Sunday, December 10, 2006
Green v. AG - Round V [part ii]: Halfway Home
To: American Guy
From: Green
Sent: June 3, 2003
Subject: Evolution, Heaven, Hell and the Bible
AG:
I’m a thinking person and I am in fact arguing against evolution. You say we evolved because we needed to adapt. Adapt to what? You use a giraffe as your example, stating that it evolved a long neck in order to eat leaves in high places. And you’ve frequently referred to the fossil record as evidence of your claims in favor of evolution. So it would follow from your example that science has fossil evidence of giraffes without long necks? How can we be sure that those creatures are giraffes and not some other animal? Seems like having a long neck would be a great advantage to other plant eating animals besides your giraffe. So why isn’t there a wider variety of animals out there with long necks? Humans, you say, have evolved a consciousness and highly sophisticated brain because it gave us a survival advantage. Why then are humans the only creatures to evolve consciences? Other creatures seem to have survived quite nicely without consciences and many other creatures have much less developed brains than humans do and seem to get along well enough. Certainly I’ll agree that humans are able to out-think animals, much to our advantage. Was there ever a time that can be definitively proven that humans could not out-think a tiger or other animals in general? Do we have any physical evidence of humans without consciences or lesser developed brains?
Let me jump ahead to the eye argument for a bit. The authors have, in fact, made a credible argument, using the human eye as an example. But go to the root of their argument: at some point, according to evolution, there must have been creatures without eyes, right? If a creature didn’t have an eye to start with, how would it know that it needed one? Could it have developed an eye, even a very rudimentary one, without some sort of model or pattern of an eye that came before it? In order to adapt, (unless I’m way off base in my understanding of the meaning of adaptation), there must have been some precedent to go by that would tell it that some part of it was inadequate and that it needed to change in order to survive. And why is it, then that there are many different kinds of eyes? So, logically, you’re implying that science has discovered some humans with lesser developed (or even rudimentary) eyes, otherwise how could the human eye have adapted into its present form? And that’s just looking at the physical side of things.
Now back to the end of the previous thought: I’ll use the same argument for the conscience. How could we evolve such a thing when there is no other creature in existence who has one. How did humans know that a non physical entity like a conscience was needed to survive before we knew what one was, and how did we ever survive without one? Evolution, as you present the case, loses credibility quickly, because you’re assigning intelligence to simple creatures who couldn’t possibly have much of it. Whatever creature first came up with the idea of an eye really must have been on the ball that day (or however long it took) to not only think of the idea, but to know what it would take to make it function properly. Unless, of course, you’re willing to concede to the existence of a higher intelligence (God), who created each creature with precisely what it needed to survive in its given environment. Come to think of it, why couldn’t humans have evolved a third hand? There certainly is a precedent to go by (in that we already have two hands to use as a model for a third) and there are many times when a third hand would come in, well, handy. I know I could use a third hand most of the time in order to pick up after the messes my kids leave behind. ;>)
I’d love to know where to find the published scientific data that proves evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Interesting reading, I’m sure.
I don’t personally know any Native American creation stories, so I can’t say that I either agree or disagree with them in part or in full. Chances are I’d probably agree with some aspects of them and reject other parts of them. And no, I don’t have a problem with those stories being taught, whether as a science or mythology. I do think it’s important that a wide range of subjects be made available to all students including those in the state of Mississippi, because more information is good, less information is bad. Ultimately, kids will make their own decisions as they grow as to what makes sense to them or not, and I’m not in a position to agree with what every kid will decide, nor am I able to make everyone believe as I do. (It’s more fun if people realize I’m right without my having to tell them so. ;>) ) All I can do is attempt to make a credible argument for why I believe the way I do and point out flaws where I see them and hope people will listen.
