In my last post, discussion turned to the question of whether or not we need God. One of my regular contributors, William, posted the following comment, and I felt it deserved its own post:
I am just having problems understanding whether humans “need” a god.
Do humans “need” a father? it may be beneficial if it’s a good father, but we can see many who get along fine who have not had a father, so “need” is the wrong term.
And what if that father is never around, left before you were born, and only left a letter to you explaining (not always in the easiest or most direct of terms) how he expects you to behave and promises that he’ll take care of you and promises to severely punish you for disobedience or for leaving him?
is that a good father? is that a father we need? isn’t it laughable that such a father could even begin to threaten the child for “leaving him” (since the father clearly left the child) not to mention how absurd it is to think that such a father actually does anything to really take care of the child?
I’m having a hard time understanding how we’re ingrained to “need” such a father, or why we’d even call such a father good?
Finding Truth 
Yes Josh I definitely believe this. And who says I need to be redeemed ? From what ? I popped out of my Mother’s womb through no fault of my own. Although my life has not been perfect, I am quite happy to be here and make the best of it. With or with any directions in writing.
LikeLike
Sorry, I meant with or without any directions in writing
LikeLike
“I think I’ll wait for UnkleE’s response to the other.”
Me too. He’s way more eloquent and thoughtful than I am.
LikeLike
Of course not. It seems like maybe we should start a forum!
It is hard to keep track of different comments when there’s more than 300, but the chain of conversation I thought I was commenting on was this. People were discussing whether God had given us enough knowledge to respond if he was going to judge us on our response. I said God judges us on our response and attitude, not our knowledge. Nate expressed the view that if God was halfway reasonable, he would accept his (Nate’s) genuineness (those are my words, not his). And in that context, I described where I felt his reaction didn’t seem to me to be what God would want.
To clarify, even if Nate can’t in conscience believe Jesus was the son of God, I think that God would want him to at least believe Jesus was a good man worthy of belief if Nate could find sufficient reason. I base that view on Luke 11:23, 12:8-10.
So I wasn’t discussing the reasons one should believe in Jesus, just what assessment of his character might be acceptable to God. So I won’t offer any comments here on the rest of what you said (much as I am happy to discuss) to keep these comments within reasonable bounds. Perhaps another time. Thanks.
LikeLike
I think Nan was really just trying to say that we are all having a difficult time seeing opposing points of views which is fair enough – I think that happens in a debate on practically anything in life. However it was perhaps inadvertently overstated, and I’d like to express my own perspective on this. Like others on this blog, I used to hold beliefs pretty similar to Josh and so I _can_ actually in some sense understand that point of view. While I don’t come to the same conclusions at this point in my life, I truly believe Josh and Unklee when they express what they believe – I don’t think they are suppressing something down deep that tells them that it’s wrong – they truly believe it. Sure they may have doubts sometimes, but that doesn’t change that they truly believe it. We all have different experiences in life and we all work our best at trying to figure out what really is true. At least it seems to me that all the commenters on this post are doing that.
LikeLike
“To clarify, even if Nate can’t in conscience believe Jesus was the son of God, I think that God would want him to at least believe Jesus was a good man worthy of belief if Nate could find sufficient reason.”
I’d like to understand your view on this a little further if possible. What if someone really just thought that the writings of the gospels were far removed enough from the time that Jesus lived that it is way too difficult to really determine anything solid enough to even form an opinion of his character? I realize you don’t think that is a good conclusion, but for now let’s just assume that someone really believes this. What then? Or do you just think anyone who concludes this is really not telling the truth about what they believe?
LikeLike
Jesus is the culmination of a long history of God choosing the weak, the enslaved, the broken, the second-born, the prostitutes over the wise, first-born, and the apparently righteous. Jesus, God with us, was born into a poor family in Podunk, Nowhereville. He lived a life of poverty, ridicule, and kept company with “sinners”. I mention these things to point out the message that Paul did in 1 Corinthians “Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.” I’ve been pondering whether this might shed some light on why God chose to allow human error to creep into the communication of his word. It definitely seems that he is in the business of overturning our expectations – the first will be last, he who loses his life will save it. There’s been discussion that God “ought” to have communicated more clearly. However, I think a look at how the OT and NT present God’s actions indicates that he has always chosen to act in ways that are opposite to what we expect. I find myself identifying as a broken person in need of redemption – one who has tried his entire life to become what is “expected”, but failed miserably time and again – which seems different than what some others here feel about themselves. I cannot speak for what others are, or what they may think of themselves. But, this God – The One who, instead of giving us lists of things that we ought to do, condescends to our broken level in the form of a man who is willing to kneel in the dirt to heal a blind person to show us that he is willing to come to us instead of demanding we come to him – this is the only God who is accepting of what I know myself to be. Jesus, by his words and compassion and grace, shows that he knows me. No other God offers this.
