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 
Josh,
I would rather try the merit system and say I’ve done my best. Christianity teaches you can do anything you want or nothing. As long as you make that “Confession” with your last breath, You can spend eternity with God. That’s hardly an incentive to do anything in this life to please God or your fellow man. Paul and James were divided over this very same thing.
LikeLike
“Especially if Luke didnt save you. Are you going to then confront Luke and say, “I trusted you, Skywalker.” he’d be like, “I never told you I’d do anything. go talk to Jim Cary, i’m going to get some power converters…””
Then, I’d have placed my faith in the wrong thing. I’d likely be dead since there wasn’t a true savior, so the conversation couldn’t take place. Luke was also probably just a dude like me, so he’s not around to have the conversation, either.
“Matt 7 and other places seem to indicate the bible god expects something of us.”
God expects everything from us. That’s the beginning part of the narrative leading to Jesus. Romans lays out pretty clearly that the Law (God’s expectations) are designed to show us what sin is. Romans also tells us that no one can meet the Law, and that was the intention of it all along (don’t think that God left everyone hanging – he promised salvation through Abraham’s line long before any of the Jews agreed to keep the commandments). No one can meet the expectations, and God has always known that. He saved us through “the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world”.
LikeLike
“I would rather try the merit system and say I’ve done my best. Christianity teaches you can do anything you want or nothing. As long as you make that “Confession” with your last breath, You can spend eternity with God.”
I believe this to be as close to the truth as I could come up with myself. And, a lot of people would side with you on trying the merit system.
LikeLike
God promised that all notions would be blessed through Abraham’s seed, not that they’d all be saved through his seed. This may sound like I’m splitting hairs, but it could be that the author of genesis was thinking of Joseph’s food stores during the large famine talked about it genesis. This is really an aside and off topic – my fault.
and you don’t have to have the conversation with Luke or Jim in order to be able to discuss who you may have been trusting in in either given situation. Remember, this is just an analogy. Do you disagree that that you’re putting at least some trust and faith in the claims of the biblical authors? Do you disagree that the things you quote from scripture were written by them?
LikeLike
William – The promise to Abraham could mean anything – air travel even :). I guess I never start with the OT because I see the NT as the fulfillment of it. Plus, there’s a ton more debate on whether the OT is even historical. It’s just a bad place to start. And, yes, I do trust the NT writers were reporting on things that had actually happened. There’s a fair amount of good reason, in my opinion, to believe that.
LikeLike
I shouldn’t say “I never start with the OT”. I get sucked into a good discussion like anyone else. I like to think I never start with the OT 🙂
LikeLike
And yet God started with the OT…
I think the point William is making through his Jim Carey and Luke Skywalker analogy is that your trust would have been in Jim Carey all along. Even though he may have told you that Luke Skywalker would save you, your faith is not actually in Skywalker — it’s in Jim Carey. You’re putting your trust in his claims.
In the same manner, you’ve put your trust in the claims of the Bible — yet who wrote it? We don’t even know. Most Christians acknowledge that the gospels were anonymous, some of the epistles were likely forgeries, and we don’t know who most of the OT authors were. So regardless of whether or not they’re right in their claims, your faith in Christianity is based on the authors of the Bible, not God. The world around us (creation, etc) can lead to a faith in God, but there’s no way to get to the Christian God without the Bible. Therefore, the core of your faith is in men.
I believe that’s what William is saying.
LikeLike
As I write this, there have been 156 comments. I have followed the rather frenetic (but wonderfully polite!) discussion without comment, but I can’t resist being No 157!
For the record, I find myself pretty much in agreement with Josh. So, Nate, your empathy for him being on his own in the discussion is admirable, but he has at least one supporter (for what that’s worth!).
Nate said: “If God doesn’t require me to believe it, then I agree with you.”
I think there are many truths, but very few things God requires us to believe. The thief on the cross knew very little; Romans 10:13 (quoting Joel in the OT) says “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”; and the OT faithful jews didn’t know anything of Jesus
If I may be permitted an observation that is not intended to be personally critical, there are two things I observe in your viewpoint (and that of many other non-believers) which I think are major factors in your disbelief (from my perspective):
1. I agree with Josh that you make assumptions about how the Bible and God “ought” to be, when really we have very little basis for many of these. If we just take things as they are, and decide on them without those assumptions, disbelief may not appear to be so true. The obvious example is Biblical inerrancy. Nothing else we know is inerrant, not even the transmission & translation of the Bible,yet we know heaps of things. Why should the Bible be either inerrant, or nothing?
