knowledge.
Claiming to know the mind of the Creator of Everything, and being preferred in His Plan over others, seems like pure arrogance and ego-driven delusion to me.
What are your thoughts? Do you see the Christian Dad’s position as humble, or moral, or anything resembling decency?
Jared,
I was almost in your shoes. I was ready after High School to begin down the road to the Roman Catholic Priesthood.
I have found that many of my fellow non-believers have a great knowledge of world religions, their scriptures and cosmologies. My question to you is, which book of the Bible is your favorite to read and why? What positive lessons can non-believers take away from that book?
Also, which other tradition’s scriptures are you familiar with? Have ready, say Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, Dianetics (I had to throw that out there)? Is there anything of value in those other faith traditions that Christians can take away?
My question is simple:
You are certain that “the Bible is the only truth.”
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
Be specific, please.
peace
Ó
Jared, just a comment.
After 47 years, I’m a Christian de-convert. There are many ways that someone who loves a crowd, is good at teaching, and is enthusiastic and warm could spend their vocation.
I’m not sure why you volunteered to share your story on an atheist site, but I for one would have at least these suggestions to make: talk to ministers who left the ministry. Read about those who have made a career of religion, and understand why they might leave it. Read “Leaving the fold,” edited by Ed Babinski, and the same title by Marlene Windell, PhD. Read everything you can on “freethinking” and “doubt.” Even if seemingly abrasive, read all the “new atheist” stuff. Freethinkers (by Susan Jacoby) and Doubt (by Jennifer Hecht) are excellent as well.
As friendly as you seem, I couldn’t endorse another “missionary” in our world, where someone believes they have the “truth” to share to needy, hurting people. There are many wonderful ways to help people in all walks of life, bedsides making a career of “spreading the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
Read the headlines of any major paper daily. Look at the effect of religion and beliefs on the world. Study the history of the “church” and recognize where it’s been an institution for good, but also where it’s severely prevented and delayed scientific and emperical reason, enlightenment values, and general human freedom.
Again, I am afraid I can’t “wish you well in your mission vision,” because ultimately I think it spreads an unneeded, non-productive idea, possibly a harmful idea, into the world sphere. You may have a different “idea” regarding your approach to evangelism, but Christianity is exclusively a proselytizing and converting religion, and damns people should they choose not to “believe and be baptized.” I’m afraid I believe that less religion is needed instead of more.
Respectfully, Jeff P
You say, “The Bible is the only truth”. Yet there are obviously many kinds of truths not contained in the bible. For example, open a math book, such as Hardy & Wright’s Introduction to the Theory of Numbers. There you will find such truths as “every non-negative integer is the sum of four integer squares”. This is an example of a truth not contained in the Bible.
So how did you come to your (obviously wrong) belief, and how do you reconcile it with examples like the one above?
Lots of great questions I will try to deal fairly with all of them and keep my eye here for more. For what is worth, I would like to plug my book review of the His Dark Materials Trilogy. Feel free to read and post your thoughts, I would appreciate any feedback.
it is here.
Now for the first round of questions.
Oh, It’s not I hope I do evangelism well… Evangelism is telling people the good news that there is hope in a world that often doesn’t seem to find any.
Evangelism does not mean beating people into submission until they accept our way of life. It also isn’t the need to win an argument. I realize that’s what a lot of folks think… but I just don’t agree. Evangelism is just being honest about who I am as a believer without guilting others into something.
Several things convince me. I was once convinced epistemologically. In other words I believed that all reason pointed directly to a divine being. A chain of dependent beings must lead to an independent being, ontological arguments, things like that. You have heard them all… when I was an atheist, (and curious) I asked an eye doctor if he believed in evolution. He described to me how majestic the human eye is and just how every single thing was so minute, yet so significant. He said there was no way he could accept that it came into being by accident. These things led me to accept some supernatural being.
In the course of time and study I noticed that Jesus claim to divinity was incontrovertible and mutually exclusive. Now some will say that these are old documents and we have no way to rely on their validity, yet we can be more sure that the writing of the new testament were penned by first century witnesses than we can be sure that Aristotle actually lived. This is based on the wealth of ancient manuscript evidence preserved by the early church. They cared much less for the ancient writings like Aristotle’s (and yes we can thank – that’s not sarcasm – the Muslims for preserving much of our “secular” history).
Now I realize that the worldview offered in the Bible really does explain so much of our existential mess, that I cant understand why someone wouldn’t believe it. I think we all recognize that things aren’t the way they ought to be. We all have a sense that the misery that humans experience isn’t quite right. The Bible explains that. We also need hope. Call me a weak human who needs a crutch if you must. But I think the hope we have in the end of the book (the last two chapters of revelation) are something to hope in. We see that we wont always be left to self destruction, but that God is at work to make things right again. I don’t have time here to express why this gives new life to art, music, literature, science, architecture, and every other human endeavor which we find beautiful and redeeming.
Viggo, you are right. I respect an individual’s right to choose, and I hope every individual would choose truth, but that’s not up to me, and I will still interact with and learn from them no matter their choice.
