R. Albert Mohler Jr.: Facing the Reality of Evil - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

"Do you not think you are posing a double standard here PriveR? You criticize me for not being able to think for myself without referring to other author's and then you make statements like this, showing that maybe you have bought into someone else’s thinking without using your own. The problem with any belief is that you build on certain foundations without realizing it. You say "My proofs come directly from my own experiences" but in reality it comes from the people that have most greatly influenced you. You don't learn things in a vacuum."

No. Actually, the best part about learning from those that i have is that they told me NOT to just blindly accept what they tell me, but to question it, test it for myself and see what results I get. That's the learning process right there. I'm a skeptic by nature, so that is exactly what I did. After having done so, the results confirmed what they taught. Similar to scientific experiment but based directly on my own experimentation. My own experience and my own questions. Besides, every one of my teachers brings something different to the table, and as it turned out, they all have truth to their teachings. Complementary truth that when added to one another, adds up to a bigger and more mysterious divine than that is laid out in any book.I just think that people get so caught up in 'my book is better/more real than your book' when truth can be found in many different places. It doesn't have to be opposite. It can be complementary.

Nothing is ever as black and white as you make it out to be.

"That is the point; nobody seems to be saying the same thing. You choose what you want to believe and so do they. "

Yes and no. The underlying concepts are actually very similar. The laws of the universe will always be. The language and pantheon(s) that is used to describe/name it is different.

"First, my God does not sleep." You have no way of knowing that. Based on your own (three) books, and your belief that it is somehow 'inerrant' the last time your god showed up at all was two thousand years ago. I don't see him anywhere. I don't see Jesus hanging around somewhere these days. It'd be cool to meet him if he did exist, because I think folks need to get back to the 'love your neighbor thing' and quit arguing over semantics.

Why would your god go away when he just told his own 'children' not to eat that fruit and then told them where it was? Where was he during that time? Either he was asleep or went somewhere else during that time, when it would have been really advantageous to say 'hey, i just told you not to do that'. It seems like your god has a way of leaving when things get really bad. Or going to sleep. Or taking sides just because someone doesn't praise him enough. Again, not a god worthy of worship.

"Second, man inflicts death on other men because of sin."

Only if you believe that sin/heaven/hell/your god/satan exists. Which takes a staggering amount of imagination to believe in the whole thing. That is what followers have been telling people for centuries to get people to convert to Christianity. The power of our own imagination is really something, because people have been fighting about which version is 'correct' for centuries. I just think we need to reframe the discussion. To outline the similarities in all and not to promote one as 'the one way' when the same objective can be achieved no matter how they go about it. If we're going to survive as a species, we all have to get involved and stop arguing over which one is somehow 'more true' than others.

"So, PriveR, you can offer your own sacrifices to your god, or you can ignore offering any sacrifice but pay for your sins with one final sacrifice when you die (the penalty of everlasting torment away from His Spirit).."

My god/desses don't require sacrifices. Since I don't believe your 'hell' exists at all, I am not in need of your god's 'spirit' and therefore being 'away' from it for 'eternity' is not an issue. I have an active relationship with the earth that we live on and work to link with the divine breath I find in everyone and everything and honor that.

'Two roads diverged in a frozen wood, and I- I chose the one less traveled by and that has made all the difference.'

Frost was right. It's about the journey, not the destination.

My journey is taking me elsewhere at the moment. Events I can't control but have to address are calling my attention elsewhere. I thank you for your time.

Namaste and bright blessings on your road. May you find what you seek. :)

June 20, 2007 10:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on June 20, 2007 10:06

Peter Huff:

Hi PriveR,

In response to,

"Assuming, of course that one somehow thinks their version of 'truth' is more 'true' than another's.
They are both man made. The same. No difference. Just like people. You claim to have some version of 'truth' that you yourself cannot even explain without resorting to one of three different books, and different people's opinions.

First off, truth does not change. Either what you believe is true or it is false. It cannot be both. When you get two worldviews that are stating two opposite truth claims, logically one (and quite possibly both) is in error.

Second, truth is not man made, it comes from God. Without His revelation we would not be able to determine truth. It would just be your subjective opinion against mine. Nothing would make sense.

Third, the three different translations I use all say the same thing, just in different language. Take John 14:6 in the NIV, the NASB and the NLT.

