As some of you know, one of the problems (one of many) that resulted in my de-conversion from Evangelical/Fundamental Christianity was my inability to reconcile the Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement with any viable concept of justice. In other words, to punish an innocent party in the place of a guilty party is a miscarriage of justice. Yet, I am convinced that the Bible or at least Paul and Peter in the New Testament teach PST as the truth. I have studied this matter for many years and have yet to find any convincing answer.
Recently, I became aware of a book entitled: Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution by Steve Jeffrey, Michael Ovey and Andrew Sach. Its one of the most complete treatments of the subject that I have ever read. I would like to comment on many parts of the book but let me “cut to the chase” and deal with their explanation of the problem of PST and justice. They cover this in Chapter 10 (pp. 240-278).
Here are their answers:
1. The Bible does not share the concern of those who think PST is unjust. They cite 1 Peter 2:23-24 and Romans 3:25 as proof (p. 242).
I am sorry but this is not an answer to the problem. First, unless one apriori accepts the Bible as the Word of God, then this argument means nothing. Second, there are passages in the Bible which clearly teach that the innocent are not to be punished in the place of the guilty. For example: Deuteronomy 24:16, Proverbs 17:15, Jeremiah 31:29-30 and Ezekiel 18. The authors of Pierced make an attempt to answer this problem by stating that the circumstances involved in the above passages are much different than the general rule that the innocent cannot suffer for the guilty. They don’t really elaborate, however, on how the circumstances differ and why this is apparently an exception to the general rule(p. 247).
2. The doctrine of the believer’s “union with Christ” solves the dilemma.
They write: The believer is not separate from Christ, an unrelated third party. He is in us, and we are in him, indwelt by his Spirit. . . . The doctrine of penal substitution thus does not propose a transfer of guilt between unrelated persons. It asserts that guilt is transferred to Christ from those who are united to him (p. 243).
In other words, the Calvinist view of imputation solves the dilemma for them. I again do not find this convincing.
First, it demands that the Calvinist view of sin and salvation be the one and only true view. We all know that a great number of Christians throughout history have not held it be the true view.
Second, it may answer the problem for those who accept apriori that the Bible is the Word of God and are convinced that the Calvinist view of imputation is the correct one but it does little to convince a skeptic such as myself.
Third, it basically resorts to some type of "magic." In other words, the sins of mankind (or the elect) are magically or supernaturally transferred (i.e., imputed) to Christ and he is able to suffer the penalty in the place of the sinner. This may be convincing to someone who already accepts the idea of the supernatural or magic but it seems like a game of mental gymnastics to me. It is essentially saying: We don't really know how God could consider Christ as my genuine substitute but the Bible says it and therefore I must believe it. It is a mystery. After all, they would say, the Bible states: For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa. 55:8-9).
However, don't they also believe that man is made in the image of God and that man's sense of justice is derived from God? If this is true, then shouldn't PST seem intuitively just to man? Instead, to punish an innocent in the place of the guilty seems intuitively unjust.
So I remain a de-converted evangelical Christian who cannot understand how the death of an innocent person in the place of a guilty person could be called justice. BTW, I have a number of other problems with PST that I will share as time goes forward.
I think the major disconnect is that it is not just, it is merciful. God's justice demands that the punishment fit the crime, His wrath demands the punishment be fulfilled, but His mercy is what allows the substitution of the innocent for the guilty.
ReplyDeleteThat is the entire point of grace, namely that we are given mercy we do NOT deserve which is why it is mercy instead of justice. God's wrath is satisfied, and His justice is tinged with mercy. That should make more sense of Romans as a whole (which the book you refer to misses the point of) and fits within the OT concept of justice, mercy, and wrath.
- Jaltus
What a bizarre notion of justice and mercy. When I was an evangelical, I would have said the same thing, but it makes a mockery out of both concepts.