Anytime two different people see something they bring their own perspectives to it. The Bible was written by men and I believe inspired by God, but God never uses humans differently from the way he made them. We are all different, with different viewpoints, backgrounds and perspectives. The things that appear to be “contradictions” are guys who emphasized different things or saw things from a different angle. I also believe God in his sovereign design used men just like the guys who wrote the stuff, to codify it.So that what we have as “The Bible” is exactly what God meant for us to have, nothing more nothing less. The things that didn’t make it in are useful to us, but not on a level with the writings that are in the Bible.
Personally I simply don’t accept evolution. I fully accept the Genesis account. I do think it is possible to accept evolution if you believe the first real humans lived like Adam and Eve, but it seems unnecessary. The mistakes of Adam caused all kinds of mess. Not just death, but the ongoing strife between humans (see Cain and Abel) and the strife between Humans and the environment. Global warming and pollution are caused by Adam too. Jesus came to cure all of it.
Good question! I think this is a slight misunderstanding. If anything I think the second family is closer to the truth though. After Adam’s mistake, God came in and he cursed humanity. Death and toil would be a part of our existence. But there would also be grace. After the fall, the first thing God did was kill a beast to cover the shame of Adam and Eve. While sending them out of the peace and Beauty of the garden he would continue to interact in relationship with humanity. He even reacted with grace to Cain. Cain was cursed but he was also protected.
I think living as a human being means we are bound to live according to both these principles. We will call it blessings and curses. In eternity, for some there will be only blessings for others only curses, but for now we all have a mix of both. Those are distributed according to be a human. Some babies die, some babies live. Some people are rich some are poor. There is no way of garnering the favor of God so that you will be one or the other, but no matter our station in this life, we need to always be mindful we will always suffer, and we will always have good things. Our hope does not need to be in “one day when I get…(fill in the blank)” But in “one day God will take all the cursing away forever.”
I think the Christian Dad in the example has a different worldview from the one the Bible teaches and a more individualistic capitalistic “if I work hard…” worldview that is much more western than it is Biblical.
I am compelled to give you two. The first from the Jewish Scriptures, Genesis. Genesis gives us a background for understanding everything else. Without this we have no starting point. It tells why we are messed up, it tells of our efforts to make ourselves better, and tells of God choosing Abraham to make things better for all of us. This is the place to start. So often people read it and think “oh we are supposed to be like those guys.” NO AT ALL! We are supposed to read it to understand why things the way they are, and see how God has dealt with screwed up individuals like us.
Second I say The Gospel of John. This shows us the inbreaking kingdom. I use that word because up to this point the devastation wreaked by the fall had no bounds. Yet here we see Jesus curing the blind, feeding the hungry and healing the sick. He tells people he is “bringing the kingdom of God.” This means he is beginning to erase the effects of Adams mistake, all of them, wherever they were. This gives us a paradigm to understand that his death and resurrection were about saving humans, but also about saving the world.
I am familiar with all of those and some others. I think these are extremely useful for understanding what happened at Babel. The people said “we will make a name for ourselves.” As if they could do something to make it better. They cant. These are all efforts from Humans to understand and to make the world better. The Christian story is one of God making it better.
I think I answered this above, please let me know if you don’t think I did.
Fair enough, poor choice of words on my part. The Bible contains a story which leads us to understand the truth of God. All other truths we find (such as Math) point easily back to the truth we understand from the Bible. For instance in this case, a creator who is so perfect he had math in mind when he created a universe which could be demonstrated mathematically.
If you want to help people, why do you feel that evangelism is more worthwhile than becoming a doctor or a teacher or an aid worker and helping people in some way that can tangibly make their lives better?
Jared, wow I’m not sure where to start. But I will ask a few questions:
The “eyeball” example you give is a good example of the argument for “irreducible complexity” and has been shown, fairly conclusively I think, to be a very weak argument (it is regarded within the scientific community as pseudoscience.) It has been shown certainly false on many accounts, yet it seems to have been a foundational assumption upon which you “converted” into a belief-system. Have you really researched this claim? What would it take to change your mind about the eyeball, or anything that seemed “too good to be true” to have been arrived at through evolution under the pressures of natural selection?
Second, do you consider the scientific method a reliable way to discover patterns in our observable world?
Third, what would it take to convince you that the entire Christianity story of God’s grace and redemption through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for all mankind’s sins is completely false? (If you’re interested, there’s a very discreet list of things that would completely convince me of the presence of a God, not necessarily of the God of Christianity but of an omniscient God–the list has actually been posted on this site before. Therefore, I do have an open mind and can be specific about the arguments and proofs that would do it for me.)
Thanks for your replies if you get time…
Jared,
I was raised Christian and have for most of my life, been a Christian. The thing that finally drove me away (and was the thing that caused me the most misery while an avowed Christian) was “original sin”. How do you as a Christian, who wants to teach, deal with this issue? I cannot imagine a more unjust and arbitrarily cruel concept than original sin.
Jared:
I’m glad you admit that your claim about “the Bible is the only truth” is false. Now that you’ve admitted that is wrong, perhaps you will begin to see that there are many other books that contain truths not contained in the Bible. Perhaps there is hope for you after all!
I am intrigued by your claim that “All other truths we find (such as Math) point easily back to the truth we understand from the Bible.” Let’s take a math statement whose truth value is currently unknown: every even number >= 4 is the sum of two primes. (This is Goldbach’s conjecture.)