"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (NIV)

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me. (NASB)

"Jesus told him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through Me." (NLT)

You said,

"Ideally it would be nice to see some of the other prominent pagan authors, just like there are many different Christian authors, answering questions as part of the panel, so that other folks could see the real diversity of thought under the pagan umbrella. We are everywhere."

That is the point; nobody seems to be saying the same thing. You choose what you want to believe and so do they. There are certain truths in Christianity that you cannot deny and still be a Christian. (2 Peter 2:1; Jude 4; 1 John 2:22, 23; 4:4-6; 5:10, etc)

You said,

"As have my own teacher(s)"

Do you not think you are posing a double standard here PriveR? You criticize me for not being able to think for myself without referring to other author's and then you make statements like this, showing that maybe you have bought into someone else’s thinking without using your own. The problem with any belief is that you build on certain foundations without realizing it. You say "My proofs come directly from my own experiences" but in reality it comes from the people that have most greatly influenced you. You don't learn things in a vacuum.

When you say,

"Your god sets up an impossible standard and then expects his followers to flagellate themselves when they don't measure up. How is that 'good'?"

Your right about the impossible standard, because of the original sin of Adam and Eve meeting God's standard of good is impossible, since, just like Him, it is perfect. That is why He sent His Son into the world to save us from our sin, that we might be able to meet that standard by faith in the Son. That is the good news. If you try to meet His standard on your own merit you will fail miserably because you have already broken it during your lifetime countless times.

For God's followers, flagellating themselves will not meet that standard either. Meeting that standard only comes through faith in Christ. That is the criteria. It is not about our "works" of righteousness (we don't have any), it's about His. His followers have nothing to boast of in themselves, only of what has been accomplished in and by Him.

You said,

"He must still be asleep at the wheel. People are dying everyday because of someone's belief that their 'version' of him is somehow more 'true/real' than another person,
and all you can say is 'my book is true and you
made your system up' when one was written by people 300 years after the events supposedly happened and the other comes from experience.

First, my God does not sleep.

Second, man inflicts death on other men because of sin.

Third, in your "system" of belief you have no way of accounting for morals or logic or truth or uniformity in nature or purpose or meaning. It is all a matter of subjective preference that does not have a measurement for morals or truth or logic or uniformity in nature. Each person does what is “right” in his own eyes (Judges 17:6; 21:25).

You asked how I make sense out of God preserving the bloodline that the Messiah would be born into. Because of man's evil actions if God had not stepped into the picture there would not have been a bloodline for the Savior because there would not have been anyone on earth who believed in God. Once man found his supposed autonomy the influence exerted on believers would have eventually dissolved faith in God (Jeremiah 17:9). That is why; in the time of Noah God destroyed the whole earth except for those eight people who still had faith in Him. He also preserved for himself a people who would make his name known among the nations and when those people started to lose faith in Him, He took His hand of protection off of them and let the nations subdue them, leading them into captivity in Babylon. In this way God let them know that if they were obedient to Him He would bless them, but if they were faithless, He would allow their enemies to control them. Added incentive, you might say. His purpose was one day to have the Savior to be born out of this people He had chosen so that He would provide the righteous requirements He requires to meet His right standards.

When you say,

"What on earth does this mean? I thought Christians didn't believe that Jesus HAD a bloodline? "

Jesus traced His HUMAN lineage through Joseph and Mary. Since He was born a human to pay the penalty that man had incurred His human chronology can be traced back in time to the first inhabitance, Adam and Eve. Mary was His biological mother and Joseph His stepfather (the Holy Spirit conceiving His human existence in her womb).

You said,

"This suspiciously sounds a lot like the 'we must fight them over there so that they don't come over here' justification used for a needless war."

As I said before, a Christian’s fight is not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual powers (Ephesians 6:12).

You said,

"And why are so called 'unbelievers' not deserving of credit for the good works that they do?"

As I said before, because you cannot meet the righteous requirements of a holy, pure and perfect God and that is why Jesus became man; to meet those requirements.