ReplyDeleteSubstitutionary atonement as a concept requires that the "other" who bears the burden is somehow dehumanized -- ironically in either the direction of being less than human or more than human. When the victim is a sacrificial animal, SA rests on our ancestoral ignorance and cruelty that deny that our brain structures which experience pain and contentment are essentially the same as other animals. With a god sacrifice, the arguments vary but none of them activate the kind of intolerable empathic response that would get activated if the substitution figure were truly human. Else, the God who demands the sacrifice would be experienced as a monster.
This kind of mercy is me-centric. I experience it as mercy because it is less bad for me even though it is at the expense of another sentient being (either real or imagined.)
Substitutionary Atonement calls out one of my biggest moral problems with Christianity -- it actually damages and distorts the moral emotions, in particular empathy and guilt.
Jaltus,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. You said: "I think the major disconnect is that it is not just, it is merciful. God's justice demands that the punishment fit the crime, His wrath demands the punishment be fulfilled, but His mercy is what allows the substitution of the innocent for the guilty."
Okay, but the question remains how is “right”, “just,” “equitable,” whatever term you want to use, for the innocent to be substituted and punished in place of the guilty. You say its mercy but is it “just”?
You also said: "That is the entire point of grace, namely that we are given mercy we do NOT deserve which is why it is mercy instead of justice. God's wrath is satisfied, and His justice is tinged with mercy. That should make more sense of Romans as a whole (which the book you refer to misses the point of) and fits within the OT concept of justice, mercy, and wrath."
I understand that according to evangelical theology, if we were given “justice,” we would all suffer eternal death. So from man’s standpoint, it is mercy. From God’s standpoint, though, it still has to be just or else he becomes an unjust God. So the question is: Is God just to punish an innocent in place of a guilty one, even if it is a demonstration of mercy?
Even CHRISTIANS have questioned such a view of "salvation" See especially this entry from Chrisendom (a blog by a theology graduate and popular biblioblogger--easy to recall and look up by dropping the "t" in Christendom):
ReplyDelete"Gorringe on Salvation by Chris at Chrisendom
"Today I picked up a copy of Tim Gorringe’s little book, Salvation, in the ‘Thinking Things Through’ series. What a wonderful, stimulating, thought-provoking read. The first part is essentially, and rather uniquely, a script in which Gorringe presents two main characters: Rebecca, an evangelical, and Tom, an agnostic. Their discussions get right to the heart of issues with remarkable economy for such a genre, and each chapter ends with excellently worded ‘questions for discussion‘. I am really enjoying this little gem.
"Gorringe used to lead one of my seminar groups in St Andrews, but at the time I was living in a very small theological world and thought the man a screaming heretic! Well, maybe not heretic, but I didn’t like the fact he didn’t live in my “individual sin-penal atonement-personal faith alone-heaven” schema. This book, among other things, helps shows why precisely that schema is inadequate!"
See the comments as well!
http://www.christilling.de/blog/2008/05/gorringe-on-salvation.html
It's great to see an intelligent new blog out here from a former apologist. Keep it up.
ReplyDeleteKen,
ReplyDeleteGlad you started this blog and posted such a central and thought-provoking initial article. Good, careful thought on the reply to Jaltus. As a point of interest, the logical flaws and questionable morality of substitution theory may have been one reason Docetism, and its more extreme expression in some types of Gnosticism arose so quickly, probably within 50-70 years of the crucifixion, at least by Evangelical early dating of NT books, and certainly within 90-100 years.
Another point I hope you elaborate eventually, that I feel is crucial is your brush of the issue of different NT theologies. It is highly questionable if James and the earliest Jewish Jesus followers, including Peter (assuming he did NOT author the epistles bearing his name, as evidence suggests), even thought of Jesus as ANY kind of substitute or world-savior. There's a marginal/murky (at least unclear to ME) area in thought of that day in which a martyr died "for" his people, or as a literal but not metaphysical substitute, perhaps.... I'd love more enlightenment on it, if you or a reader has more detail. In this thinking, Jesus supposed resurrection, though more metaphysical than bodily probably to them, was a vindication, and not a proof of divinity, nor of his spiritual world-savior role... they still expected the establishment of an earthly Kindgom of God, via Israel, and touching the rest of the world that way.