I’ll concede your points in regards to my argument using gravity as an example in that I can feel the effects of it when I trip or when I drop a coin. My point in using it as an example was this: I can deny the existence of gravity from now until the day I die, even though the evidence is there that it exists. It’s not something physical that can be held, and I certainly don’t fully understand how it works, but I’d lose credibility if I didn’t acknowledge it’s existence, and you’d rightly call me crazy for doing so. The same can be said for the existence of God, whom we can’t see. Yet the evidence for the existence of God is so overwhelming that credibility is lost in the denial.
I’ll also agree that fact can be proven and faith must be believed. But your faith can be grounded in facts. When you fall you have faith that gravity will cause you to hit the ground because the existence of gravity can be proven. We have faith that the sun will continue to rise each morning and set each evening (Yes, I know the sun doesn’t really rise or set but is based on the earth’s movements. You know what I mean, though - wise guy...), because it’s a given fact that it has done so without fail for a long time. I know there is a God, which is based both on faith and fact. I have faith that it is true, and that faith is grounded in fact, as I’ve been trying to demonstrate throughout. In case you’re interested, the Bible defines faith as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.” (Hebrews 11:1-2 NIV)
Am I saying that people who have never been exposed to Christianity are doomed for hell already? No. One of the consistent points that I’ve tried to make throughout is that there is enough evidence in nature that testifies to the existence of God (see Psalm 19) so that even people who have not been exposed to Christianity can’t deny that God exists. Also, the fact that God gave every human a conscience to know right from wrong is another example of the existence of God for people who have never been exposed to Christianity. (If there were no higher authority that we were all accountable to, then would there be such a thing as right and wrong? In fact, your definition of what is right and what is wrong may be drastically different from mine, if God didn’t exist. I feel confident however that we both have the same general idea in regard to right and wrong. Do we agree on all aspects, probably not) In a nutshell, yes, I feel confident that there will be people in heaven who have never been exposed to Christianity, but do believe in God. People of all nations are accountable not for what they don’t know about God (Jesus), but for what they do know and yet turn away from. Regardless, I’m happy that I don’t have to decide who’s in or not, and I have faith that God will take care of it.
“Here's another one, let's say for the sake of argument that Christianity as a religion dies out at some point in the future. If, for whatever reason, people stop believing in your god and lump him together with zeus and all the others, is the rest of humanity doomed to damnation, even those that believe in some type of 'new' monotheistic god, such as the pre-Christian Jews did?”
First of all, the pre-Christian Jews believed in the same God that I do. If the scenario you mention above were to happen, (which it won’t, I assure you) then what would it matter what I think? How can I accurately predict what would happen there, if people came up with a “new” monotheistic god, that hasn’t been invented yet? The question is unanswerable because the scenario is not plausible.
Jesus body: I’ll concede your point that after 2,000 years there wouldn’t be a body left to find because of decomposition, etc. etc. Not only do I go by the Bible’s version that the tomb was empty, but as I’ve stated before, I also use personal experience. I have been to Israel. I have walked the streets of Jerusalem and personally visited the two accepted sites where Jesus tomb could have been. Both empty. There is a place in Jerusalem where the Jews say King David is buried. There is a bier there and it is considered one of the holiest places in all of Israel and heavily guarded to this day. There are no bones to see, per se, but ask any Israelite and they’ll tell you that his remains are/were there at one time.
However, I digress: Picture yourself as living in first century Palestine. You’ve just witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion on the Roman cross. You’ve seen the body taken down, wrapped and placed in a tomb. For three days you go to the tomb, which is closed and guarded by Roman soldiers. On the fourth day you hear that the tomb is empty. You don’t believe it, so you go there and see for yourself. The stone is rolled away, the tomb is empty and the guards are gone. You wonder what could have happened. Then you hear that Jesus was seen alive, first by his disciples and then a few days later by as many as 500 people or so, some of whom you may know personally so you deem them as reliable witnesses. Forty days later you hear that Jesus is gone. Where did he go? Then you hear his disciples in the Temple telling the crowds that Jesus went back into heaven from whence he came? Do you believe it?