Now, according to current knowledge, this could be either true or false. Which, in your opinion, “point[s] easily back to the the truth we understand from the Bible”? The fact that every even number >= 4 is a sum of two primes, or its negation?
Hi Jared,
Thanks for coming here and answering our questions.
You wrote this:
Okay… I realize that somehow you and I are culturally removed from the authors of the Bible by an order of a few thousand years…. but this passage seems to roll off your tongue as if you have somehow internalized some aspect of ancient hebrew culture. Please explain this to me, as I’m stumped. God killed a beast to cover the shame of Adam and Eve? How does that work, exactly? How does killing a beast cover shame? Like, if I’m ashamed of yelling at my wife, can I kill an animal to cover that shame? I’m trying to be realistic here… what does this mean? How does an animal’s death cover a shame? Wasn’t Adam ashamed of what he did to God (disobedience)? How does a killed animal cover shame? Isn’t that literally scapegoating? Does a killed animal placate God’s anger? Or does it distract God from punishing you further?
Or did it make Adam feel better? Did God say, “Don’t be ashamed, Adam, here, let me kill a buffalo”? And then Adam went “ah, thanks God. Now I feel better.” Doesn’t it add a shame to a shame? Wouldn’t and SHOULDN’T you feel bad for the poor animal? Why did an animal have to die (indeed all animals) because of something Adam did? Why did God curse animals anyway? It seems like God cursed animals the day he made man… after that they were doomed. That’s not exactly fair.
Doesn’t that shame still last… like according to you, until today? How did killing the animal help at all? Does killing an animal to cover shame still work in the world today? What kind of animal, and in what way do we kill it?
I mean, that’s all my question… but really a totally different part of the question is, is THIS everyday language to you? Do you work and trade in a world where culturally you casually say things like “God killed a beast to cover man’s shame”? Does it not strike you that this is an odd passage? Is it not culturally as alien to you as it is to me? You present it here without explaination, as if it were the most natural thing in the world.
Jared, i did want to respond at length, but i realised your reliance on assumption and assertion makes it extremely diffcult/impossible to do so in any manner approaching respectful. just being honest.
what do you think “traditional Christianity” is? do you honestly think non-christians would be interested in your approach to christianity, or that it even differs to “traditional Christianity”?
now, who would want christian answers? um, perhaps christians?
what, like a christian that believes in literal biblical creationism, and doesn’t want to hear scientific explanations against irreducible complexity?
i’m guessing you’re referring to your version of ‘truth’, n’est-ce pas? and how did you find that truth? so far, you’ve only cited dodgy philosophical arguments and circular reasoning. is that it?
BTW, ‘untruth’ = fancy way of saying lie. so sorry if i’ve seemed a little harsh (and trust, i held back. a lot.) but frankly, you set the tone.
Jared said:
So …. Jesus supposedly came and went 2000 years ago …. roughly 1800 to 1900 years before global warming and pollution … so … how does that timing work, exactly?
Adam sorry I missed you earlier!
The Christianity I want to teach (and Cling to) is older than a couple hundred years. It is not republican and it believes that Jesus came to save and redeem a whole world. Not only Human Beings.
“Church Folks” by that i mean people often steeped in evangelical conservative republican cultures - are not interested in truth, but are often interested in preserving their value systems which are usually (as are all of ours) stained with sin and need to change.
I dont think it is neccessarily “better” only better suited for me. All these things are fine ways to help and serve people. I have only chosen one of many good options.
I don’t think anything could change my mind. After at one time (and coming to Christianity based upon) believing strongly in enlightenment ideas. I have come to realize that the idea that we can know everything is completely ridiculous! Science has its value, but there are some things it can never prove. One of those is the existence of God. And as long as it cant prove it, it will be trying to disprove it (thus to show that it - Science - has absolute power to know all things) You see science wont stand for unknowns. Since it cant prove a God, it will present theories like evolution. I have never seen a positive genetic mutation. I would need to see lots of interspecies adaptations and lots and lots of interspecie breeding (brought about naturally) to even begin to buy into evolution.
reliable not iron clad
I have become convinced at this point in my life that this is the only absolute truth which I will die for. - thus I suppose the answer is nothing.
Yeah thats tough.. its not fun, but I totally accept it. It isn’t fair and its not right, but it a part of the fall dating back to the garden. Otherwise what explanation is there for the Nazi Holocaust? For 800,000 people being murdered by their own neighbors with machetes in less than 90 days in Rwanda one Summer? How do you account for the brutal rape and murder of little children who are not lucky enough to be allowed to live long enough to murder their own friends in Sudan?
Original Sin is a devastating thing. I am thankful that the Grace of God eases its effects now and will one day erase them completely.
Irving, I would simply say that arguing something so petty is silly in light of everything else, uniformity and mystery are both a part of God’s character, and all truth is God’s truth.
Siamang, good point, and something that we might be able to discuss in another topic, but my point by covering shame was simply that “they were naked and ashamed” the dead beasts skin was used to cover their nakedness.
but it is interesting that they were supposed to represent God to the world (thats what image bearer means) and now because of their sin an animal had to die. God dint curse the ground - we did. Why are the animals and the earth in trouble? read it “because of YOU” we people need to take that seriously, we - you me - all of us are still image bearers. Yes this is the language I speak 
I like to think I have gotten a little bit in touch with Hebrew Language and Culture, but I am still a long way off..but i think this way of understanding helps us get there.