LikeLike
That is a good question, and one I am not sure about. My thoughts are these.
1. I don’t think Nate, or anyone else, me included, actually follows the teachings of Jesus. No looking at women with lust? No anger? Always loving enemies? Not putting wealth too high on our priorities? Always caring for the poor? So by Jesus’ standards, we all fall short and we all need help and forgiveness.
2. But at the same time, Jesus offers forgiveness, grace and freedom very readily, and perhaps (this is where I’m still working things out) doing our best to live up to those standards opens us up to that grace and forgiveness just as much as if we actually asked for it. Perhaps, I don’t know.
3. I don’t think Jesus cares about “receiving recognition” in any pride sense, but giving him recognition is necessary for our sakes.
Right, this is how it appears to be. But that isn’t the viewpoint I’m criticising. I’m simply saying that the argument that the Bible can’t be inspired by God if it appears to contain errors, is not a good one if we are seeking the truth. That is one way to look at things, but it isn’t the only way. So better to start with the Bible as a bunch of historical documents, in which case all the apparent errors and inconsistencies don’t matter – all historical documents have them. And then judge Jesus on that basis. Then we might (or at least I have) come to the view that Jesus is true, the Bible is inspired and it is our definition of “inspired” that is at fault. That is my point all along.
Thanks.
LikeLike
The Bible was never intended to be a History Book. Mistake #1
LikeLike
Nan, a few others have criticised this comment, but I think you are close to the truth, and I think it leads to some important conclusions, or at least questions. If it is true that we at least find it difficult understanding each other, why is that? There are doubtless many possible answers, including the trite “You’re rebelling against God.” and “You’re delusional.” Perhaps:
1. Each side is using different understandings of reasons and evidence.
2. Each side is coming to the conclusions it deep down wants to be true.
3. People have different experiences and these explain the different beliefs.
4. Some people want a greater level of certainty than others (i.e. like 95% confidence limits vs 75%).
5. Many people only consider part of the evidence (generally the part favourable to their view).
6. Different people weight the evidence differently.
I think all of them may be true sometimes, perhaps most times. It’s why I generally prefer to not argue about my beliefs, but either (1) argue about facts or (2) share differences in belief without pressing the other person.
Thanks for the thought.
LikeLike
Again, Nate, this reveals what I believe is a core difference between you and I. Even if I stopped believing Jesus was the son of God, and was just a well-intentioned but failed Jewish prophet (which I think from the scholars is the only other viable view), I would still understand why people would believe him, and follow him even if it meant death. I have trouble understanding why a sincere ex-christian such as you couldn’t “get” that.
So I still can’t help wondering if your christianity must have been somehow more based on religion and church and Bible than on Jesus, though we haven’t explored that enough for me to feel confident of that conclusion.
I think these questions are well worth exploring further. Thanks.
LikeLike
You could ask why a world renown humanitarian, Doctor and Theologian , Dr Albert Schweitzer after studying Jesus came to this conclusion. It surprised me when I read his book. . Schweitzer, however, writes: “The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never existed.” He obviously didn’t get it either.
LikeLike
This isn’t really the point I am discussing, but since I have been mentioned ….. William, let me make one statement and ask one question please.
I am a christian. My faith is based on the New Testament. I think we would need to be careful making statements from the 21st century into a set of writings 2-3 millennia old and from a totally different language and culture. So “problems” with the OT are no big deal to me, because I don’t know enough to know how properly to interpret it (though I am doing some reading on that right now), and because it isn’t key to my faith.
So, can you outline please some of the “actual and literal contradictions within it, which has scientific, historical and archaeological inaccuracies” you find in the NT, or were you just referring to the OT?
Thanks.
LikeLike
I think you’re right that people should approach the Bible in this way. Personally, I think that I have, and I’ve just reached a different conclusion than you. I haven’t found the gospels compelling enough to make me think Jesus was anything more than just a man. A good man, probably, but a man just the same. Again, that’s how I see it.