I give you that scenario to say this, which was my point from the start: Do you think that someone as popular as Jesus was, pre crucifixion, would just vanish from the public eye after being seen publicly, post-crucifixion, if He were still living on the earth? You see, people living in Jerusalem at that time knew where the tomb was: its location was not secret. It’s likely that there were a good number of people who probably heard Jesus, who many times claimed to be God, teaching in the Temple, and predicting his death and resurrection three days later, even before it happened. If after three days, the tomb was still closed and guarded, do you think the Christian movement would have even begun? Logically, you’d have to say no, and the historical Jesus would have been written off as a fraud and soon forgotten as a lunatic, possibly just a footnote in history, if even that. Never mind Jesus being regarded as a good moral teacher and founder of what would become a world wide religion. Never mind that the majority of the western world was founded on Christian principles. Even the mighty Roman Empire, which tried to stamp out the movement at its roots, succumbed when Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, before it collapsed. Also, consider that secular history records that all of Jesus disciples, except one, died for this cause that they believed in. Many other early Christians were persecuted to death solely for their beliefs, too and it still happens today in many countries. Would you be willing to die for something you knew to be a lie? I don’t think you would, and neither would I.
Briefly regarding the Jews: I said that their forefather Abraham was originally from what is now Iraq. God told him to move to Canaan, where he would make Abraham’s descendants as numerous as the sand on the seashore and as the stars in the sky. So he did, without question, because he had faith that what God told him was true. What were God’s reasons for telling Abraham to leave his homeland, other than to fulfill his promise to Abraham? I don’t know, because the Bible doesn’t definitively say. Perhaps it was a test of Abraham’s faith? Possibly.
Yes, I’m saying it was right for the Jews to kill the Caananites and all of the other non-believing peoples who lived in Palestine at that time. But there is only one reason why it was right, and that is because God allowed it by enabling the Jews to defeat these other heathen peoples, who, in most cases and under normal military circumstances would have been able to easily defeat the Jews they were fighting against.
Yes, this is the same argument that Osama and his crew use, but Osama and his crew do not have God’s divine permission to do what they are doing. Before you even raise the question - No! The God of the Bible and Allah, the god of Islam are not one and the same. If you like, next time I can outline for you briefly the differences between the two, based on what the Koran and the Bible teach.
I’ll also agree with you that this is the same argument that people use who kill doctors who perform abortions use and that this line of reasoning also is responsible for those reprehensible parts of history you mention. Are these people right in what they do or have done? No they are not. Yes, the doctors who murder unborn babies in abortions are sinning against God, because the commandment is Thou shall not kill, but the people who hold to that line of thinking miss that the Bible also teaches that judgment in this way is God’s responsibility (see Matthew 7:1-2 and Romans 2:1-16), not man’s.
I do spend a lot of time discussing the Bible, and well I should because it is the cornerstone of my faith. A good Christian should be familiar with what the Bible teaches. Common sense tells me that if I’m going to believe in something, whether it be Christianity or evolution or whatever, I’d better know enough about it to defend my beliefs. I’ve never said that you didn’t think that the Bible was a good book. And we do disagree about its origins and meanings. But I’ve got to ask you why you think it’s a good book. Would it be just as good of a book if it were known to have errors and contradictions in it?
Hypothetical question: What would I do if someone found an error in the Bible? If a mainstream church went on record and claimed there was an inaccuracy, large or small? No matter what, here’s what I’d do: First, I’d find out as much information about the church or group that claimed they’d found the error(s) and find out what kind of an organization they are, and what their basic beliefs are, so I can see what kind of reputation they have (have they made outrageous claims in the past, etc.) Second, I’d find out exactly what the error(s) were that they were claiming they’d found. Third, I’d pull out my Bible and Concordance and try to understand why they believe there to be an error, and reason it out for myself to see if what they are claiming makes sense to me. Fourth, I’d find out what the opinions are of pastors and authors whose viewpoints I’ve read and whose opinions I trust to be sound to see what they think about the proposed error(s). After all of that is done, then and only then would I decide if I should alter what I believe or not.