"For I have come down from heaven not to do My will but the will of Him who sent Me." (John 6:38)

The book of Hebrews puts it another way, in speaking of answering for wrong doing, by example of the Old Testament priest and sacrificial system in requirement of God’s law and about a holy sacrifice for payment of sins,

"Now there have been many of those priests, since death prevented them from continuing in office; but because Jesus lives forever, He has a permanent priesthood. Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them. Such a priest meets our need - one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. Unlike the other high priests, He does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when He offered Himself...Therefore, when Christ came into the world, He said, 'Sacrifices and offerings you did not desire, but a body You prepared for Me: with burnt offerings and sin offerings You were not pleased. Then I said, Here I am - it is written about Me in the scroll - I have come to do Your will, O God."...And by that will, we have been made holy through the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Day after day every high priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, He sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time He waits for His enemies to be made His footstool, because by one sacrifice He has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." (Hebrews 7:23-27; 10:5-14)

So, PriveR, you can offer your own sacrifices to your god, or you can ignore offering any sacrifice but pay for your sins with one final sacrifice when you die (the penalty of everlasting torment away from His Spirit), or you can, God willing, believe in His Son and have your sacrifice paid for in His death, as well as His righteousness given to you on His behalf. It is only through His Son that God will justify anyone, because only through His Son was the penalty for sin fully met.

"The wages of sin is [still] death." (Romans 6:23)

If you want to earn your own wages, after you die you will earn them in the “lake of fire” for that is the second death spoken of in Romans 6 (See Revelation 20:14-15)

Thanks for the chat!

June 19, 2007 6:47 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on June 19, 2007 18:47

PriveR:

Oh, one thing I forgot to address.

You said "Since you say we are all part of the divine, are you "god?"

The first thing I thought of was that scene from the original Ghostbusters "Ray. The next time someone asks you if you are a god, YOU SAY YES!!" :)

My answer to that? not in the sense that you're using it. I think that we all have the potential to be a conduit to something outside of ourselves. Sort of like a cable that plugs into a socket and runs a lamp. The cord itself doesn't run the lamp, but it allows the electricity to flow into the lamp to complete the circuit to make the light.

June 18, 2007 9:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on June 18, 2007 09:48

Peter Huff:

Hi PriveR,

I read your current post. I would like to make a few comments on it but will be working until Monday.

You let me know when you want to end the conversation. As long as you are willing to continue so am I.

Hope you have an enjoyable weekend!

June 16, 2007 8:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on June 16, 2007 08:36

Anonymous:

"And there is very little comparison between the Bible and the Rede; the one being God's Word of truth, the other being man's ideas."

Assuming, of course that one somehow thinks their version of 'truth' is more 'true' than another's.
They are both man made. The same. No difference. Just like people. You claim to have some version of 'truth' that you yourself cannot even explain without resorting to one of three different books, and different people's opinions.

I think Starhawk writes with common sense. As do many of the other panelists. The fact that a pagan even HAS a voice on a high profile site such as this one is a HUGE step in the right direction. Ideally it would be nice to see some of the other prominent pagan authors, just like there are many different Christian authors, answering questions as part of the panel, so that other folks could see the real diversity of thought under the pagan umbrella. We are everywhere. I would love for the moderators to have people comment on the fact that Wiccan Military soldiers just recently won a 10 year battle to have the pentacle placed on their tombstones. Unfortunately, there is a long way yet to go. As for Starhawk, I agree with a lot of what she says, although my personal path is different than hers. I think she needs to work on revising her timelines and some of the history. What I really respect most about her is that she is not just talking about possible ways to fix things, she is actually going out and sticking her neck out wherever she feels that she can make a difference. As have my own teacher(s). I will too, once I have the resources to travel more.

You say: "To this day the words spoken in James 4:4 are true.
"You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred towards God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."

That is why PriveR, I can make the statement that you hate the God of the Bible."

You apparently do not know how I feel about the bible, even after discussions that should have ended long ago. Don't put someone else's words in my mouth. Again, not my book, not my god, not my problem. Let me say this: if your god exists at all, he is asleep at the wheel and has been for millenia.

Oh, and btw: I worship Nature. The natural laws that exist, both in and out of science, is my god/dess. I wait for the signs to tell me what name to use as a focal point for prayer.

"How do you know that you are not imagining that you have? What are your proofs to support such a statement and how logical are they?"

My proofs come directly from my own experiences. You have no more way of knowing if your book is 'true' or just as 'imagined' as you say that mine are. I have proof enough for me of my system.

"God says, "There is no one righteous, no not one;...there is no one who does good, not even one."

Your god sets up an impossible standard and then expects his followers to flagellate themselves when they don't measure up. How is that 'good'? Your god tells people to 'don't eat that thing over there' and then goes to sleep or on vacation or something. He must still be asleep at the wheel. People are dying everyday because of someone's belief that their 'version' of him is somehow more 'true/real' than another person,
and all you can say is 'my book is true and you
made your system up' when one was written by people 300 years after the events supposedly happened and the other comes from experience.

