One of the things I find funny about Christianity is their so called claim that man has free will. But I have to question this so called free will based on my understanding of it. Man since his "creation" was given free will to enable him to choose between obeying God his creator or rebelling against him by not subjecting yourself to his will. From a secular perspective free will means to me that you basically can do with your life what you wish.
Of course I believe that certain things in life have consequences that can be detrimental to you in the future, but just living a good and decent life should not be one of those things that should warrant punishment. The bible teaches that mankind is sinful and always drawn to those things that are evil and away from those things that are good. Romans 3:23 states that we all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
This is not true free will because it is linked to your obeying and living a life that is pleasing to the Lord. It's more like conditional will because you don't have many choices. And the wrong choice, in this case living your life your way will result in you being condemned eternally. For this cruel imaginary God the only way to guarantee yourself a place in his heaven is if you agree to stroke is over bloated ego.
If you live a good life and never do anyone any harm according to the bible you will still earn yourself a place in hell because you did not waste your life stroking God's ego. He loves it when you tell him how great he is and remind him how powerful and merciful he is. So by rejecting a belief in God you offend him so greatly that he needs to punish you forever. Ephesians 2:8,9 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
The Christian idea of free will is a joke and not even real free will, once again the bible is a lie. The only way to salvation is to accept Jesus as your lord and savior and to then try to live a life that is pleasing to God, and don't forget to pray daily and tell him what a great and wonderful God he really is because if you don't blow smoke up his ass and show him some gratitude for saving you you might make him angry.
Hi Chatpilot,
ReplyDeleteOh dear ... one should always be wary of those who quote old translations of the bible, be they theists or atheists it exhibits a remarkable lack of scholarship.
To quote Ephesians 2:8,9 is questionable too, ignoring as it does the many references to works as being necessary (ahead of faith?) for salvation.
You argue that This is not true free will because it is linked to your obeying and living a life that is pleasing to the Lord. It's more like conditional will because you don't have many choices. And the wrong choice, in this case living your life your way will result in you being condemned eternally. which seems to me to very much an argument in favour of freewill – the freedom to make right or wrong choices.
I would see the key question around freewill as being our ability to execute a truly autonomous judgemental decision or if we are merely responding in the manner of a complex bio-computer to the program of our knowledge and experience – that is acting in a deterministic way.
Sala kahle - peace
Sala kahle thanks for posting your reply but you stated "To quote Ephesians 2:8,9 is questionable too, ignoring as it does the many references to works as being necessary (ahead of faith?) for salvation." It is an incorrect interpretation in my view because as you said the bible does refer to works as necessary, but you are not saved by your works but rather by your faith in conjunction with your works.
ReplyDeleteJames 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
James 2:20
But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Btw I use the KJV simply because it is the most widely used version here in America by evangelical Christians.
As you can see clearly works are the result of your faith. Works are the "fruits of your labors as a Christian".
ReplyDeleteWow, fancy debating the elements of salvation with an atheist! ... must be a first!
ReplyDeleteI have however read little on your blog that sets out a clear reasoning path as to why you chose atheism.
You correctly state that there is no proof absolute one way or the other and then seem to flop into a decision that there is no God without any reasons ... did I miss something?
Sala kahle - peace
Actually I started as a believer with a ministry for about 4 yrs. I am pretty well grounded when it comes to theology and the bible. Although I state that there is no absolute proof for the evidence of the existence of God, I feel that the evidence that is available weighs heavily against the existence of God. I see Christianity in the same light as I see ancient myths and other pre-christian belief systems. All myths are created equal by the mind of mankind. In my view none is greater than the other.
ReplyDeleteyou say I feel that the evidence that is available weighs heavily against the existence of God. ... ok, with your theology background I would be very interested to hear what the evidence is and how it weighed so heavily in favour of atheism.
ReplyDeleteI accept that it likely to be a complex and full set of reasons, so maybe just the key points?
sala kahle - peace
The key points would be the following:
ReplyDelete1.It makes more sense to believe based on evidence that all forms of life have evolved.
2.The fossil record proves that life on Earth has been around alot longer than the bible suggests.
3.The field of genetics has been able to isolate many similarities and links between various species of life forms.
4.Our wold is a complex world but it is not so orderly or apparently intelligently designed as theists claim it to be.
This is a vast topic but I know of a great video series on you tube entitled 'Discovering Religion' You should try and see them it would answer alot of your questions and put it into perspective alot better than I can.