What if there is a major schism in the church that was so wide that it split the church? I won’t tell you it wouldn’t happen, because it has, many times throughout the history of the church (see Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation and the Anglican church of England breaking away from Roman Catholicism to name two examples.)
Fortunately for me, over the past 2+ millennia or so many people much smarter than myself have studied and wrote about this book we call the Bible and found it to be error free. (the last book of the New Testament was written in 95 AD and the last Old Testament book in that was written about 400 years before Christ). To be conservative, I’d give the early church about a century or so to compile the Bible as we know it today. So after all that time of being studied an analyzed, I can feel very confident that any error(s) would have been discovered by now.
It would stand to reason that you don’t think there would be Christians (or anyone else for that matter) in heaven, when you’ve stated previously that you don’t believe heaven exists. I’m telling you that everyone in heaven believed in the God of the Bible during their lifetime- pre Christian or Christian, and no one else. You say you have never heard a persuasive argument that heaven is real. The only credible place you’ll learn about heaven is the Bible. Using my trusty concordance, I can tell you that the word “heaven” is used 582 times, “heavenly” is used 23 times, “heaven’s” once and “heavens” 133 times, in the King James Version of the Bible. There are three types of heaven: the ‘aerial’, ‘sidereal’ (starry heavens) and ‘the eternal dwelling place of God’. Jesus uses some comparisons to describe heaven, in Matthew 13. Jesus clearly taught and believed in the existence of heaven. Since Christians believe Jesus came from there and went back there after His earthly incarnation, His description is the only credible one we can rely on.
Conversely, I mention hell, because Jesus taught about it more than He taught about heaven during His lifetime. Am I implying that you’re headed there because you don’t believe in my God (the God of the Bible) or the fact that Jesus is also God? As much as I hate to admit it, yes, because that is what the Bible teaches. Jesus made that fact very plain in His teaching. Does that statement turn you off? I’d say it probably does. If you don’t believe me, I invite you to check it out for yourself. If an organized church or just an individual person, Christian or not tells you otherwise, then they are plainly misinterpreting what the Bible says. And you don’t need to be a biblical scholar or even a Christian to understand it, because the language is very plain in this regard. Historically, people have often misinterpreted the Bible, because it doesn’t say what they want it to. This misinterpretation of what the Bible says is likely responsible for such events as the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and other grisly events in human history too numerous to mention.
I won’t deny that the question “Have I made a difference in the World” certainly is important and very relevant. Also, too the question of what you’ll have for dinner is an important one to consider as well.
But if what you’ve stated at the outset is true, that being ‘we are no different from any other animal, that we’re here only to propagate the species’ than what difference does it make in the grand scheme of things what type of impact you’ve made in the world? based on that premise, I’d say none. However, since we humans are different than any other animal because we do have consciences and souls, the difference you’ve made in the world does matter. But since this lifetime we’re living in is so short in comparison to what happens after you die, your eternal destiny takes on paramount importance. That’s where the “who is Jesus?” question becomes critical. If during this lifetime you accept Jesus as God and that He died for your sins, then you win the prize of eternity with God in heaven, which is what the Bible teaches. Conversely, if you reject Jesus for the above reasons, then you get to spend eternity without God in hell (also called the lake of fire). Hey, this is what that good book which you mention (the Bible) teaches, with out excuse or apology. So I will make none either. Look, if you’re right all of this discussion/debate/argument doesn’t matter a bit. But what if I’m right? If I am, where would you rather spend eternity?
Okay. I ask myself these questions you pose at the end. All of them have the same answer, which is: Because everyone has their own view of what God is and isn’t and (as I said before there can only be one correct answer) every group thinks they are right. These questions will continue to be asked until Jesus comes back physically to earth again, which the Bible also teaches (but that’s a topic for another day)
Until we meet again.