Sorry, I just posted as "naturalspirituality" and forgot it wouldn't give my name....
ReplyDeleteHoward Pepper
Ken:
ReplyDeleteGreat first post. I think the question of the justness of Jesus' death is a significant issue for many former believers, and for believers who are working through some doubts. I'm looking forward to reading more of your insights re: biblical and theological studies.
Penal substitution is a doctrine devoid of beauty. It pictures God as an accountant who devises a way to balance mercy and justice in the divine ledger. It's all legal, transactional ... in other words, sterile. Everything is based on "positional" and "forensic" realities that only a lawyer could appreciate.
ReplyDeleteIt also knocks forgiveness out of the picture. Say a landlord is ready to kick out a delinquent tenant, but a rich stranger steps in to pay the rent. In such a scenario, the landlord doesn't forgive the tenant. There's no pardon. He just exacts payment from someone else. That's penal substitution. Based on that theory, God remits nothing.
Thanks for this.
ReplyDeleteMy doubts with Christianity started with seriously considering this theology. It makes no sense to me and only allowed me justification for self-hatred.
Good stuff! Will you be pursuing the philosophical stuff in the main?
ReplyDeleteI agree. The substitutionary stuff is a mess. It starts with ancient plant, animal and human sacrifice, as sort of a payoff to the big angry god in the sky. A bribe. But as the historical emphasis shifted from categorical obedience to deontological morality, what was once a question of making practical amends took on this weird existential quality. Finally, it became a question of judging humans against an archetypal 'perfection', making everybody failures, and requiring a magical substitution to make things right.
Ron, you said "God's justice demands that the punishment fit the crime..." What's justice in levying an everlasting punishment against a finite crime, particularly when all crimes proceed from a flawed 'moral heritage' that we were born with? And it's God's 'wrath' that fuels His need for punishment. Put that attitude in a man, and see how it plays in the court of public opinion.
Anyway, greetings, and nice first post. Thumbs up!
SteveJ,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "It also knocks forgiveness out of the picture. Say a landlord is ready to kick out a delinquent tenant, but a rich stranger steps in to pay the rent. In such a scenario, the landlord doesn't forgive the tenant. There's no pardon. He just exacts payment from someone else. That's penal substitution. Based on that theory, God remits nothing."
I agree completely.
Thanks for making the segueway for me into my next post: "Penal Substitutionary Atonement Eliminates True Forgiveness."
I've read both your articles and find they pose a very good and interesting question and I thank you for giving food for thought.
ReplyDeleteI present to you my response the springs from this quote by SteveJ,
"It also knocks forgiveness out of the picture. Say a landlord is ready to kick out a delinquent tenant, but a rich stranger steps in to pay the rent. In such a scenario, the landlord doesn't forgive the tenant. There's no pardon. He just exacts payment from someone else. That's penal substitution. Based on that theory, God remits nothing."
But when it comes to the atonement, isn't the Landlord also the rich stranger?
Let's look at it this way:
The landlord is ready to kick out the delinquent tenant. The landlord sees the tenant is incapable of paying his debt and so decides from mercy not to demand that the tenant pay the debt at great cost to himself, forgiving the debt. He loses out on the rent but gains from the gratitude given by the tenant.
I also think that part of the problem comes with combining what are essentially different elements:
1) Jesus' fulfilling of the law
2) Reconciliation between God & man
Afterall, it is mankinds failure to keep the law which resulted in estrangement from God (sin) and a tendancy to estrange oneself and remain estranged from God (sinfulness).