Normally I would take better care to bring that to our culture in a relevant, applicable way, and I could do that, but that would have gone beyond answering the question into an area I dare not tread. An area of personalizing a passage like that to make it true in our own lives… Also potentially evangelism. It would make an intriguing evangelistic paper Would you read it if i wrote it?
Ash, You have a lot to say, but it seems youwant to argue mostly… I will say the same to you i said a bit ago… arguing is silly, and that’s not why i am here. I am not going to convert you, you aren’t going to convert me… but let’s be real with each other. I think if you seriously read what I say instead of skimming for idiosyncrasies, some of what I said might make more sense
I will address what I copied above though… you are right… sorry I was trying to be nice, an untruth is a lie, I wont deny that. I consider a religion other than Christianity to be a lie. Sorry if it offends. That doesn’t mean i don’t like you If you disagree with me!
Take care!
Molishka… A chain of events was begun where men were now set against each other an the world instead of living at peach with one another and with the world. Adam didn’t invent CDC’s he just disobeyed God.
How can you accept the Bible as literally true while at the same time admitting it’s full of writers’ mistakes? How do you know which things are factual and which are metaphorical?
Also, why do you suppose god allows 5 million children under the age of 5 to die of starvation-related causes every YEAR? Yes this is the classic problem of evil. But specifically in this case, you would have to postulate that god has a plan that can BEST or ONLY be fulfilled by allowing millions of children to be born into intense suffering and die shortly thereafter. Please explain as this is a big one for us atheists.
Finally, why does prayer never result in amputees’ limbs regrowing?
People sometimes do evil things to each other. That’s all.
Isn’t that a lot easier to believe than a story about a talking snake?
Jared, I’d like to thank you for having the courage to face up to this ravening band of the godless. If some of our questions seem rude or aggressive, I’m sure it’s because many of us rarely get the chance to ask them of someone willing to listen. We’re champing at the bit, as it were. Be assured, we may not be a friendly crowd, but we are not an unkind one. Whatever mean things we may say about your beliefs or arguments, we hold no hostility towards you as a person. That said…
Your explanation of Biblical (in)errancy leads to this: If the Bible is perfect because of Jehovah’s guiding hand, that’s well and good. But what of the atrocities committed in his name over the centuries? Were those men also used by Jehovah to fulfill his plan?
If yes, then where do the Crusades, The Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, Galileo’s censure, The Salem Trials, the Native American Boarding Schools etc etc fit into his plan for love, compassion and truth?
If not, then why not? If Jehovah would wield men like pens to write his message in a book, then why would he not wield them to maintain the integrity of his message and not allow it to be used to justify these horrors?
And please avoid the “men are fallible can misunderstand the truth” response. If Jehovah is willing to guide these scribes and editors to make no mistakes, then he has no reason not to be willing to guide the recipients of the message to make no errors in understanding.
Please also avoid saying that we ’shouldn’t blame the vessel for being corrupt, the water within is still pure’ If the water really was so pure, it would have the power to cleanse the vessel. And we see everywhere evidence that this water is not of such purity.
Jared -
I think you’re such a wonderful person to talk like this. You’re certainly much braver than I am. Onto my question. You said:
Now, I know that children are often raised into the Christian faith. However, doesn’t this count as “blindly accept[ing] the truth?” Even if those same children later grew up and considered whether or not Christianity was the truth and decided ultimately that Christianity was ultimately the way of life, wouldn’t those same people be biased? If I can take your meaning literally, would you rather have children growing up without a specific faith, and then slowly introduced into many different types of religions, allowing them to make their own decisions?
Secondly, consider if a person such as Mother Teresa was not Christian. Does this justify such a person going to Hell? It’s always bothered me that the only thing that could save people was belief in God, not the act of good deeds, because if one believed in God, then God could forgive their sins no matter how heinous the crimes were.
Thank you so much for your time,
Purple
1) The eye is nothing miraculous and and is quite mundane. The eye has evolved at least 40 times *separately*. It takes little imagination to picture early, light sensitive cells.
2) Evolution is not about accidents. Mutations, the events that cause the freckles on your skin, are as far as the randomness goes. Evolution is a very directed, finite, channeled process (selection by nature).
Please never use the “accidents” or “amazing eyes” arguments again. They are distractions and border on lies.
Somewhere, sometime, someone told you ancient history is the truth. It is not. It is a best-guess narrative based on weak fragments of hearsay. It is the best we can do, so it is a worthy venture. But it is a narrative. There is more evidence for a guy named Hal living today in the Sahara (I just made that up) than real humans referred to in the narrative of Jesus or Aristotle. It’s a narrative, not a report. To think some people base their views of reality on ancient historical narratives… *shudder*
The bible was wrong about the sun. The so-called Aristotle was right about logic. Which has more explanatory reliability?
God oppresses the people he creates to be gay. He gives children cancer. He flies airplanes into buildings. God is not worthy of worship. Science saves real lives, and I have the peer reviewed studies to prove it.
I think Listerine has done more to save lives that God.