Green
From: Green
Sent: June 3, 2003
Subject: Evolution, Heaven, Hell and the Bible
AG:
I’m a thinking person and I am in fact arguing against evolution. You say we evolved because we needed to adapt. Adapt to what? You use a giraffe as your example, stating that it evolved a long neck in order to eat leaves in high places. And you’ve frequently referred to the fossil record as evidence of your claims in favor of evolution. So it would follow from your example that science has fossil evidence of giraffes without long necks? How can we be sure that those creatures are giraffes and not some other animal? Seems like having a long neck would be a great advantage to other plant eating animals besides your giraffe. So why isn’t there a wider variety of animals out there with long necks? Humans, you say, have evolved a consciousness and highly sophisticated brain because it gave us a survival advantage. Why then are humans the only creatures to evolve consciences? Other creatures seem to have survived quite nicely without consciences and many other creatures have much less developed brains than humans do and seem to get along well enough. Certainly I’ll agree that humans are able to out-think animals, much to our advantage. Was there ever a time that can be definitively proven that humans could not out-think a tiger or other animals in general? Do we have any physical evidence of humans without consciences or lesser developed brains?
Let me jump ahead to the eye argument for a bit. The authors have, in fact, made a credible argument, using the human eye as an example. But go to the root of their argument: at some point, according to evolution, there must have been creatures without eyes, right? If a creature didn’t have an eye to start with, how would it know that it needed one? Could it have developed an eye, even a very rudimentary one, without some sort of model or pattern of an eye that came before it? In order to adapt, (unless I’m way off base in my understanding of the meaning of adaptation), there must have been some precedent to go by that would tell it that some part of it was inadequate and that it needed to change in order to survive. And why is it, then that there are many different kinds of eyes? So, logically, you’re implying that science has discovered some humans with lesser developed (or even rudimentary) eyes, otherwise how could the human eye have adapted into its present form? And that’s just looking at the physical side of things.
Now back to the end of the previous thought: I’ll use the same argument for the conscience. How could we evolve such a thing when there is no other creature in existence who has one. How did humans know that a non physical entity like a conscience was needed to survive before we knew what one was, and how did we ever survive without one? Evolution, as you present the case, loses credibility quickly, because you’re assigning intelligence to simple creatures who couldn’t possibly have much of it. Whatever creature first came up with the idea of an eye really must have been on the ball that day (or however long it took) to not only think of the idea, but to know what it would take to make it function properly. Unless, of course, you’re willing to concede to the existence of a higher intelligence (God), who created each creature with precisely what it needed to survive in its given environment. Come to think of it, why couldn’t humans have evolved a third hand? There certainly is a precedent to go by (in that we already have two hands to use as a model for a third) and there are many times when a third hand would come in, well, handy. I know I could use a third hand most of the time in order to pick up after the messes my kids leave behind. ;>)
I’d love to know where to find the published scientific data that proves evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Interesting reading, I’m sure.
I don’t personally know any Native American creation stories, so I can’t say that I either agree or disagree with them in part or in full. Chances are I’d probably agree with some aspects of them and reject other parts of them. And no, I don’t have a problem with those stories being taught, whether as a science or mythology. I do think it’s important that a wide range of subjects be made available to all students including those in the state of Mississippi, because more information is good, less information is bad. Ultimately, kids will make their own decisions as they grow as to what makes sense to them or not, and I’m not in a position to agree with what every kid will decide, nor am I able to make everyone believe as I do. (It’s more fun if people realize I’m right without my having to tell them so. ;>) ) All I can do is attempt to make a credible argument for why I believe the way I do and point out flaws where I see them and hope people will listen.