As God is the source of life, the inevitable end result is death. It is a natural consequence of estrangement from God. Thus, in order to prolong life, the life of another must be given as forfeit. Is this fair when the life is that of an innocent? By no means, but the fault lies with mankind, not with God.
The life of an animal is not sufficient to preserve life as the life of an animal is not of equal measure to that of a human. Similarly to how if you had a blood transfusion for a disease that involved the eventual complete replacing of the blood in your body, animal blood would not be sufficient as a permanant solution.
So, throughout His life and death Jesus, was able to fulfill the law in place of the rest of us, re-opening the channel between God & mankind. Also as a representative of mankind, His death would be sufficient to restore life to mankind. Being God, His life is more than enough to account for the whole of humanity.
Being guiltless, being God and having restored the possibility for life, He rose from the dead. Having fulfilled the law, He removed the debt imposed upon mankind. Thus, man was free to be reconciled to God by accepting His offer to join His family.
Now, for those who do not accept, they are refusing to be reconciled to God and incurring a fresh debt upon their heads. As we already know, it is inevitable that estrangement from God leads to death and once they die in this estrangement, they will have no choice but to repay the debt they have incurred. God's complete judgement and justice will fall upon them as they find themselves estranged from Him forever, without life, without light, without purpose, without meaning. Utterly useless and abandoned.
But God will still suffer loss for is indeed a debt those who are estranged then will never be able to repay themselves. God instead will pay the price alongside them by watching them eternally in torment. In a sense, He will share in their suffering alongside them even though He will be far removed from them.
Thankyou for reading :)
Mr Stizzy:
ReplyDelete"the fault lies with mankind, not with God"
In what way? Exactly what was I guilty of when I was born? If I enacted justice with my kids the way you say God does, then I would have been locked up a long time ago, and rightly so.
"God instead will pay the price alongside them by watching them eternally in torment"
This would be laughable if it wasn't so macabre. Sports fans watch athletes suffer all the time but no one in their right minds would suggest that they suffer alongside them except in the most superficial way. Furthermore, we're not talking about a bit of short-term pain but eternal torment. Imagine God attempting to comfort someone in hell by telling them how much he was suffering with them. I would expect that person to angrily suggest that God could just end the whole thing since he is the one who created it all and "sustains it with his mighty hand."
Jaltus:
I think you're missing the point. It would be very nice of God to have mercy, but what I can't seem to fathom is how Jesus' suffering and death satisfies God's sense of justice. Why can't God have mercy without killing anyone?
Thanks for your response Matt,
ReplyDelete"In what way?"
It is the choices made by mankind that estrange Him from God and therefore leave him in a position where he will inevitably perish. How can the fault lie with anyone other than mankind? Is God to blame for the choices we make?
"Exactly what was I guilty of when I was born?"
Who said you were guilty of anything when you were born? Failure to keep the law leads one into estrangement from God, but failure to keep the law requires an understanding of the law or of right and wrong. If you were unaware of such concepts when you were born, how can you be guilty of anything? Now things are different, can you say you've never done anything wrong?
"If I enacted justice with my kids the way you say God does, then I would have been locked up a long time ago, and rightly so."
So if your child was fully responsible and capable of living within the rules you've set for your household and refused to and as a result you kicked them out and left them to fend for themselves, you would have been locked up? Because we see this happen constantly and I don't see people criticising the parents or locking them up ;)
"Sports fans watch athletes suffer all the time but no one in their right minds would suggest that they suffer alongside them except in the most superficial way."
How you can compare spectators to a Parent is beyond me.
"Furthermore, we're not talking about a bit of short-term pain but eternal torment."
You don't say.
"Imagine God attempting to comfort someone in hell by telling them how much he was suffering with them."
Who said He's going to comfort them? They've chosen an existence without Him and that's exactly what they'll get.