Science claims that we don’t know, but here is our best idea so far. Absolute knowledge is never permitted in science. It’s a world of probabilities. Please never make this argument again as it is distracting and borders on lies.
Science doesn’t try to “prove”. It tries to offer best-guess explanations based on limited evidence. Please never make this argument again as is a distraction and borders on lies.
I didn’t say mistakes - i said personalities and viewpoints. Certainly we can agree that there are different ways to see the truth. As for fact versus metaphor. I use the old context method. In order to understand any writing (even if its a birthday card from your grandmother) you need to understand why it was written in the first place. Was it written to explain a misunderstanding? to encourage some confused person? to explain historical events? to be a song sung as praise to God? the Bible has all these different genres. we have to first understand that particular piece in its own cultural context before we can understand what it means today.
I will build on this more in a minute, but for now, lets just say its the fall. Mankind has brought this on themselves, and God is working it out.
Good question. I guess God doesn’t always work against his natural laws. sometimes, but rarely.
Not really. I cant understand why people can be so evil if it isn’t something embedded deeply within our DNA. Especially when we know that behavior like this is wrong. We might say that these people are insane and unique, but even you and I who are relatively normal, sometimes do, think and say evil things concerning others.
Renacier, I appreciate the honesty. I can handle rudeness… and I sincerely want to answer these questions. its fun and its good for me! I need to learn to treat everyone with the dignity and respect I believe they are due. My theology says we are all in the image of God - Christian or not - and due dignity. We Christians sometimes have a hard time living that one out.
Hmmm, ok avoid the truth is still good, and people are fallible. OK. I will resort to what i said earlier about the curse. This too in a way relates to the earlier question which hinges on the problem of evil. My answer to that used to go like this. God is completely sovreign, all knowing, and perfectly good. Its just that what we define as perfectly good and what he defines as perfectly good are different. We are shortsighted and can’t see what good really is. Now there is some truth to that. If God lives in light of forever, and people last forever (given a resurrection from the dead doctrine) then he sees all the way into eternity, and perhaps an early death is better than a lifetime of unforeseen tragic events. That is a possibility - Sometimes.
But I think we also just have to recognize that these things that exist aren’t right. They are not the way its supposed to be. Someone said on my blog that God judges people for being exactly who he made them to be. To believe this is to misunderstand the story. We are exactly the opposite of how we are supposed to be. Christians (though some may disagree) are not perfect. In fact like everyone else they are screwed up. God is at work to make them better, but they will never be perfect until he “makes all things new.”
I honestly believe that without understanding that we were supposed to be perfect, and WE SCREWED UP, and one day God will make everything right again, nothing else makes sense. For God to prevent all the disaster and tragedy that has occurred in his name, would be to work in a way contrary to what he decided to to do. He is certainly at work to make it better, and he does indeed use Christians to slowly improve things.
I like the farmer analogy. A farmer is trying to turn wilderness into something manageable. All his life he (and his sons if they keep the farm) will always be pulling weeds, and fertilizing. It will never be perfect, but they keep plugging away trying to make it better all the time. The work of the kingdom is just like that, Christians (the Church) have the task of making this world better. Some generations do a better job than others, and some fail all together, but over time small advances and good things come about which show us that there is indeed some good in it. These things happen not because were are good, but rather in spite of the fact that we aren’t. These small tastes are what The apostle Paul would call “first fruits” the things that give us hope that there will indeed be a perfection one day.
I have kids. I raise them to believe in the God I do. But I also teach them to think for themselves. To not teach them the things i believe to be true, would be child abuse. the same as the atheist who does not raise their children to believe what they believe. Children need a frame of reference as they grow. This has to be provided by their surroundings. But as they get older and learn what it meant to think and they begin to understand the world on their own terms, hopefully I will have given them the skills to think objectively. If my sons grow up and someone asks them why they are a Christian, and their best answer is “because that’s the way I was raised” I will be terribly disappointed. Now some people simply don’t have the IQ to investigate, so i don’t subject those people to the same standard, but I hope every person who professes to be a Christian can explain why this religion makes the most sense to them.
Yes they would certainly be biased, but isnt every person biased in some way towards or against something? its part of being human. I would rather my kids be biased toward what i believe to be true, than towards something I disagree with. Call me inconsistent. Like Bias, inconsistency is a part of humanity. I do my best.
I know. In my heart i agree with you. I want to believe with all I am that these people (lets use Ghandi who wasn’t a Christian) who do such incredible things with their lives and overcome such obstacles (not for themselves, but for all humanity!) will go to heaven. But what i believe requires that I have to say “apart from Christ, there is no salvation.”
Ghandi was an amazing man, I wish I could be more like him! But the distance between his holiness and the standard of God is like the distance between the Eiffel Tower and the moon. Most of us walk the earth, Some of us can get to second story, but Ghandi made it to the Eiffel, lets be honest. But God requires the moon! (and Neil Armstong flew there so he doesn’t count) It doesn’t seem fair when you compare men like Ghandi to men like me, but when you compare men to God, it starts to make sense.
Peter, You said alot…I think i have already answered most of the questions you might imply, but I will respond to this:
I have two degrees in history, and have seen texts that were written down before Jesus was on earth. This History was not written during the renaissance, it was written down by eyewitnesses who were careful in reporting the truth. There are so many excellent histories written so long ago that to deny The Greek wars or culture is the same as denying you were born. You can do it, but it amounts to a strange philosophy, not actual history.