I’ll concede your points in regards to my argument using gravity as an example in that I can feel the effects of it when I trip or when I drop a coin. My point in using it as an example was this: I can deny the existence of gravity from now until the day I die, even though the evidence is there that it exists. It’s not something physical that can be held, and I certainly don’t fully understand how it works, but I’d lose credibility if I didn’t acknowledge it’s existence, and you’d rightly call me crazy for doing so. The same can be said for the existence of God, whom we can’t see. Yet the evidence for the existence of God is so overwhelming that credibility is lost in the denial.
I’ll also agree that fact can be proven and faith must be believed. But your faith can be grounded in facts. When you fall you have faith that gravity will cause you to hit the ground because the existence of gravity can be proven. We have faith that the sun will continue to rise each morning and set each evening (Yes, I know the sun doesn’t really rise or set but is based on the earth’s movements. You know what I mean, though - wise guy...), because it’s a given fact that it has done so without fail for a long time. I know there is a God, which is based both on faith and fact. I have faith that it is true, and that faith is grounded in fact, as I’ve been trying to demonstrate throughout. In case you’re interested, the Bible defines faith as “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for.” (Hebrews 11:1-2 NIV)
Am I saying that people who have never been exposed to Christianity are doomed for hell already? No. One of the consistent points that I’ve tried to make throughout is that there is enough evidence in nature that testifies to the existence of God (see Psalm 19) so that even people who have not been exposed to Christianity can’t deny that God exists. Also, the fact that God gave every human a conscience to know right from wrong is another example of the existence of God for people who have never been exposed to Christianity. (If there were no higher authority that we were all accountable to, then would there be such a thing as right and wrong? In fact, your definition of what is right and what is wrong may be drastically different from mine, if God didn’t exist. I feel confident however that we both have the same general idea in regard to right and wrong. Do we agree on all aspects, probably not) In a nutshell, yes, I feel confident that there will be people in heaven who have never been exposed to Christianity, but do believe in God. People of all nations are accountable not for what they don’t know about God (Jesus), but for what they do know and yet turn away from. Regardless, I’m happy that I don’t have to decide who’s in or not, and I have faith that God will take care of it.
“Here's another one, let's say for the sake of argument that Christianity as a religion dies out at some point in the future. If, for whatever reason, people stop believing in your god and lump him together with zeus and all the others, is the rest of humanity doomed to damnation, even those that believe in some type of 'new' monotheistic god, such as the pre-Christian Jews did?”
First of all, the pre-Christian Jews believed in the same God that I do. If the scenario you mention above were to happen, (which it won’t, I assure you) then what would it matter what I think? How can I accurately predict what would happen there, if people came up with a “new” monotheistic god, that hasn’t been invented yet? The question is unanswerable because the scenario is not plausible.
Jesus body: I’ll concede your point that after 2,000 years there wouldn’t be a body left to find because of decomposition, etc. etc. Not only do I go by the Bible’s version that the tomb was empty, but as I’ve stated before, I also use personal experience. I have been to Israel. I have walked the streets of Jerusalem and personally visited the two accepted sites where Jesus tomb could have been. Both empty. There is a place in Jerusalem where the Jews say King David is buried. There is a bier there and it is considered one of the holiest places in all of Israel and heavily guarded to this day. There are no bones to see, per se, but ask any Israelite and they’ll tell you that his remains are/were there at one time.
However, I digress: Picture yourself as living in first century Palestine. You’ve just witnessed Jesus’ crucifixion on the Roman cross. You’ve seen the body taken down, wrapped and placed in a tomb. For three days you go to the tomb, which is closed and guarded by Roman soldiers. On the fourth day you hear that the tomb is empty. You don’t believe it, so you go there and see for yourself. The stone is rolled away, the tomb is empty and the guards are gone. You wonder what could have happened. Then you hear that Jesus was seen alive, first by his disciples and then a few days later by as many as 500 people or so, some of whom you may know personally so you deem them as reliable witnesses. Forty days later you hear that Jesus is gone. Where did he go? Then you hear his disciples in the Temple telling the crowds that Jesus went back into heaven from whence he came? Do you believe it?