"Just because something is done in His name... "

This paragraph you wrote makes absolutely no sense. Why is it that your god 'works in mysterious ways' when bad things happen but good things are somehow proof of 'his love'?

"The reason things were done was to restrain greater evil and protect the blood line that would one day provide redemption for His people."

What on earth does this mean? I thought Christians didn't believe that Jesus HAD a bloodline? This suspiciously sounds a lot like the 'we must fight them over there so that they don't come over here' justification used for a needless war. And why are so called 'unbelievers' not deserving of credit for the good works that they do?

Why don't you ask me if I studied my own Jewish heritage? Or what led me out of it? You make so many assumptions and jump to conclusions about things not talked about and don't ask.

I suspect our time together is growing short.

June 15, 2007 6:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on June 15, 2007 18:26

Peter Huff:

Hi PriveR,

The Bible does tell us “not to judge, or we too will be judged,” as well as to love our neighbor as well as our enemy (Matthew 7:1, 6:43) and much more in the Sermon on the Mount as well as other places, but with any verse of Scripture you have to take it in full context.

Yes, Jesus said those words and many things that require us, as His followers, to make judgment calls, such as further on in the verse,

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw pearls to pigs...." (Matthew 7:6) Also mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount are for us to beware of false prophets and how to recognize a false prophet. All this requires making a judgment for how can we be aware of false prophets unless we can make a judgment to identify them. And we can recognize them by their fruit. They do not preach the message of God (Galatians 1:8, as one example).

So what did He mean by the statement? The answer is found in the context. It is not about unity at any cost, or surrendering truth to lie. It's about making a judgment on someone else on a matter while all the time you exhibit the very quality you are judging in an even greater manner. As He said,

"Why do you look at the spec of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first remove the plank out of your own eye, and then you will clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5)

Notice, He says "first take the plank out of your own eye" so that we can remove the speck from our brother's eye. In other words, don't have a critical spirit like a Pharisee, when you make judgments or be conscious of the small sins of another and be impervious to the gigantic sin in yourself. To carry the analogy further, first recognize that you are sinful, just like those you tell the Good News to, but because of God's mercy in your life you want others to know how their sins may be forgiven as yours have been because of the Savior and how He can restore a person to life, a new life of relationship with God the Father.

Jesus constantly made judgments about the human condition, and preached a message about repentance and forgiveness, but was also highly critical of the Scribes and the Pharisees.

And there is very little comparison between the Bible and the Rede; the one being God's Word of truth, the other being man's ideas.

You said,

"Why do you rely on other people's opinions to tell you what to think? Do you have an opinion on what the bible or anything is without resorting to another person's ideas?"

First, are you assuming that your opinions and perceptions of the world are not influenced by anyone but yourself or that you have no bias in your intellectual assent on matters with others of the same faith? From what I read on the Starhawk blog everybody was gaga over what PaganPlace or Starhawk had to say. They were the experts on what it was all about. Time after time on those two blogs I saw statements on the wisdom of these two people. Can these people not think for themselves? I can make the same statements regarding what you believe in. It is a mute argument.

Second, I consider what other people say in relation to the text of Scripture to gain insight. But Scripture is the light that I judge things by.

Third, I have thought long and hard on certain issues and examined them from a Biblical perspective to have a better understanding on them and looked to others to help me express the biblical position more succinctly to unbelievers. In doing so I have asked you how your worldview can in turn make sense of these issues because of its inconsistency.

Fourth, are you not relying on the Rede to tell you what you think? If not them why do you believe it?

You have still to demonstrate how you can know something to be "good" if you are the reference point for "good" or if the Rede is, then who wrote it? Was it written by man? How do you know it is trustworthy? Is it absolutely true? If not then how do you know it will still be true tomorrow? How do you know it has not been tampered with? You keep telling me that if you are wrong, then you are wrong. Are you sure you are right?