"I would expect that person to angrily suggest that God could just end the whole thing since he is the one who created it all and "sustains it with his mighty hand." "
Well seeing as they've chosen an existence without Him and God will no longer intervene in any way, I imagine He won't just "end the whole thing" as that would be God acting and they've made it clear they don't want God to have anything to do with them.
Mr. Stizzy,
ReplyDeleteI struggle to understand your morality.
I was born with the stain of sin which prevents me from keeping God's law and therfore any free will I am provided is rendered impotent? Is that what you are saying? If I have free will to disobey god then where is his omipotence? If I don't have free-will and am predestined to disobey God then where is his goodness? It sounds like the physically abusive and hyper-religious household in which I was raised. It doesn't sound anything like a haevenly perspective to me.
God is choosing to maintain a system of justice where humans are guilty by design due to the inability of two people to follow orders in a garden 6,000 years ago. Orders he violated himself by allowing sinful temptation to enter the garden in the form of the serpant.
I will allow this worldview to primitive people whose understanding of life is short and brutish but, for modern people to embrace this seems ignorant at best and sado-mashocistic at worse.
That is not justice, that is authorarian rule driven by fear and abuse.
The above description sounds nothig like love or compassion to me.
@ Chuck O'Connor
ReplyDeleteI actually struggle to understand how you've drawn your conclusions from what I said.
I would put it this way. We tend to follow the pattern of our parents. Therefore, if our parents are estranged from God already, it is logical that we will be born leaning in that direction and eventually choose to go in that direction.
How is free will rendered impotent if you choose this?
The word "omnipotent" does not appear in scripture. The closest term to it is "all mighty" Now what this means is that God can do whatever He determines to do and He determines for us to have free-will, therefore us exercising free will is not contrary to His omnipotence.
Humans are not guilty by design, where did you get that idea? The sad matter of fact is that when it comes to sin, most of us start off bad and this indeed is not our fault. HOWEVER, what we make of this bad start and how we end up IS our choice and therefore if we have the chance to get out of this and choose not to, whose fault is it now?
How did God violate His orders by allowing the serpent to tempt Adam & Eve? HE gave the commandment to THEM not Himself. It was down to them to make sure none of the animals acted up and it was down to them not to eat the fruit. God gave them responsibility and it is THEY who chose not to uphold it.
Can you please define "primitive"? Many people throw this term around and it seems they don't actually even know what it means when they say it so what is your idea of primitive?
Do you know enough about life to judge anothers understanding of life? What do you measure it up against?
What does the one who is reconciled to God have to fear? And how is the one who has given themselves over to chance and an inevitable fate of destruction being abused?
What does love and compassion sound like to you?
Mr. Stizzy I am confused by the following.
ReplyDeleteYou said, "I would put it this way. We tend to follow the pattern of our parents. Therefore, if our parents are estranged from God already, it is logical that we will be born leaning in that direction and eventually choose to go in that direction."
This seems to base justice on a presumption of guilt due to hereditary (sounds an awful lot like eugenics to me). I find that immoral. If your argument is then supported by God knowing more than me then I wonder why he would choose an ethical standard beneath a human definition of justice.
Free will may not be rendered impotent but any standard of justice that operates from this premise does not seem enlightened or fair.
You also said, "The sad matter of fact is that when it comes to sin, most of us start off bad and this indeed is not our fault. HOWEVER, what we make of this bad start and how we end up IS our choice and therefore if we have the chance to get out of this and choose not to, whose fault is it now?"
If we start off bad because we are designed that way (I assume you believe in Original Sin) then doesn't the problem of moral decline then rest with the designer? If I can't but sin why am I held guilty for that which I did not choose?
My definition of primitive would be a people whose scope of naturalistic investigation motivates them to assign supernatural causality to phenemenom better explained by natural observation (e.g. A volcano erupts because the gods are angry).
I believe I know enough about life to understand that Christian morality by observation glorifies guilty presumption and an authoritarian system.