I give you that scenario to say this, which was my point from the start: Do you think that someone as popular as Jesus was, pre crucifixion, would just vanish from the public eye after being seen publicly, post-crucifixion, if He were still living on the earth? You see, people living in Jerusalem at that time knew where the tomb was: its location was not secret. It’s likely that there were a good number of people who probably heard Jesus, who many times claimed to be God, teaching in the Temple, and predicting his death and resurrection three days later, even before it happened. If after three days, the tomb was still closed and guarded, do you think the Christian movement would have even begun? Logically, you’d have to say no, and the historical Jesus would have been written off as a fraud and soon forgotten as a lunatic, possibly just a footnote in history, if even that. Never mind Jesus being regarded as a good moral teacher and founder of what would become a world wide religion. Never mind that the majority of the western world was founded on Christian principles. Even the mighty Roman Empire, which tried to stamp out the movement at its roots, succumbed when Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, before it collapsed. Also, consider that secular history records that all of Jesus disciples, except one, died for this cause that they believed in. Many other early Christians were persecuted to death solely for their beliefs, too and it still happens today in many countries. Would you be willing to die for something you knew to be a lie? I don’t think you would, and neither would I.
Briefly regarding the Jews: I said that their forefather Abraham was originally from what is now Iraq. God told him to move to Canaan, where he would make Abraham’s descendants as numerous as the sand on the seashore and as the stars in the sky. So he did, without question, because he had faith that what God told him was true. What were God’s reasons for telling Abraham to leave his homeland, other than to fulfill his promise to Abraham? I don’t know, because the Bible doesn’t definitively say. Perhaps it was a test of Abraham’s faith? Possibly.
Yes, I’m saying it was right for the Jews to kill the Caananites and all of the other non-believing peoples who lived in Palestine at that time. But there is only one reason why it was right, and that is because God allowed it by enabling the Jews to defeat these other heathen peoples, who, in most cases and under normal military circumstances would have been able to easily defeat the Jews they were fighting against.
Yes, this is the same argument that Osama and his crew use, but Osama and his crew do not have God’s divine permission to do what they are doing. Before you even raise the question - No! The God of the Bible and Allah, the god of Islam are not one and the same. If you like, next time I can outline for you briefly the differences between the two, based on what the Koran and the Bible teach.
I’ll also agree with you that this is the same argument that people use who kill doctors who perform abortions use and that this line of reasoning also is responsible for those reprehensible parts of history you mention. Are these people right in what they do or have done? No they are not. Yes, the doctors who murder unborn babies in abortions are sinning against God, because the commandment is Thou shall not kill, but the people who hold to that line of thinking miss that the Bible also teaches that judgment in this way is God’s responsibility (see Matthew 7:1-2 and Romans 2:1-16), not man’s.
I do spend a lot of time discussing the Bible, and well I should because it is the cornerstone of my faith. A good Christian should be familiar with what the Bible teaches. Common sense tells me that if I’m going to believe in something, whether it be Christianity or evolution or whatever, I’d better know enough about it to defend my beliefs. I’ve never said that you didn’t think that the Bible was a good book. And we do disagree about its origins and meanings. But I’ve got to ask you why you think it’s a good book. Would it be just as good of a book if it were known to have errors and contradictions in it?
Hypothetical question: What would I do if someone found an error in the Bible? If a mainstream church went on record and claimed there was an inaccuracy, large or small? No matter what, here’s what I’d do: First, I’d find out as much information about the church or group that claimed they’d found the error(s) and find out what kind of an organization they are, and what their basic beliefs are, so I can see what kind of reputation they have (have they made outrageous claims in the past, etc.) Second, I’d find out exactly what the error(s) were that they were claiming they’d found. Third, I’d pull out my Bible and Concordance and try to understand why they believe there to be an error, and reason it out for myself to see if what they are claiming makes sense to me. Fourth, I’d find out what the opinions are of pastors and authors whose viewpoints I’ve read and whose opinions I trust to be sound to see what they think about the proposed error(s). After all of that is done, then and only then would I decide if I should alter what I believe or not.