Please dont make this argument again as it is a distraction and borders on lies
Touché
I am going to go now… i will check back tomorrow… this is fun! thanks Hemant!
Jared, way to avoid my questions, let’s try again…
so, you wish to support the seperation of church and state? you do not wish to see ID/creationism taught in science classes? what’s the bit about saving + redeeming a whole world, not only human beings, mean? (no rapture/end times when the planet becomes irrelevant? heaven consists of being ghosts on this planet? animals hold equal physical/spiritual status to humans?) explain please?
but you consider yourself evangelical, and literal biblical creationism is a conservative view. is it just the republicanism you have a problem with? or are you against other typically conservative values, such as homophobia and the denial of equal rights for gay marriage and ‘traditional’ roles for men and women? and by such ‘not being interested in truth’, do you not just mean that they don’t agree with your version of such? and how does ‘all of our value systems need to change’ fit with “I don’t think anything could change my mind.”?
i don’t have an opinion on you as a person either, i don’t know you. i do disagree strongly with most of your explanations/arguments.
no, i think if you made more sense you might make more sense. science as an entity with an agenda? say what now?
This time my question is for the friendly atheist:
Is this guy featured here for comic relief?
He’s not even clever. He simply repeats the same old same-oldisms that we’ve all heard a thousand times before.
“Nothing new under the sun”, indeed! (To which I’ll add a quick, “O vanity of vanities!” - guess which of the books is MY favorite. - winks)
Ó
Hold it right there, my friend. I did nothing. I ate of no fruit, I did not kill Abel, I did not worship Baal, I did not throw dice on Jesus’ robe. And yet I am treated as no different from those who did? The discussion comes back to original sin, it seems. Merely by being born, I am damned. This is the single most hideous tenant of your religion. Because of the actions of two people, uncountable billions more must suffer. Why have such a curse in the first place?
Why not just destroy Adam and Eve and start over? Is it because he loved them too much? If Jehovah is all-loving, then he loves every person equally. Wouldn’t it be less painful for him to kill these two now, rather than have to mourn millions later?
Why didn’t he cast Adam and Eve out to suffer and seek salvation, but whisk away their blameless children to Eden, to await the day their parents redeemed themselves and returned home to paradise?
Or why didn’t he simply wipe the knowledge from their minds, reducing them back to the state of innocence? Jehovah clearly has no problem forceably manipulating people’s minds- as with the (inexplicably anonymous) Pharaoh.
Imagine a child who lived her whole life in the most remote place, in the most pitiable conditions. Now, she is slowly starving to death. She has never heard of Jesus; she has had not one chance in her life to be saved by his grace. Will your god make a special dispensation for her? Will he stay his wrath, understanding that it is through the fault of others that she has not heard his message, and no choice of her own? No. When she dies, she will burn for all eternity. Because one naive woman was curious. From birth to death and even beyond, this girl knows nothing but pain and this is how God shows his love.
I’m sorry, Jared, but your farmers are elbow deep in blood.
Would you please name some of these sources written about Jesus that are not found in the Bible? I am not sure denying one man’s existence when there are few sources on him is the same as denying that Greece existed and had a culture.
Jared:
I’m sorry you lack the intellectual and/or personal resources to answer my question, and that your only defense mechanism is to dismiss it as unworthy of answering. Perhaps prayer will reveal the answer!
(I doubt it.)
Jared said, “Yeah thats tough.. its not fun, but I totally accept it. It isn’t fair and its not right, but it a part of the fall dating back to the garden.”
God as Christianity defines him is supposed to be justice incarnate, absolute justice. The imparting of original sin to every human born is the construct of this God according to Christian theology. He imputes it to each new generation. He set up the situation with arbitrary rules and then condemns the innocent by the billions. Tell me how that is justice.
Jared said, “Otherwise what explanation is there for the Nazi Holocaust? For 800,000 people being murdered by their own neighbors with machetes in less than 90 days in Rwanda one Summer? How do you account for the brutal rape and murder of little children who are not lucky enough to be allowed to live long enough to murder their own friends in Sudan?”
I reject this as being the result of original sin. Humans are corrupt. Yes, I admit it, but humans are corrupt by their own decisions; by their culture and surroundings. Do you honestly thing that those Sudanese children would not have lived good honest productive lives had they been in Sweden or the Us or some other area? The environment sets the stage and the decisions make the person. Humanity does not need a malevolent deity imputing a taint from birth to make evil. BTW, the issue in Sudan is primarily caused by the presence of religion.
Jared said, “Original Sin is a devastating thing. I am thankful that the Grace of God eases its effects now and will one day erase them completely. ”
Why should I be thankful (taking the premise that it is true) for God finally erasing a system that he created? This seems a lot like Stockholm syndrome to me or the typical rationalization of the abused… he only hurts me because he loves me.