Because of the statement I just made: I don’t see enough evidence to think Jesus was really the son of God. And I find the Bible to be too problematic to genuinely be the revelation of a perfect, loving, rational, just, and merciful deity. Even if we say that he allowed human error its transmission and translation.
That may be true. But again, without the Bible, I think it’s really hard to get to Jesus. So once I lost faith in the Bible, I didn’t see much reason to hold onto faith in Jesus. Faith in God stuck with me a bit longer, but I didn’t believe it was the Christian god.
LikeLike
Hi Howie, fair question.
My comment was particularly directed to Nate who, as an ex-christian, is not in the situation you describe. He once had a view of Jesus, and to some degree it must inevitably still colour his views even now he doesn’t believe. So I am suggesting (certainly not asserting firmly) that Nate doesn’t seem to have had a strong response to Jesus as a person and a leader, but more to a particular form of christianity in which Jesus was a sacred object (mentioned in creeds etc) and sacred person, but not necessarily a leader we should all follow.
If we generalise to the case which you raise, I have said I believe we are all judged according to the light we have received, and how we respond to it. So I certainly would not say that “anyone who concludes this is really not telling the truth”. God is the judge, not me, and I believe there will be many who have been given little light, including never having heard of Jesus, and responded as well as they could.
Hope that explains things better.
LikeLike
Schweitzer wrote more than a century ago. Scholarship has moved on heaps since then.
LikeLike
William probably won’t get back to you on Monday — I’ve gotten used to his commenting patterns. So I’ll be a bit presumptive and offer you my idea of how he might respond.
When he talks about scientific, historical, and archaeological inaccuracies, he’s probably talking most about the OT. In 1 Cor 15:35-36, Paul says this:
That’s scientifically inaccurate. If a seed dies, then it won’t grow into a plant. I guess the worst part about it is that Paul calls the person a fool, and then goes on to say something foolish himself. Not a big deal if you aren’t an inerrantist, but still something to think about.
Historical and archaeological inaccuracies of the NT aren’t as glaring. There are possible problems with Luke’s reference to Quirinius. And I know the existence of Nazareth has been questioned. Also, Luke’s census that requires everyone to travel to the hometown of an ancestor that lived centuries earlier is highly questionable. But the biggest issues are probably the internal contradictions — and you’d already be familiar with those. You can always check out the 10 part series I did on them that are linked in my About section.
William, if I’ve misspoken, please correct me.
LikeLike
I may have given you a poor impression of my time as a Christian. It was certainly much more legalistic than what you’re used to, but it was still absolutely Christ-centered. I took my beliefs very seriously. Feel free to read my old blog posts, if you want. I spent a lot of time discussing deep doctrinal issues, that you would no doubt have disagreed with me about. But I had a deep conviction that drove every aspect of my life. I loved Jesus and wanted to serve him, be pleasing to him. We took the Lord’s Supper every Sunday, and I always tried to keep my thoughts focused on the agony he must have endured for my sins and the magnitude of his amazing sacrifice. Of course Jesus was who we were supposed to follow! He was the whole point of everything!
You won’t hear me gush about those things now, because I no longer believe it. In fact, I sometimes feel bitter about it, because I built my life around something that I now consider bogus. So sometimes I might be more critical of it than I should be. I know that the writers of the various books of the Bible weren’t purposely lying to anyone. They were essentially the commentators of their day. But after being fooled by it for decades, it sometimes hard for me to see it so benignly.
LikeLike
No, I’m not basing it on what you have said, but what it seems to me you haven’t shown. But I don’t think I want to take this any further. Your responses seem different to what I would expect in some cases, but it is tiresome for me to suggest I can say anything much about this. I have made a suggestion, you assure me I’m largely mistaken, let’s leave it at that.
I think this shows another way in which we’re different. Paul wasn’t a scientists and clearly wasn’t making a scientific statement. But as soon as we understand it to be a metaphor, it is quite reasonable. The seed may not die in a biological sense, but we all know what he means. It is impossible not to speak in metaphorical language sometimes. I find this “Objection” almost farcical (I’m sorry).
Yes there are, but this is hardly major. The matter isn’t fully resolved among scholars, though most think Luke got some details wrong here. But there are plenty of scholars who would contest some of the things you allege as errors.