Love and compassion to me would be unconditinal acceptance simply for being and not defined by an exclusive spiritual econcomy. Face it, in your theology Ted Bundy is enjoying Heaven because he accetped Christ with James Dobson while Ghandi is writhing in Hell because he didn't. That conclusion seems to be an object lesson in primitive thought and morality.
"This seems to base justice on a presumption of guilt due to hereditary (sounds an awful lot like eugenics to me). I find that immoral. If your argument is then supported by God knowing more than me then I wonder why he would choose an ethical standard beneath a human definition of justice."
ReplyDeleteYou are mistaken, I suggest you read again what I said more thoroughly.
"We tend to follow the pattern of our parents. Therefore, if our parents are estranged from God already, it is logical that we will be born leaning in that direction and eventually choose to go in that direction."
This is not guilt by hereditry, this is us copying bad habits. Now indeed if we are ignorant that these habits are bad and our parents don't inform us, this is not our fault but I am certain that at some point we do become aware and if we continue in these bad habits in spite of that, the guilt is now upon us.
"If we start off bad because we are designed that way (I assume you believe in Original Sin) then doesn't the problem of moral decline then rest with the designer?"
This is a false premise. I did not in any way say or indicate that we are "designed" to start off bad. From what I said before, we are born into or inherit a bad situation. Yet when God created the first man and woman, they were not created with that situation, so how can the fault be with the designer?
"If I can't but sin why am I held guilty for that which I did not choose?"
But you are capable of not sinning and we all choose to.
"My definition of primitive would be a people whose scope of naturalistic investigation motivates them to assign supernatural causality to phenemenom better explained by natural observation (e.g. A volcano erupts because the gods are angry)."
And who did this in the Bible?
"Love and compassion to me would be unconditinal acceptance simply for being and not defined by an exclusive spiritual econcomy."
But see this doesn't seem to gel with what you say following. If love and compassion should be unconditional acceptance, what is wrong with Ted Bundy enjoying Heaven?
"Face it, in your theology Ted Bundy is enjoying Heaven because he accetped Christ with James Dobson while Ghandi is writhing in Hell because he didn't."
God knows the hearts of men and therefore he knows whether one has truly turned to Him or not. It is not for us to say who is in Heaven and who isn't.
Whatever good we do in life is irrelevant if we are not reconciled with the source of life itself.
If you are out in the cold, rubbing your hands together will only generate so much heat for so much time and not near enough to keep you warm. And once you are unable to keep warm anymore, the likelyhood is you will perish in the cold.
Btw, what do you believe Ted Bundy deserved?
Mr. Stizzy,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "This is not guilt by hereditry, this is us copying bad habits. Now indeed if we are ignorant that these habits are bad and our parents don't inform us, this is not our fault but I am certain that at some point we do become aware and if we continue in these bad habits in spite of that, the guilt is now upon us."
Mr. Stizzy, here is a real-world example of why your premise is flawed. Both of my parents are alcoholic. Both of their parents where alcoholic. I am not. I chose therapy (not Jesus) to deal with the problem of alcoholism and have been spared the horrors of that habit. Your Biblical world-view presumes too much for it to be a moral claim.
You also said, "This is a false premise. I did not in any way say or indicate that we are "designed" to start off bad. From what I said before, we are born into or inherit a bad situation. Yet when God created the first man and woman, they were not created with that situation, so how can the fault be with the designer?"
So you don't believe in Original Sin or Total Depravity? Then why do I need a savior God? If my destruction isn't tied to these theological concepts then your salvation theology is meaningless. If my destruction is tied to these theological concepts then I was created to fail. A creator who creates his creation to fail is not good or holy.
"But you are capable of not sinning and we all choose to."
If I am capable of not sinning why then do I need God? Do you see how the coherence drains from your worldview. Your fear of Hell is keeping you from thinking logically or having an intelligent ethic. Again, you presume I am going to sin because your holy book says so and therfore I am condemned before the fact. Maybe I am the one guy who has not sinned.