2. Most atheists (probably coming from a scientific mindset) seem to think that God’s main purpose is to reveal knowledge, like some cosmic professor. Knowledge is good, but it isn’t the only or even the most important thing. I think the Bible clearly teaches we are judged by what we know (see John 9:41 for example), and that “heart attitude” and response to Jesus are more important than knowledge.
I’m not suggesting if you accepted these things you would suddenly believe, but I do think much of the disagreement here comes down to these two things.
Best wishes.
LikeLike
“So regardless of whether or not they’re right in their claims, your faith in Christianity is based on the authors of the Bible, not God. The world around us (creation, etc) can lead to a faith in God, but there’s no way to get to the Christian God without the Bible. Therefore, the core of your faith is in men.”
Nate, this is another example of an either-or assumption. The most reasonable conclusion, I believe, is that the Bible authors were inspired by God but not made perfect by God. So it isn’t either-or but both-and.
So the core of my faith is in God, who works through people to give us sufficient understanding to respond to him, but not perfect understanding. That’s how we live all the rest of our lives, why shouldn’t it be enough here?
LikeLike
Here’s the issue, as I see it. It all boils down to consequence.
If, as traditional Christianity teaches, there is a judgment after this life, then a loving, merciful, and righteous God would ensure that we could know what we need to do to pass that test. This is what I’m referring to when I say “If God doesn’t require me to believe it…” If he does require I believe something in order to be found pleasing to him, then it needs to be very clear and believable. Obviously, it’s not, because many, many people in the world are not Christians. And even among Christians, none of them can seem to agree on what Christianity even is.
On the other hand, if you guys are right that there’s no punishment for non-Christians after death, then fine. The Bible can be murky and inaccurate, and God can be hidden and mystical. It doesn’t really matter, because there would be no eternal consequences for not believing.
Make sense?
LikeLike
But it’s still either-or, because you can’t know anything about Jesus without the Bible. True?
LikeLike
Nate,
I would like to share one last Christopher Hitchens video before the night ends. It’s 13 minutes long but I would hope Christians and Non-Christians alike would view it and offer their feedback. It certainly made me do a lot of thinking several years ago.
LikeLike
“if you guys are right that there’s no punishment for non-Christians after death, then fine”
I didn’t say that. I said knowledge wasn’t the prime requirement, heart attitude and response to Jesus is (IMO). So what is your heart attitude? What is your response to Jesus? I cannot judge that, and you know I respect and like you as much as anyone I have met on the net. But I honesty can’t see that you have responded rightly to Jesus (yet), and I’m not sure if you have the right attitude. I think you are closer than most, but closer isn’t there (yet).
LikeLike
“Make sense?”
Yes, it does make sense (at least to me 😉 ). I believe that it is fair enough to say that if we are going to be held accountable for not believing in a particular worldview then the truth of that worldview should be obvious to us. And I also believe it is fair to say that it is even more important if the consequences are eternal. I suppose one could reply that “it is obvious but we are avoiding admitting that”, but like you Nate, I really don’t think that is a reasonable statement to make.
LikeLike
Cool, unkleE. I love it when we agree! 😉
Thanks for the video, kc. I’ll check it out!
LikeLike
“But it’s still either-or, because you can’t know anything about Jesus without the Bible. True?”
Again, I don’t think its so black and white. (1) I know a couple, not raised as christians, who felt, after a series of slightly strange events, that God was communicating with them. So they read up on all the religions and decided that the God of Jesus seemed like the one they were in contact with. They are now Quakers. (2) Thousands of Muslims are becoming followers of Jesus (often without leaving Islam, which is more than just a religion to Muslims, because Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet) because of dreams and visions. (3) I had a friend who was a missionary/Bible translator in the Pacific region. He told me many years ago that the people he lived amongst had many dreams and visions until he translated the Bible, and then there were far less.