Your points 1, 2 & 3 while interesting, in no way call into question the existence of God.
ReplyDeleteMainstream Christianity has long acknowledged that evolution is not contrary to its docterine.
For example, the Catholic Church in 1860 (one year after Darwin’s work was published) did not refute the German Bishops who recognised that Darwin's ideas was not unacceptable to Catholics. Also,in 1868 Newman said Mr. Darwin's theory need not then to be atheistical, be it true or not; it may simply be suggesting a larger idea of Divine Prescience. Bear in mind that the science behind Darwin was still being debated at that time.
Your point 4 - Our world is a complex world but it is not so orderly or apparently intelligently designed as theists claim it to be. is an empty assertion. If however you accept evolution, as mainstream Christianity does, I am not sure of the relevance of this point.
I suspect what you are questioning is the doctrine of a literal and inerrant bible.
Recognising that the bible is not ‘literal & inerrant’ is not a problem for mainstream Christians and certainly does not lead to an atheist conclusion.
Sala kahle - peace
Gods have been with us since man can remember, a look at comparative religion throughout history and various cultures will illustrate to anyone that gods were created by men. Most ancient religions were polytheistic and hinged mostly on mans lack of understanding of the world around him.
ReplyDeleteMost ancient religions worshiped the elements of nature and the various human emotions were believed to have come from the gods as well. Man has worshiped at one time or another the sun, stars, planets, animals, even other men. All this was as a result of his lack of understanding and search to comprehend his origins and the causes of the many calamities he had to face in a primitive age.
The Jews were the "chosen" people by their God and the christians created a means to get a piece of the action by creating the story of Jesus. Now salvation is available to all those that believe in the sacrifice of Christ as well. Christianity is an offshoot of early Judaism as many elements of Judaism are an offshoot of early mesopotamian beliefs. That is what religions do they build off of each other and evolve.
Asking me to prove the nonexistence of God is doing things ass backwards as I like to say. In philosophy the onus of proof falls squarely on the one who is making the positive assertion that God exists. It is utterly impossible to prove a negative and illogical to try to do so in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWhat I do state is that the evidence is enough to satisfy me to the point of coming to the conclusion that God does not and cannot exist. This like religion, is a matter of personal choice. That is why neither side will convince the other of their assertion no matter how much evidence or lack thereof is presented.
What I can say in my favor is that I have been on both sides of the fence and this side to me seems the most logical.
I am not asking you to prove the non-existence of God.
ReplyDeleteYou say the evidence is enough to satisfy me to the point of coming to the conclusion that God does not and cannot exist. so I am asking what evidence you have considered and how you have weighed it to reach your conclusion.
All I am asking you is to explain your conclusion. So what is the evidence and how have you evaluated it?
So far you say you have based your conclusion on:
1) The evidence that evolution occurred – I say that is irrelevant to deciding on the existence of God – mainstream Christianity is happy with God and evolution.
2) You give a thumbnail of man’s history with gods and correctly observe That is what religions do they build off of each other and evolve.. OK, but again this adds little of substance to the question of God’s existence or not.
Theology, like any branch of learning, is subject to intellectual evolution, and yes one can only step forward from where one currently is – as we grow in understanding of any subject we take what we have, shed some it and add some new bits.
When the pagans figured out that a statue (or whatever) was not God they faced a choice. Either conclude that there is no God or that God is not a statue. Wisely, most have concluded that God is not a statue and theology has moved on.
sala kahle - peace
The very idea or concept of gods came from mans own longing to understand his origins and the world he lived in. Some of the most primitive religions deified nature due to their lack of understanding on its workings. Later nature was personified as seen in Greek mythology where many of the phenomena of nature were given names and worshiped.
ReplyDeleteMan has worshiped everything under the sun and continues to do so today. Religion and the concept or idea of God or gods is obviously the creation of man and not the other way around. If you are referring specifically to the biblical God then you would have to start by accepting the bible as his divinely inspired word (I don't).
If you want to study through the scriptures the so called attributes of God the very bible contradicts itself and its deities alleged actions contradict them as well. I came from a charismatic church and I experienced personally the so called power of the Holy Spirit and after further study have come to the conclusion that these are not works of God but rather altered states of the mind.
If I were to give you all of the evidence for why I don't believe in God we will be here all year. And most likely you wont accept it so it will be time wasted. I have been on both sides of the fence and simply find atheism to be the more rational of the two arguments.