What if there is a major schism in the church that was so wide that it split the church? I won’t tell you it wouldn’t happen, because it has, many times throughout the history of the church (see Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation and the Anglican church of England breaking away from Roman Catholicism to name two examples.)
Fortunately for me, over the past 2+ millennia or so many people much smarter than myself have studied and wrote about this book we call the Bible and found it to be error free. (the last book of the New Testament was written in 95 AD and the last Old Testament book in that was written about 400 years before Christ). To be conservative, I’d give the early church about a century or so to compile the Bible as we know it today. So after all that time of being studied an analyzed, I can feel very confident that any error(s) would have been discovered by now.
It would stand to reason that you don’t think there would be Christians (or anyone else for that matter) in heaven, when you’ve stated previously that you don’t believe heaven exists. I’m telling you that everyone in heaven believed in the God of the Bible during their lifetime- pre Christian or Christian, and no one else. You say you have never heard a persuasive argument that heaven is real. The only credible place you’ll learn about heaven is the Bible. Using my trusty concordance, I can tell you that the word “heaven” is used 582 times, “heavenly” is used 23 times, “heaven’s” once and “heavens” 133 times, in the King James Version of the Bible. There are three types of heaven: the ‘aerial’, ‘sidereal’ (starry heavens) and ‘the eternal dwelling place of God’. Jesus uses some comparisons to describe heaven, in Matthew 13. Jesus clearly taught and believed in the existence of heaven. Since Christians believe Jesus came from there and went back there after His earthly incarnation, His description is the only credible one we can rely on.
Conversely, I mention hell, because Jesus taught about it more than He taught about heaven during His lifetime. Am I implying that you’re headed there because you don’t believe in my God (the God of the Bible) or the fact that Jesus is also God? As much as I hate to admit it, yes, because that is what the Bible teaches. Jesus made that fact very plain in His teaching. Does that statement turn you off? I’d say it probably does. If you don’t believe me, I invite you to check it out for yourself. If an organized church or just an individual person, Christian or not tells you otherwise, then they are plainly misinterpreting what the Bible says. And you don’t need to be a biblical scholar or even a Christian to understand it, because the language is very plain in this regard. Historically, people have often misinterpreted the Bible, because it doesn’t say what they want it to. This misinterpretation of what the Bible says is likely responsible for such events as the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and other grisly events in human history too numerous to mention.
I won’t deny that the question “Have I made a difference in the World” certainly is important and very relevant. Also, too the question of what you’ll have for dinner is an important one to consider as well.
But if what you’ve stated at the outset is true, that being ‘we are no different from any other animal, that we’re here only to propagate the species’ than what difference does it make in the grand scheme of things what type of impact you’ve made in the world? based on that premise, I’d say none. However, since we humans are different than any other animal because we do have consciences and souls, the difference you’ve made in the world does matter. But since this lifetime we’re living in is so short in comparison to what happens after you die, your eternal destiny takes on paramount importance. That’s where the “who is Jesus?” question becomes critical. If during this lifetime you accept Jesus as God and that He died for your sins, then you win the prize of eternity with God in heaven, which is what the Bible teaches. Conversely, if you reject Jesus for the above reasons, then you get to spend eternity without God in hell (also called the lake of fire). Hey, this is what that good book which you mention (the Bible) teaches, with out excuse or apology. So I will make none either. Look, if you’re right all of this discussion/debate/argument doesn’t matter a bit. But what if I’m right? If I am, where would you rather spend eternity?
Okay. I ask myself these questions you pose at the end. All of them have the same answer, which is: Because everyone has their own view of what God is and isn’t and (as I said before there can only be one correct answer) every group thinks they are right. These questions will continue to be asked until Jesus comes back physically to earth again, which the Bible also teaches (but that’s a topic for another day)
Until we meet again.
Green
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