So God can and does communicate outside the Bible, and enough for people to choose to follow Jesus. Of course the Bible tells us a lot more that is helpful. But the question remains – do we need the detailed knowledge of Jesus to be “saved”? I don’t think so, or Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah and Ezekiel would be “lost”.
LikeLike
I wasn’t sure we were, but if you’re happy, everyone’s happy! 🙂
LikeLike
Nate – you’re so focused on the punishment end of this, I think it’s clouding most of the rest of what’s out there. I’ll just make one last comment, and leave it there as far as my commenting on this :). When we read the parables of Jesus we often miss completely what he’s saying. Take a few for example: the Prodigal Son, the generous farmer, and the Good Samaritan.
In the prodigal son we often take the meaning to be that we ought to be like the prodigal and return to our home. But, the prodigal didn’t return until he was completely out of other options, and only returned so he wouldn’t have to starve. The point of the story is the father who hiked up his clothes and ran to meet his son BEFORE his son said a word. The generous farmer is the same. We focus on the fact that even the last workers to arrive did something. The real point is the ridiculous generosity of the farmer, paying everyone the same simply because he wanted to. The Good Samaritan: we read this and think the message is we ought to not be like the priest and Levite who stepped around the guy, and be like the Samaritan. We are actually the dude on the ground, unable to do anything for himself. Jesus is the Samaritan, putting himself at risk by rescuing someone who is from a group of people that hate him.
So, my point is that Jesus ministry was about showing how incapable we are to earn God’s favor, and that we don’t have to earn it because Jesus came on God’s behalf to show us how stupidly generous and loving God is. Yes, unkleE is right, you can still choose to say to God “Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll take my own road.” I guess I don’t believe so much that God “punishes” you for that as much as he simply allows you to make the choice of living apart from his tangible presence. To Jesus, who is God and knows the incredible joy of God’s presence, this thought was an unimaginable horror. Thus, the references to Gehenna.
I know you’ll have a hundred counterpoints. And I’ll not muck up the comment section anymore here. I’ll just leave it there.
LikeLike
Josh, you keep saying “tangible.” I’m not sure you know what that means.
And Unklee, you say that we’re making assumptions about what the bible ought to be or what god ought to have done. I’m not sure that statement is perfectly accurate. The bible makes some pretty bold claims. It makes claims of things that I’ve never witnessed and claims of things that if any other book or person made, I (and likely the majority of us) would be very skeptical of at the least.
I assume you don’t hold the koran in the same regard as the bible. Why? is it because you make assumptions about how many books god would provide, or on how his sequel would appear? I don’t think so. Based on its claims and source and everything else you know, you’re able to dismiss that book with good reason.
Similarly, the bible doesnt even seem to agree on what the character of god is. You admit it has errors and contradictions in it (not unlike works of man). And man has written every other book we have without god’s inspiration, why is the bible different?
And to say that because people who were not raised as Christians but still converted to Christianity is some sort of evidence of its divinity isnt perfectly accurate either. We can point to the Christians who are converting to Islam or some other faith. We can point to people like nate who were once devout Christians (of one form or another) who left it to be non-religious.
If anything, all this is evidence for is that religion is complex and murky as are people.
LikeLike
William, let me just stick to what I said for now.
“The bible makes some pretty bold claims.”
My point was that it doesn’t make the claim to be inerrant. So if Nate or you assume that it “ought” to be and judge it accordingly, then you are not judging it on its own terms.
“And man has written every other book we have without god’s inspiration, why is the bible different?”
I believe it is inspired, and said so when Nate asked me a specific question, but I don’t ask you to start from that belief. I suggest you treat it as if it’s not different, as a bunch of historical documents, without any assumption of inspiration. Then you will hopefully not be in the mindset of if “it’s not inerrant then it’s not anything”.
“And to say that because people who were not raised as Christians but still converted to Christianity is some sort of evidence of its divinity”
I didn’t say that, or anything like it, you are reading something foreign into what I said. Check back. Nate asked me a question about whether the Bible was necessary to know Jesus. I said not necessary though helpful, and gave examples. No other claim.
I’m sorry, but you have taken my answers to specific question from Nate, and interpreted them to say things I didn’t say. Thanks for your interest, but we need to be on the same page before we can move forwards. Best wishes.