You keep referring your experience as if it was valid, but what is your reference point for measuring "good?" Do you not assert yourself as the reference point of that also? If, as you have suggested, it is your subjective measure on what you believe to be in the best interest of the greatest number, how can you decry a hedonist who believes that "good" is measured by what is in the best interests of his/her own self. After all, in an evolutionary world, is it not to the fittest that the spoils go? The Korowai tribe of Papua, New Guinea at one time, and possibly still do, considered cannibalism acceptable in their survival of the fittest. Since the culture accepted this as normal and "good" who are you to tell them differently? The problem is you cannot judge it wrong without an absolute reference and measure of what "good" is. Again, I ask you, why should I believe the Rede "An it harm none, do as you will" when I see other philosophies such as evolution claiming exactly the opposite. You seem to want to fit evolution into your belief only where you can make it agree with your belief.

You see, without the Christian God you cannot have a discussion on right and wrong because you have no way of resolving differences of opinion. Or to state otherwise, if you cannot answer any of these questions without being subjective then why should I believe anything you have to say? It just boils down to your opinion.

You said,

"Animals only kill for a specific purpose."

Sometimes that purpose is for the sport of killing.

You said,

"Humans don't even need a reason and keep inventing more creative ways to blow each other away."

First, according to the evolutionary outlook, we are just animals. So why do you judge another human animal for stealing or murder when it is only protecting its food supply or its female against another male. Why is it wrong for a male to dominate a female, since she is the weaker in physical strength? Why is it wrong to kill the runt of the human litter to prevent it from breeding a weaker stock or just because you are hungry and have nothing else to eat?

In a relative world of subjective ethics, that you have said yourself change over time, why is it wrong to condemn Hitler for murdering six million Jews? All these questions you cannot make sense out of without the Christian God. Therefore, looking at the world through the eyes of the God of the Bible makes more sense than through your eyes.

PriveR, when you say,

"You need to stop assuming that I don't have a 'god'"

You have already told me that you do not have a god or goddess right now. When are you going to chose one? (1 Kings 18:21) What is god to you? Do you get to pick and choose? Is god to you "Nature" or "Science" since from both you get the theory of evolution, that when looked at from a purely scientific perspective is impersonal and caused all we have today by blind, chaotic, random, accidental chance mutations, and yet when looked at from a "Mother Earth" perspective has some intangible quality of being.

Since you say we are all part of the divine, are you "god?"

When you say,

"We're merely speaking different languages to describe what is in essence something that is bigger and more mysterious than both of us and any book put together."

How do you know this if "it" is bigger and more mysterious than you can know about?

You said,

"Oh, and which of your three bibles are you using to get your quotations from?"

Three translations from the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew texts gives me more of an appreciating of the sense of the Scripture taken from the original languages that is the source of inspiration. The books that we call the Bible were known and testified to by the Fathers of the faith long before they became The Canon that we have today. These Father's also refuted false teachings in all their forms as they came along. I have read some of these. They are on line for your information.

You said,

"Please don't equate me with Dahmer."

I am equating your ethics to his in the sense that you have stated that you yourself are the subjective measure of truth. As such, absolute truth and absolute moral values cannot be known, only speculated on. As such, you are the measure of them, just like he was. You have already stated that they change from culture to culture, and I agree with you. We only differ over the reason; because mankind has ignored the objective morals that come from his/her Creator, and through which we can truly know what "good" is.

Your paragraph stating,

"Actually those horrible things I mentioned were done in the name of the god that you revere. Your book was used as justification for such acts. How on earth is that god 'good'? That same version of 'god' has allowed terrible things to be done in his name throughout history"

The paragraph is loaded with accusations that I will attempt to explain here.

Just because something is done in His name does not necessarily mean that the people who did these things were following His lead. People who commit atrocities will one day have to give an account before Him, so in effect; they have not gotten off Scott Free. The reason things were done was to restrain greater evil and protect the blood line that would one day provide redemption for His people. When people of faith started marrying unbelievers if God did not step in there would have been no faith left to accomplish His purposes on this earth.

At the time of Noah God "saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of his heart was only evil all the time." (Genesis 6:5) "But Noah [and his immediate family, who were believer's of God - eight in all] found favor in the eyes of the LORD." (vs. 8). God’s choice, to preserve what is good was to destroy the evil from the earth.

God also chose a people to make Himself known to the nations, starting with Abraham (Gen. 13:16), in which He chose to bless the earth with. He protects and keeps them safe from their enemies, even when they start to worship the creation and form gods made of "sacred cows" or "The Golden Calf" to worship instead of Himself, the one true God. To stop the apostasy from spreading, He wipes out many to preserve the blood line of the believer. If He had not done this mankind would have abandoned Him and been cut off from Him for eternity. To prevent it from happening again, He prepares a "Promise Land" for His people and tells them to destroy the people dwelling in that land so as not to prevent them from poisoning their minds with their idol worship. "Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn you away from following Me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be His people, His treasured possession.