"And who did this in the Bible?"
You do this with the bible. I am not making the case that the bible is history. It is the product of primitive minds who did not understand the unknown so they filled these gaps with myth which you take as theology. Your theology continues the worship of this "god of the gaps" by making self-contradicting moral assertions that rely on fear as their basis of fact.
"But see this doesn't seem to gel with what you say following. If love and compassion should be unconditional acceptance, what is wrong with Ted Bundy enjoying Heaven?"
Nothing is wrong with Ted Bundy enjoying Heaven but don't take my idea out of context. Your worldview is wrong if it grants Heaven to a serial killer for praying a prayer while it condemns to Hell a man who sought human rights. Again, your explanation of its coherence in appealing to they mystery of god is further evidence of your primitive mind and superstition. Your morality does not hold a feasible center when illustrated by the inequity of Bundy's salvation relative to Ghandi's condemnation.
"Btw, what do you believe Ted Bundy deserved?"
I believe Mr. Bundy was mentally ill and ultimately served his own narcissistic fears and desires which, I see you doing as well.
Chuck said, "So you don't believe in Original Sin or Total Depravity? Then why do I need a savior God? If my destruction isn't tied to these theological concepts then your salvation theology is meaningless. If my destruction is tied to these theological concepts then I was created to fail. A creator who creates his creation to fail is not good or holy."
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe anyone would make this argument because it is irrational.
The fact is that God cannot create another God. God is infinitely Good and if God created another infinitely Good, there would be no way to tell the difference between them. If A=A, God would simply still be Himself.
The fact is that God can only create finite creatures who then can participate in His nature. If God wanted to share his love with us, then we would need free will in order to receive it.
The fact is that in order for love to exist, God can only create finite creatures with free will who choose to participate in the life of God.
God didn't create something bad; rather, God created the possibility of the greatest good being the exchange and sharing of love. The fact that man rejected the love of God is of no consequence because a path has been provided by which you can choose to enter the love of God through the work of Christ Jesus.
ZDENNY,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "I find it hard to believe anyone would make this argument because it is irrational."
You are going to have to propose the rationality of your premise of an invisible creator god for me to gain anything from your criticism.
Chuck:
ReplyDeleteWhat is more real, a tree or the cells that make up the tree?
What is more real, a cell or the atoms that make up the cell.
What is more real, the atoms or the sub-atomic particles that make up the atom.
We also know that sub-atomic particles can be broken down even further; however, we cannot see this world.
In other words, our reality is based on an invisible world that we cannot see and this is just as real as the tree itself.
When Christians argue that God Himself sustains the Creation, based on the evidence, this is the best explanation based on the empirically verified resurrection of Jesus Christ as well as the predictions in Genesis that have been confirmed in science
Christianity is rational and certainly has more evidence than what you are proposing which is blind faith and dogma.
ZDENNY,
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Christianity is rational and certainly has more evidence than what you are proposing which is blind faith and dogma."
Keep saying it Z. I'm sure you feel good about your conclusions. You look and sound far from rational to me.
Cells, atoms, sub-atomic particles etc . . . can be estimated for their reality via experimentation and/or observation.
Your ontological argument for god can be used for any unfalsifiable myth. Your argument for the resurrection has already been shown to be specious.
I have not shared my beliefs or world-view with you so you don't know what my morality is based on. What dogma and blind faith are you asserting? I am not an athetist. I do disagree with your worldview and find it highly arrogant, hateful and destructive. Its only benefit is to the believer who can luxuriate in the self-love he feels due to his salvation and eternal promise. It does nothing to practice compassion for people different than you nor, does it ever examine the core of its own beliefs for their rational meaning. You my friend are practicing projection when you propose I am a product of blind faith and dogma.
Chuck said, "I have not shared my beliefs or world-view with you so you don't know what my morality is based on."