This is what I said "the evidence is enough to satisfy me" emphasis on the me. If there is one thing that I have learned is that atheism or theism is a personal journey and in the end a personal choice. We all see and interpret things differently and what I might consider evidence you might consider conjecture, but both of our means of interpretation are influenced by many factors.
ReplyDeleteYes it is a personal journey and like you I have been on both sides so I am interested in what tipped the balance for you - it may make a difference to me.
ReplyDeleteYou say and simply find atheism to be the more rational of the two arguments and I am interested as to why.
Atheists say theism requires too much of a leap of faith, that it is irrational etc, but right now I see nothing but smoke and mirrors in the atheist arguments - I had hoped that since you have looked at the evidence you may be able to show me more than an atheist leap of faith.
Sala kahle -peace
Okay, as far as faith goes I don't consider faith or so called divine revelation for that matter a true means of learning an discovery. I can try and tell you what tipped the scale in favor of atheism for me specifically. In the case of faith healing or curses or blessings I find that in everything the bible makes man accountable for everything that happens to him/her. God is never held accountable for any of his failures.
ReplyDeleteFor instance theist argue that everything that is wrong with the world is as a result of sin that was perpetrated by Adam and Eve or even mans disobedience to God if you don't buy into the whole Adam and Eve story. But if you read the text in Genesis they never really had free will since the idea of bad and good was not something that the first couple understood.
Genesis 3:5-7 clearly states that before they ate that fruit they were naive and innocent, when they ate "their eyes were opened".
So if God being omniscient (all knowing) knew that they would be tempted and that they were naive as to good and evil, then why did he allow it. Even worse why did he place the tree in the garden in the first place? In my mind the fall of mankind as described in the bible is solely Gods fault.
God is not a rational explanation for all the evil, crime, calamity, natural disasters, etc. that happen in this world. Things like these looked at from a natural perspective explain themselves. When you add God to the mix then you have to explain his motives and how if he permits such things can we still say that he is just, good, and loving etc.
An earthquake is most easily explained by simply stating that there was a shift in the tectonic plates than to say that God did it to punish a people or race etc.
The biblical God is supposed to be holy and pristine and pure but yet in the O.T. you see him murdering thousands and even millions for the smallest infractions. God smiting individuals and entire cultures, and like most gods before him this god craved blood. Blood in many ancient cultures was used in both animal and human sacrifices to appease the gods of old. This God of Christianity also requires blood, and in this case it was that of his sons that finally appeased him forever. Hebrews 9:22
ReplyDeleteAnd almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Now, to answer your points:
ReplyDelete1) Mainstream Christianity agrees that the first 10 chapters of Genesis are myth, the embedded teaching is that of God being the source of life and that we are all prone to sin.
The concept of original sin – the separation of God and humanity, that we choose to sin – is illustrated by the story of Adam & Eve ... and in all fairness the story works at Sunday schools for kids. It certainly does not work for adults.
If we look at the world today it is very easy to say that the suffering caused by mankind is due to sin – and it sure looks like greed, lust etc have a leading role. To somehow attribute this side of human behaviour to God makes little sense.
The accepted theology is that of freewill – the very topic of your post. We have the freewill to do good or evil.
An omniscient God allows us this freedom – perhaps as a greater good than us behaving like puppets doing only what we are told, perhaps so that we can actually learn that there is a difference between good and evil. Not being omniscient myself I cannot be certain of the reason;)
2) Yes, the world is a natural place that obeys the laws of physics. To attribute earthquakes etc to God is to revert to our pagan origins.
3) The OT should be read in context. It is a record of God’s revelation to mankind – it is not a text book of history or science. The Jews progressed in their spirituality/theology beyond that of the physical pagan gods to a single spiritual god. But the evolution of their theology was slow and they had a tendency to cling to the pagan customs they were familiar with – in particular to ascribing every event to God.
Yes God did ensure that the small tribe to which He had revealed himself as one spiritual God survived, but let us not get confused by the narrators who got a bit carried away by events.
One should place more emphasis on the teachings of the OT prophets – and there is a solid line there that God desires not sacrifice but good works. Primary teaching of the NT reinforces this shift away from religious practices that revolved around sacrifice and to focus on our spiritual being – our relationship with God - and to ‘love our neighbour as ourselves’.
Sala kahle - peace