His people do not listen to His voice or obey His commandments so after being merciful to them for awhile, He lets the evil inhabitants in the regions around come in and kill and rape and butcher His people because they continue to ignore Him. But those who love and worship Him He protects, because His purpose from the beginning was to preserve a bloodline for the Messiah so that many people would eventually be saved from His justice by their disobedience. Without doing what He did all of mankind would have suffered His punishment for wrong doing. A Just Judge does not ignore wrongful actions and always does what is good.

We find the same thing happening during Jesus' earthly ministry and after. God continues to call out, separate and preserve His people from unbelief by faith in His One and Only Son. Hence, the references to sheep and goats; the righteous and unrighteous; believers and unbelievers; wheat and tares, etc., made by Jesus.

Without God's plan of redemption and God's ability to carry it out all the peoples of the earth would have succumbed to the devils lies and ways.

To this day the words spoken in James 4:4 are true.
"You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred towards God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."

That is why PriveR, I can make the statement that you hate the God of the Bible. You will not submit to His ways, nor can you do so. Instead of asking, or should I say pleading, for His mercy you continue to rebel against Him by denying His very existence. Romans 1:18 says, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like moral man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore, God gave them over to the sinful desires of their hearts..."

But Romans 10:11-13 also says, "As the Scriptures say, "Anyone who trusts in Him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call upon Him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

You should learn more about your Jewish heritage by reading the rest of the chapter plus chapter 11. You can also learn of the Jewish Redeemer promised since the third chapter of Genesis onward by reading the Book of Hebrews. Look up A.W. Pink online in his exposition of Hebrews if you want a really good insight into the book.

You said,

"All we can ever do is lead by example and hope that others might learn from it."

How do you determine your example is "good" since there are so many others who think otherwise?

God says, "There is no one righteous, no not one;...there is no one who does good, not even one."

You said,

"How do you know I haven't?"

How do you know that you are not imagining that you have? What are your proofs to support such a statement and how logical are they?

June 15, 2007 3:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on June 15, 2007 03:09

PriveR:

What happens when my definition of "good" is different than your definition of "good" in which it most definitely is?

Actually your book is supposed to say 'judge not lest you be judged' and 'love thy neighbor as thyself', correct? it's actually very similar to the Rede. How are those 'so different' definitions of 'good'? Not bad ideas, those. I just think that those ideas have been around a whole lot longer than the book itself has. Otherwise we really wouldn't have survived to be here at all.

Why do you rely on other people's opinions to tell you what to think? Do you have an opinion on what the bible or anything is without resorting to another person's ideas? You said yourself you need three books to try to understand what is supposed to be one set of words.

What you are not understanding about my system in addition to the Rede is the Threefold Law. The threefold law states that whatever we send out gets sent back to us, times three. If we send out love, we get love back. If we send out hate, anger or meanspiritedness in some form, it will come back to us amplified. We believe this to be a natural law, that works the same way evolution does- outside of ourselves.

Actually nature has a lot to teach us. Animals only kill for a specific purpose. Humans don't even need a reason and keep inventing more creative ways to blow each other away. Animals also have the capacity for self sacrifice and empathy. Something we can all benefit from. If we understood the plants that were around us better, we may have a LOT more medicines available for illnesses that we currently don't have. What is taken away as lessons from nature is up to the individual. There is no reality. It is all perception.

You need to stop assuming that I don't have a 'god'. I am not an atheist, nor am I a secular humanist, but I can see some value in all their positions. I just don't have the god that you insist is the only one. We're merely speaking different languages to describe what is in essence something that is bigger and more mysterious than both of us and any book put together.

Oh, and which of your three bibles are you using to get your quotations from?

Please don't equate me with Dahmer. Do you honestly expect me to respond to that? That is just insulting to the highest degree. I suspect he's talking about those who have no god at all. Again, doesn't apply to me.

"I’m glad you recognized that, because it shows that without God anything goes."

Actually those horrible things I mentioned were done in the name of the god that you revere. Your book was used as justification for such acts. How on earth is that god 'good'? That same version of 'god' has allowed terrible things to be done in his name throughout history. We don't necessarily need your version of god to realize that all humans should have the basic right to life. Neither you or I can control the actions of other people. All we can ever do is lead by example and hope that others might learn from it.