LikeLike
William, you make some good points. If you look at all the studies being done on the growth rates of World Religions, Islam will surpass Christianity in 14 to 44 years. Does this mean that Islam is right and Christianity is wrong ? As far as unkleE’s comments about the Missionary story, when I used to belong to a Church , my Pastor would caution visiting Missionaries to tone their stories down and at least make them sound believable. I still believe in a Creator of the Big Bang (cause & effect) but I can no longer buy into the stories shared here on this site with an open mind. And yet….I will always be fascinated by the stories of the “Ancients” I still read the Bible often, but without the rose colored glasses.
LikeLike
UInklee: “Again, I don’t think its so black and white. (1) I know a couple, not raised as christians, who felt, after a series of slightly strange events, that God was communicating with them. So they read up on all the religions and decided that the God of Jesus seemed like the one they were in contact with. They are now Quakers. (2) Thousands of Muslims are becoming followers of Jesus (often without leaving Islam, which is more than just a religion to Muslims, because Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet) because of dreams and visions. (3) I had a friend who was a missionary/Bible translator in the Pacific region. He told me many years ago that the people he lived amongst had many dreams and visions until he translated the Bible, and then there were far less.
So God can and does communicate outside the Bible, and enough for people to choose to follow Jesus.”
I dont think I inferred too much outside of what you said. But either way, if you misspoke, or I misunderstood, i think i follow you now… I think.
But i’m still not following you on the assumption thing. I think I am treating the bible the same as every other book. If I’m making an assumption about it, it would be that there needs to be something pretty significant to support its outrageous claims. otherwise, to me, it looks like a book written by men, compiled by men, distributed and translated by men, just like many other works of literature. I see some truths in it, but I also see some problems in it – much like many other works of man. I have read many books where I haven’t seen contradictions inside that no one claims are from god.
To me, it looks like you’re not treating the bible equally with other books and texts. That’s why i asked if you’re making assumptions about the koran.
LikeLike
I’ll admit it. I’m a sucker for being called out 🙂
William – “Josh, you keep saying “tangible.” I’m not sure you know what that means.”
I know what tangible means. I was simply trying to create a word picture for you by using that term. Similar to how you keep typing that I “keep saying” things. I’m not actually “saying” anything – I’m typing. But, I know what you mean when you type that I’m “saying” things. It’s much easier to communicate if we don’t have to hold everyone to strictly literal communication.
LikeLike
I’m just going to make a broad statement to address some of what Josh and unkleE have said. Maybe it will help clear up my position.
First of all, yes, I think the punishment aspect of Christianity is a major factor. And unkleE made a comment recently that makes me think he and I are on the same page about this:
Now, unkleE and Josh don’t believe in eternal punishment, so much of what I write about won’t apply to them. I spend most of my time writing against fundamentalists, who definitely believe in a literal Hell.
I get the feeling that even if Josh doesn’t believe in the most literal form of Hell, he holds to the CS Lewis position that it’s a place of separation from God, which would supposedly be quite horrible, but at least it’s not like God is directly torturing people. I still think this is just as problematic as a literal fire-and-brimstone Hell for many reasons. One, it implies that the best form of parenthood is to hide from your child the moment they’re born, since God “in his mercy” hides so well from us that we can question his very existence. Speaking as a father, that’s utter hogwash. Secondly, it’s problematic in that God still set up this form of punishment, when he didn’t have to do things that way. But to keep from getting too off-track, I’ll leave it there for now.
Next point: unkleE also said this:
My response to Jesus is that I don’t believe in him. As far as I can tell, that is responding rightly to him. Maybe there are people that have had direct experiences with the divine or supernatural, but I’m not one of them. Until I have the same kind of experience, I’m not going to believe in Christianity, because all the other lines of evidence that are available to me fall far short. At least, that’s how I see them.
LikeLike
Josh, i get your point. Again, i should probably apologize for my tone… I’m a jerk sometimes… But still, referring to a point someone has made by saying or typing that that “said” or “typed,” while subtly different, doesnt change the discussion.
while claiming such things are “tangible” when describing things that are literally the exact opposite of “tangible” is incorrect and, at least in my mind, makes the discussion invalid and maybe even pointless if we can claim incorrect notions are true just because…
LikeLike