I don’t think we can all recognize that, Jared. You have made several comments like this, where apparently you expect the world to be perfect. Why? Humans are animals, but we are animals that have big complicated brains. We think we deserve something better because our big brains have afforded us the pleasure and pain on exaiming “life”. We have compassion and we have a fear of death, we want to explain this so we create religion/God to explain why everything isn’t peaches and sunshine. Everything isn’t peaches and sunshine because we are animals. Animals and nature can be very ugly at times. The only thing that makes us special is the ability to think we are special.
There was a quote from The War by Ken Bruns, that has stuck with me. One of the soilders said something along the lines of, “As long as there is evil in the world man will have the need to create religions. And there will always be evil in the world.” Somehow it is easier to blame Adam eating from the tree of knowledge than to examine how ugly humnas can be or why they act that way. Saying original sin is the reason doesn’t get us any closer to a solution.
Jared, thanks for your honesty. The answers you provided to my questions are predictable, but sadly common among Christians. Often times, the ultimate response is “well, it’s based upon my faith and I’m willing to die for it.”
To suggest that “nothing” would change your mind about something for which there are arguable and legitimate positions is to end the conversation. Before you begin the journey of skeptcism toward established scientific theory, please do some real study (rather than rely upon an opthamologist’s personal incredulity about how he “just can’t see that it could have happened by accident.” You will be in a position of leadership–don’t lead people astray from rational thought.
Ultimately, our country can’t afford more denial of the scientific method, or having ministers or “missionaries’ proclaim to vulnerable and open people about recommended distrust of science, or of the proclamation that somehow our human scientific endeavors are manifestations of a sinful “world.”
It’s the exact mindset and worldview that allows “absolute truth” to dictate people’s lives and in more dangerous situations, to set policy.
Your answers (thanks again for being willing to do this on an atheist site) will tend to inspire me to be more active politically, socially, and personally and financially to battle the “religious truth” mindset whenever and wherever I have opportunity.
My hope for you is that, over the years, you’d be willing to incorporate new “truths” throughout your life, to be open to suggestions and learning and life experiences outside of the context of religious certainties, and if you must be a “missionary” that you spend the majority of that time doing what Marcus Borg and other contemporary Christian theologians describe as Jesus’ primary message of tackling injustice, leveling the playing field among people, and battling power structures that hold people down. These are admirable traits that Jesus embodied, that we’d all do well to follow.
Finally, I hope there might be a time where your “nothing would change my mind” philosophy will change, and that any potential damage we all do with that mindset is reversible.
Seriously, Quixie. I don’t know what in particular made me quit taking Jared seriously first: the rejection of evolution (and, you know, science), the poor grammar and spelling, or the hampering on the concept of original sin which does nothing but give people something to feel guilty about so that the church can forgive them. *sigh*.
Jared: “…lets just say its the fall. Mankind has brought this on themselves, and God is working it out. ”
I have to jump on this one.
According to Christian theology, God is Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Love, Eternal Life, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Omnipotence, Immutability, and Veracity (This list is directly form ‘The Doctrine of Divine Essence’ by R McLaughlin) It is asserted that each of these attributes it manifest in it totality by God. If this is the case, then there cannot be anything that God is “working … out.” A being that knows all, is simultaneously all places, all powerful, and unchanging cannot by definition work anything out. He already knows all and has for eternity.
In fact according to the ‘essence’ of God, God has to be inert. These attributes lock him into total inaction.
There has been a lot of talk in this thread about “original sin”. I would like to post an except from the writings of R McLaughlin who I quoted earlier. (He is the pastor of a church on Massachusetts and a typical example of some of breed of evangelicals who follow and teach theology as laid down by Louis Sperry Chafer)(This is excerpted from a document free for download so I assume free for distribution and reprint.)
I think that this piece is instructive as to the mind set of a good many evangelicals. I want to know what lab or labs give them this biological information.
From “The Doctrine of the Womb” by Robert McLaughlin.
Original Sin–
“The sin nature is transmitted at conception through the twenty-three male chromosomes that fertilize the female ovum. The sin nature is transmitted in the womb as a part of biological life. The woman was deceived in the original sin while the man’s sin was a sin of cognizance. GEN 3:13, Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” And the woman replied, “The serpent deceived me and I ate.”
1TI 2:14-15, And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (But the woman shall be saved through the bearing of children) We’re all saved through the birth of one child, Jesus Christ, when undiminished deity and true humanity were united in one person forever.
Our original parents, Adam and the woman, did not have any children in the Garden. Before the Fall, the woman did not ovulate and pregnancy occurred after the original sin and the fall of mankind. Our original parents acquired spiritual death first and then the old sin nature. The opposite is true with us, first we have the sin nature and then we have spiritual death. In dying spiritually, Adam originated the sin nature.
After mankind acquired the sin nature, the woman began to ovulate and pregnancy occurred, biological life plus the sin nature occurred in the womb. Biological life and the sin nature are the only two things that have ever been in the womb.”
Jared, please do not be slimy in your responses. There is no need to falsely represent my arguments. I stated that ancient history is a narrative based on fragmented evidence. I did not say we should deny the existence of Greece.
To be honest, calling me an “Ancient Greece Denier” is pretty insulting. Why did you feel the need to behave like Bill O’Reilly? Are you angry and want to put me down? What’s up, Jared?
I’m am ancient Greece denier… I don’t believe there was an ancient Greece. It spontaneously appeared in the middle ages by divine decree and Satan created all of the Greek artifact to confuse us…. Bwwwahhhahahah!!