I have more of a problem with those who shout about how "good" a Christian they are, who keep telling me I'm 'going to hell' and try to convert me, rather than those who may be just as much a believer in Jesus but who don't proselytize, who quietly go about making taking care of others a priority in their lives. They are the best representatives about what Christianity could be about.

"How do you determine what the least harm would be? Can you see into the future to know that certain actions are going to be less harmful than others?"

Some folks can. I don't have that ability. So I try to consider as many of the possibilities as I can, and use logic to determine what may happen. If I can live with the consequences I can imagine, I will make a choice. But its about making careful actions, putting love first and restoring balance whenever it's been disrupted. Am I perfect? No. I'm human. I make mistakes. There's no need to beat yourself up over normal mistakes, just to learn to work to correct what harm has been done. When you see divinity everywhere, hurting any of it is no different than hurting yourself or someone you care about.

"Ever seen a thinking rock that appreciates beauty.."

How do you know I haven't?

Plants are concerned about their own survival. There's got to be some level of sentience going on there, or there wouldn't be any plants that have survived.

June 14, 2007 9:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on June 14, 2007 09:26

Peter Huff:

Hi PriveR,

Thanks for the reply. The list gets longer in what to reply to. Holidays are coming in a couple of weeks if you are still interested in continuing the dialog by then I will, the Lord willing, be able to sit down and catch up on some of the questions, after giving them more thought. Many of my thoughts have been adopted from "Pushing the Antithesis" by Greg Bahnsen if you want to go deeper into the argument supporting a Christian worldview as the only one that can make sense of existence.

To quote from your previous posts, when talking about morality,

"Morals? I think that a good rule of thumb is the Wiccan Rede: An it harm none, do as you will. The 'harm none' part also includes self, too. That is my standard."

What happens when my definition of "good" is different than your definition of "good" in which it most definitely is? Who decides then? Without God it's all a difference of opinion in which you state your preference and I state mine. And may the force be with you, because when differences arise that is what it boils down to; who is the greater force.

I said,

"Do morals come about by the instinct to survive?"

Sure, why not? I'll go with that. I think instinct itself is part of the package for us as part of the animal kingdom. All animals have it, and that it evolved as we did."

You see PriveR, the problem for you, without God, is to explain how there is meaning, how we establish truth, how there is distinction between "good and evil." Without God this universe came about by mere chance, an accident without explanation; and without God, you and I are nothing more than animals (as you have stated), and as such what you determine to be good and what I determine to be good is also meaningless, since your "good" is not the same as mine. As such (animals), according to your evolutionary theory, the strong survive, so why would I consider the "good" of another when nature is my teacher and I watch a male lion devour its offspring or a killer shark kill a seal. If I believe everything came about by chance and I have been taught such since early childhood, I am nothing more than a glorified monkey, then what is to stop me from thinking that to kill another man, if the “animal” threatens to infringe upon my territory, or take from my food chain, is wrong? That is right along the thinking of Jeffrey Dahmer,

‘If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing…’
Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.

The Humanist Manifesto III states,

"Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change."

As I said before, this way of looking at man means we are nothing more that biological bags of matter in motion. How can matter be self aware? Ever seen a thinking rock that appreciates beauty or a gorilla killing another gorilla and being guilty of murder?

The Christian position is the only one that can establish truth and meaning and purpose to life. "Good" needs a measure to be established, and without an absolute, objective, ultimate reference point (God) how is "good" established? There is no consistence to your explanation of "good" whereas for mine there is,

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)

When you say,

As far as the Rede goes, I never said you should adopt it if you don't agree with it. I just said that is my standard. I do not tell anyone else what they should or shouldn't do. I am fully aware that the only person I control is myself. People are going to believe whatever they want regardless of what you and I say. That's why the second part of the Rede says 'live and let live, and fairly take and fairly give'”

But why live and let live. If all we are are evolutionary monkeys?

“In a situation like you describe, I would never strike first. I would seek to find out if my feeling threatened has any basis. I could be feeling something that could be a result of something else that happened earlier that day. If I find out any information about planning something like you said, I would contact the authorities and have them check it out. That's far different than hurting someone before they hurt me. I try to figure out what the least harm would be and then act accordingly.”

How do you determine what the least harm would be? Can you see into the future to know that certain actions are going to be less harmful than others?