I think the alleged errors in the NT are not very great, especially as most of them are not incapable of being resolved, and so may be resolved one day. They are certainly within the parameters of historical documents of the day. And therefore not really validly used as arguments against drawing reasonable historical conclusions, although obviously good arguments against inerrancy. But we were talking about history, not inerrancy (at least I was).
LikeLike
unkleE
Here is a little NT discrepency I would like for you to explain away. The apostle Paul says that Jesus “was born of the seed of David” (Romans 1:3). Here the word “seed” is literally in the Greek “sperma.” This same Greek word is translated in other verses as “descendant(s)” or “offspring.” The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line. That Jesus had to be a physical descendant of David means that even if Joseph had legally adopted Jesus (as some apologists have suggested), Jesus would still not qualify as Messiah if he had been born of a virgin – seed from the line of David was required.
Women did not count in reckoning descent for the simple reason that it was then believed that the complete human was present in the man’s sperm (the woman’s egg being discovered in 1827). The woman’s womb was just the soil in which the seed was planted. Just as there was barren soil that could not produce crops, so also the Bible speaks of barren wombs that could not produce children.
This is the reason that although there are many male genealogies in the Bible, there are no female genealogies. This also eliminates the possibility put forward by some apologists that Jesus could be of the “seed of David” through Mary.
LikeLike
The bible stories are not a collection of claims or, better yet, a collection of propositions. The Bible does not claim God made the world; it tells a creation story. It does not say Jesus rose from the dead, it tells a few stories, none of them consistent, about a resurrection. Certainly, specific sects try to systematize their teaching as dogma and doctrine, but, even still, their teaching is an interpretation of an inconsistent collection of stories that were not presented as a set of logical conclusions about the world, although these Biblical stories are discussed as if the Bible is some sort of proof-text for an all-encompassing doctrine. The Bible evolved, not propositionally, but emotionally and imaginatively. The idea that the Bible is a book of claims will, inevitably, lead one to error. New atheists and fundamentalists are alike in this regard in that they both view the Bible as a collection of propositions. One says, ‘Jesus rose from the dead.’ and the other says, ‘No he didn’t. People don’t do those things.’ The much more reasonable option is not discussed–that Jesus lived at a time when people were thought to rise from the dead. My point succinctly put is that the Bible is a collection of stories; not arguments.
As for biblical interpretation, I would say that nothing, meaning not anything, is clear in the Bible. Everything is up for interpretation, even the verses that are most unambiguous to me. And this approach is not at all novel. It has a storied history in Christianity, specifically, and religion generally. As Feuerbach reminded us God is what we make Him. The prophets did just that and so did Jesus and so did the early church Fathers and so did the Schoolmen and so did the Reformation Protestants and so did the relatively recent evangelical movement. Christianity has a long history of reinvention, remodeling, and reinterpretation. Martin Luther’s Treatise of the Freedom of a Christian is a great example of intellectualism and individualism in Christianity, although I fear Luther would have regretted its broader appeal. The age of priestcraft has passed and people determine for themselves now what is important, disgusting, and noble about Biblical passages. This idea that the Bible makes claims about the world is faulty reasoning. It doesn’t. It tells stories that represent some of the best in human experience and imagination. Of course, a number of people like their dogma and doctrine, but you won’t find that dogma and doctrine spelled out propositionally in the NT. It developed over time, more than likely as social teaching based, primarily, on vague biblical references, the origins of which are difficult to locate. In my opinion, the early Christians did not accept Jesus because they believed he lived or died or because they read Paul–they couldn’t read–but because they believed the Gospel, which was a summary of things believed by early Christians. It is in the very late first century and early second century that we get the beginning of the image of Jesus as he is now portrayed.
Furthermore, the canon was not a spontaneous development. The canon is the regulation of sources that supported a growing consensus about who Jesus was, or rather, what was to be believed about him, which became non-negotiable on certain points. And they found their support for this view in a fairly small number of sources that they believed dated from apostolic times.