I makes as much sense as the world being 6000 years old.
This from a person with “two history degrees” who denies the existence of “prehistory”.
Not to sound like a heckler, Jared. But when was the paleolithic period anyway? You’ve got two history degrees — when were the caves painted in Lascaux? When was the dog domesticated? When was the first agricultural revolution? When was corn domesticated? When was the banana first cultivated? When was the first dynasty in ancient Egypt, before or after “the flood”? When was the Venus of Lespugue carved?
Tell me, Jared, have you really looked into the quality level of your education? Have you brought it under critical scrutiny?
For example, very close to my house is the La Brea Tar Pits… a natural wonder that allows us a window back in time to a world 38,000 years ago. Have you ever visited there? Have you tested, I mean rigorously tested your historical knowledge by going to a place like that, getting your hands dirty in an active digsite that according to your belief system shouldn’t even exist?
Ok another round… I will try to do things differently. First let me apologize. I think I have been a little bit mean (the post in response to Peter was certainly that way) let me try again to be more clear about some things and simply answer the questions.
Yes, the state has nothing whatsoever to do with the church – it never has (or at least it should never have)
Science should be science. The honest answer to our origins is we have a couple of guesses. I don’t care what the present as long as they say Science honestly can’t tell for sure.
Look back At Genesis. The whole earth was cursed because of the fall. The whole earth needs to be redeemed. It has been poor teaching that led this generation to believe the message was only about “souls.”
The planet never becomes irrelevant. God created it and said it was “good” in the end, heaven is not a place in the clouds… it comes to earth! WOW! No we won’t be ghosts. We will be physical people. Animals are not equal because they are not made in the image of God, but they are good, and should be respected. And yes I believe there will be animals in heaven. Why wouldn’t there be? If heaven comes back to earth and the original intent of creation is recaptured.
It is the dominance of Christianity by republicanism that bothers me. I am not a homophobe. They are human beings made in the image of God. Sinners like the rest of us, but not any more so than I am. I am not a politician. Some people get involved in politics to espouse their religious beliefs. Most espouse their religious beliefs to get involved in politics. I make no judgments, but the policies of this nation in regard to these things are something I am somewhat ambivalent about. That may be something I need to reconsider, but for now that is my opinion. I am not sure what traditional roles for men and women mean. If you mean 1950’s housewife stuff, that’s a cultural value that is fading. If you mean Spiritual leadership in a home and in church, I think that is still valid. That is only a reflection of the created order and certainly not any sort of superiority. Believing that Jesus was the incarnation of God and redeeming the world is not a value system. A value system is gays are terrible people and we should vote republican.
All things are entities with an agenda. Take a corporation, a non profit, a church, a community. They are social systems that seek to expand themselves and their influence. This is corporate sociology 101.
I am surprised to hear that! I didn’t think the church was very clear about redemption of all creation – not just mankind. I didn’t think the church has been saying “the agenda of the republican party is not the gospel” but I am glad to hear that.
You know this question speaks to what I think is really a deeper issue. I am glad you asked this or I may not have noticed. We are so steeped in western civilization that this becomes a serious dilemma. This question comes from a value system that places the individual above the community. There is an underlying belief in our culture that hard work and perseverance should reap rewards, and that each person should look out for his own interests. The reality is this is a post enlightenment idea that has no place in the biblical worldview. I am sorry to say that, because I realize most of us want to value individuals over communities, but I am not sure that that is the right perspective. Certainly it can go wrong in the other direction (and has) but there is a balance and western culture is at the far end.
Because their children would have done it too.
Yes I know. It is Jesus’ and they are applying that blood to cure the ills of the world.
Yes that was extreme, I was partly responding to a denial of Aristotle. But Josephus is a huge source as well as a few other less well known Roman and Jewish historical writings.
The way I see this, there are two fallacies inherent in the question. First an overemphasis on individualism, and a misunderstanding of justice. Hypothetically follow this argument. If God indeed created world, he has every right to whatever he pleases with it. He demands worship and singular adoration. That’s not too much to ask of your creation if you are God. We rebel against him. Everyone of us chooses to worship and adore ourselves above him. Justice would require that we be punished for this rebellion. It is also important to recognize that if this story is true, God himself paid the penalty for our rebellion and invites us back to him. This maintains his justice in making sure rebellion is punished, but it allows us to be invited in to his grace. His favor which as rebels we don’t deserve. If indeed that story is true, who wouldn’t want to worship a God like that?
This makes me think of the popularity of hero stories in our culture (and in every culture) we value heroes because they do what we understand to be right. They are willing to sacrifice themselves for a greater good and we somehow see this as noble. Whereas a story of a greedy miser (take Scrooge before the visit from the ghosts) we immediately recognize as bad. Why do we have these values inside us if there is not some degree of understanding that Humans should be good?
I think the hero story sort of touches on this.
Viggo, there are actually some good things in what you cited above, but absolutely wrong thing. And I would say this to the pastor you are quoting from.
He said:
That is absolutely wrong. The mandate to “multiply” came prior to the fall. It is nuts to think this could happen if there was no ovulation and no pregnancy. No, child birth is not a result of the fall, but it is true that original sin is.