Again, since your morality is subjective, being as your Rede and you have determined, do you not think you are being inconsistent when you critics the Christian for the atrocities you have identified in the Bible (PS. that is something that I will explain in later posts if you choose to continue the dialog)? After all, you are making a moral judgment that you recognize to be wrong based on what foundation? If each culture develops its own moral standards, what right do I have to condemn another culture for killing six million Jews or sati in Hinduism or cannibalism in New Guinea? What right do you have to demand female rights, since in some societies as in nature, the male rules the roost? The answer is only in a society that recognizes that man and woman have been created equal in the eyes of God and every human being is to be regarded as valuable and treated with dignity and respect because he/she is made in God’s image.

Since you say,

"Actually, if you look at history of the world and world cultures, morality HAS INDEED changed throughout time. It used to be considered 'good' to burn someone for 'practicing witchcraft' or 'heresy'…I'm not saying we should dominate, by any means, but that perhaps if other people were willing to take ideas from all religions into account that might have something useful to teach to others, then we can all advance forward. I have proof enough for me of my system."

I’m glad you recognized that, because it shows that without God anything goes.
What right do you have to condemn others, for either you live by the utilitarian concept that "good" is that which produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number, and burning witches was considered to promote the greatest good, or you take the hedonistic approach in that "good" is what produces the greatest happiness in the individual. So if your philosophy is that of a utilitarian and mine is that of a hedonist then who decides? Was Hitler’s Germany to be condemned for murdering six million Jews? Why does the greatest number determine good? How do they know it is good?

The only reason the Christian can know the law of God is "good" is because “good” is part of God's own character; not because the Christian can establish it by his own subjective thinking. God is good and the example/standard/measure of what goodness is. Your measure for “good” cannot be justified. If you think it can tell me how?

June 14, 2007 12:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments

Posted on June 14, 2007 00:39

PriveR:

Because there is no 'explosion'. It's a misconception of what the big bang theory actually is.

There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.

Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

* First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
* Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
* Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
* Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

I assume that you do not accept the theory of the big bang, since your insistence on biblical inerrancy will not allow for such a thing. As your god's book does not allow for evolution of creatures. (again, please correct me if i'm wrong.) Given that all the evidence points to these things, it must be hard to accept. The thing is, the world works according to natural laws, not how we 'wish' it was.

You said: "What I get is a living/loving relationship with the one true God, a sense of purpose and meaning for life and basic answers to the difficult questions in life; questions that no other worldview is capable of answering or can even make sense of."

By claiming to have the 'one true god' you automatically refuse to see what is so fundamental: that we are all the same. We are all humans, with the same hopes and fears and dreams.

There is no need for separation from one another. Especially if we are to survive. We are extremely small, fragile creatures in spite of what we tell ourselves, and are subject to Nature's whims. She can run us over with a truck as we go to our jobs tomorrow, just as easily as she can wipe out all of a town with a storm. No matter how much we try to protect and distance ourselves, we are always at her mercy. The cycles of life and death are always in play. Why not learn to work with Nature and better life for all?

The truth is that you don't know for 100% sure any more than I am, but you're afraid to admit as much because it would force you to think about other possibilities. And that's ok too.

"Make sense out of?" If you need the scientific evidence to make sense to you, then please really study what it has to say. Other people make sense out of differing worldviews. Just because you are unable to accept that maybe evidence from science don't fit completely into your worldview doesn't mean others are. All throughout our discussion you have presumed to speak for me, atheists and even people who use the bible as inspiration, and not as a source of inerrancy, when even you yourself use three bibles to try to understand what other people think about what is supposed to be one set of words, and don't appear to have an opinion that is all your own.

The interesting thing is I get a sense of peace and acceptance of NOT trying to delude myself into thinking I have any sense of control about the end of my life and/or what happens afterward, if anything. I get a sense of peace and love from Nature and interactions with my deities/spirits, in a similar manner. As well as an incredible sense of wonder at the mystery and majesty of it all. Isn't that neat? Two different ideas, that lead to the same end.

If we could take the energy that is invested in argument and creation of barriers and replace it with real understanding and work our butts off to create a better life for all of us, can't you just imagine what a great world it could be? That is my hope.

I look forward to reading your comments on my other postings as well.

June 11, 2007 12:29 AM |

R. Albert Mohler Jr.

President, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

R. Albert Mohler Jr.

President, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Facing the Reality of Evil

All Comments (564)