ReplyDeleteActually I do know what your morality is based on. It is based on hopelessness and selfishness. All atheist live within a bubble of self and nothing of meaning exists outside that bubble. You have to confer meaning onto things otherwise what is outside your bubble is meaningless.
In fact, I am meaningless. PZ Meyers on his website advised that he plans to urinate on the grave of Clarence Thompson (Supreme Court Justice) when he dies.
You see, PZ Meyers does not believe that people who oppose him or disagree with him have any worth. All men oppose to his agenda are dirt and to be treated as dirt because that is all they really are.
We know that sub-atomic particles are supported by something else because their are over 55 different sub-atomic particles. In other words, they can be broken down even further; however, they don't know how. The fact is that all science believes that reality has an invisible reality and this reality is just as real if not more real than the reality we experience.
You wanted justification for something that is invisible and the justification is given by science itself.
In all my experience in dealing with Atheist, I have only felt anger and hatred. The only people I have ever felt love from are those who are mature Christians who know the love of God. In fact, Christians are the only ones who talk about love. Atheist talk about sex and Muslims talk about obedience...only Christianity talks about love as being real and something willing to sacrifice your selfish desires for.
Christianity is rational and the only rational belief system that exists. By your own admission, you believe ignorance is better than forming a belief about reality so you can wallow in your ignorance. It is your choice.
Z,
ReplyDeleteI am not an atheist.
Your claims to knowledge of me show your ignorance. I feel sorry for you. You seem scared and small. Most people who need others to agree with them are.
Be good to yourself. I hope you mature emotionally and realize that your beliefs can be your beliefs whether I find them silly or not.
Your name calling does not convince me you hold rare insight but it does make me consider your sanity.
Peace to you.
I know your not an atheist. Atheist like to call themselves agnostic atheists now... I always find that funny because agnostic means ignorant. You have a bunch of people running around calling themselves ignorant atheist. It is comical!
ReplyDeleteJust keep in mind that you are a Theist and just call God nature. All atheists are Theist who believe that God created the world using evolution. However, rather than use the name God, they use the word Nature.
At one point, you probably already know this. The only reason to reject a Theistic worldview is for moral reasons which proves that the Bible is once again correct in its predictions.
God Bless,
I agree that penal substitution gives God a bad name.
ReplyDeleteMy take is: I do not think the New Testament or Paul teach it.
I believe what has happened is that we have had the idea of penal substitution so ingrained into our heads that we project this understanding onto the biblical text when we read, rather that healing what the authors really are saying.
The early church for first 1000 years did not believe in penal substitution, and in fact one can find statements among the church fathers where they outright reject the idea. So if they did not have this idea, and it is one that really first comes along with Calvin - either no Christian got it right for more than a thousand years, or Calvn is full of it. I go with the later.
Z D Kenny,
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian I find your tone and epistemological assumptions embarrasing. If all you feel is anger smf hstred when you encoutner Aetheists then maybe you should consult the Gospel. It actually shares a message of humble love and putting others first. I know crazy isnt it?
Maybe you need to consult some of the Aetheists I know. Far more graceful that you.
Stan
I would suggest that we ignore the rantings of people like ZDenny. There will always be people like him who show up here. Its best to ignore them. Let them claim victory or that they have refuted us or whatever they desire to say.
ReplyDeleteI would prefer to keep the discussion at a higher level.
Anthony, you should not confuse confidence for a lack of humility. Christ was extremely confident; yet, He was humble.
ReplyDeleteWow, too many comments to keep up (I have a rather full schedule).
ReplyDeleteIf one plans on critiquing the Christian system from inside, then one must actually stick to the Christian God. He is just, merciful, loving, wrahtful, etc. All of those characteristics must be kept in some sort of tension.
God's justice is balanced by mercy, not canceled by it.
I will say one other thing, though, and that is that penal substitution theory, while what most Evangelicals hold ot, is certainly not the only or even the primary concept of redemption explicated in Scripture.
- Jaltus