In my mind, admitting that the Bible is errant does not, necessarily, destroy the Faith or Jesus–it took me a fair amount of time to realize this–and this approach is not at all novel or radical. Augustine noted that if a Christian takes the Bible literally he should not be surprised if a non-Christian laughs. And Origen pilloried the anti-Christian Celsus for his lack of imagery and allegory concerning the NT. Origen even believed that certain portions of the Gospels were false like the temptation of Jesus by the devil; the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas preferred an allegorical approach to the OT–the Church of the Middle Ages took a similar spiritual interpretation approach with the NT, at least to a certain extent–and the writer of the Epistle of Diognetus highlighted the ‘follies of Judaism’ as ‘too nonsensical to be worth discussing;’ Paul, while a proponent of Scripture, was integral in separating Christianity from Judaism–he self-identified as ‘the apostle to the gentiles.’ Hardly, a person overly concerned with the law of Moses; C.S. Lewis’ even acknowledged that much of the early OT was ahistorical. This idea that the Bible must be interpreted literally and must be without error is a fairly new theological concept, a concept that I find dangerous and unthinking. It is the same sort of theology as the preacher who claims to speak for God. It is intellectually easy and black and white, but a cursory study of history, philosophy, theology, and life shows us that the black-and-white portrayal of human existence and spirituality being propagated by the ‘fundamental’ adherents isn’t an accurate representation of human experience nor the Bible.
Also, the idea that Jesus was mistaken about some stuff seems to be a fairly weak objection, since, from my understanding, Jesus was not omniscient, so I am sure he had wrong beliefs. Just like he didn’t address a number of very important social issues e.g., war, capital punishment, gambling, justice, law, equality of sex, equality of color, tyranny, freedom, slavery, or self-determination. If Jesus knew all truths–omniscience–then he would have been incapable of learning. Jesus learned. Therefore, he was not omniscient.
I am not sure if the Bible is God’s word, but the original teachings of Jesus contain five major precepts: love God, believe in Jesus, love man, be pure in heart, be humble. This is Jesus’ message, as best as I can understand it, and anything that is added to it is a later development in the Christian tradition. Consequently, if what we mean by Christian is what Jesus taught according to the synoptic gospels, then there is a great deal that Christians must work out for themselves. And that, in my estimation, facilitates and, perhaps even encourages differing interpretations and beliefs, which will, inevitably, lead to disagreement and personal opinion on the matter.
On this account, most objections to theism that refer to biblical contradictions and mistakes seem to be fairly weak, since the cumulative case for God’s existence is much stronger than most people realize and the Bible was not written like a science or logic textbook. For me, the entire case for Christianity lies with the historicity of the Resurrection. Did it happen or not?
Regards
LikeLike
… (not always in the easiest or most direct of terms) how he expects you to behave and promises that he’ll take care of you and promises to severely punish you for disobedience or for leaving him?…
Gods words aren’t always direct when translated to English, true. Much figures of speech, yes. Rich still, yes. Meaningful, yes. Expectations on behavior, only in his power. No expectations on one who does not understand or know. Punishment for disobedience, no. Punishment for leaving him, anomaly, impossible paradox.
LikeLike
Well put, Persto ! The late Geza Vermes published a book in 2008 “Resurrection in History and Myth” Every Christian and Non-Christian should read it.
LikeLike
Persto, thanks for the comment. You know I always appreciate hearing your perspective.
I agree that the cumulative case for God’s existence is pretty strong. To me, the issues with the Bible and the tenets of Christianity don’t make a case against God at all — they just make a strong case against Christianity. I would not be overly surprised to find out that God exists in some fashion. But I would be completely flabbergasted if it turned out to be the Christian god.
LikeLike
Persto, we obviously disagree about many things, but I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. I think you slightly overstate the case – I think the Bible is primarily stories, but I think there are truth-propositions too – but I think we agree that we should recognise (1) that the Bible is a diverse bunch of books written over a long period of time, (2) that it contains many different genres of writing, each of which should be read appropriately, (3) both christians and sceptics have been known to make statements about the Bible that go beyond what it actually says.
Hi kcchief1, you say “Here is a little NT discrepency I would like for you to explain away.”. I’m sorry, you’ve got the wrong person. I’m not really interested in explaining anything away and I’m not highly concerned if there is a discrepancy. To be blunt, I think explaining things away is as tiresome as magnifying trivial things out of proportion. It is quite clear from the text that the genealogies are not strictly accurate and the gospels writers and compilers didn’t seem to care about this. Matthew even makes his list nice and symbolic with 3 groups of 14. They didn’t seem to find the issue you raise important and so neither do I. Sorry, not to play that game. 🙂
LikeLike