According to Calvinism:

"Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ's death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the Gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation."

I ask you now, is it all a load of crap?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Answers

Hey, I was just studying this stuff a while ago.

I'm curious as to how many Christian denominations have this concept (i.e., salvation through grace rather than salvation through works) as their basic tenet. All of them? All the Protestant denominations? I honestly don't know. This is the theory I grew up on, although it didn't actually become clear to me until one day when my grandfather (a minister) took me aside and told me that you didn't get to heaven by being a good person; you got to heaven by accepting Jesus as your savior.

I think that was the beginning of the end for me and religion.

Um, so I guess my answer to your question is that if I believed in God (which I don't), and more specifically if I believed in Christianity (which I also don't), then this would either be a load of crap, or it would be true and I wouldn't much like it.

A very definite maybe.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

The primary tenet of Calvinism is, really, to have an enormous stick tightly wedged in one's arse.

You think the Nazarenes are uptight? You've seen nothing - nothing.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Knowing that most of you are a bunch of satan worshiping hethens, (some of you even sacrafice hamsters - you know who you are) I think a proper discussion can only occur if we spell out the five basic points of Calvinism.

Point one: Total Depravity basically means that after the fall sin entered and extended to ever part of man's personality (thinking, emotions, will). It just means that you're all a bunch of sinners and, in your current state, are on the crazy train alontg the highway to hell.

Point two: Unconditional Election Nothing you do will persuade God to bring you into a knowledge of Him. Your good works are only edification that God has sown his seed of redeeming grace in fertile soil. Those who will come into knowledge of God have been preselected - the rest of you are shit outta luck.

Point Three: Limited Atonement So, at this point you may be asking, "Oh yeah? Then why did Christ come and die for my sins if God already knows who will be with him and who will not?" Well, the simple answer is, through His death Christ atoned, not for all men, but for those that would be saved. Therefore, we can make the statement that Christ died for sinners ( hethens and hamster sacrificers), and he will not lose any of those for whome he died.

Point Four: Irresistible Grace Means that when an evangelist gives the outward call, the elect will receive a certain inner reponse.

Point Five: Perserverance of the Saints Those whom God has saved will remain in God's hand until the are glorified and brought to heaven.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I always though the tiger was much smarter.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Well golly gee. Pinch my ass and call me Beave -- I didn't think we'd actually discuss it.

One of the hethens, when talking of good works, spake thusly: I think that was the beginning of the end for me and religion.

I'm always mystified when someone says this. Religion in this sense is about acknowledement and worship of a higher power. the reason I find the "but I'm a good person argument" a little silly, is because we are talking about heaven -- a place where reserved completely for the worship of God. It's like a two-steppin, roach stompin' wearing line dancin' white boy trying to get on the set of Soul Train. Or maybe not.

The basic premise is, you can do good works with or without God in your life. Therefore, since heaven is all about worshipping God, it is justifiably one of the prerequisites.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Ahh, but rudeybaby, worship is an act. (For that matter, so is belief.)

The short answer to your first question is 'yes'.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I sooo wanted to have an in depth discussion on the subject.

Worship is an act - but it is an act steeped in faith. And faith, as we all know, is only a substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I thought heaven was all about partying. Partying and worshiping God do not mix, Rudekid.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

You're so dumb Dave Van. It's hell that's all about good times an partying. geez. Ain't you never watched them gyrating satanic guitar players with their big hair and devilish four four beat on MTV?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

So what if I have total faith that that's all a bunch of horseshit? Then what, eh??

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Religion in this sense is about acknowledement and worship of a higher power. the reason I find the "but I'm a good person argument" a little silly, is because we are talking about heaven -- a place where reserved completely for the worship of God. It's like a two-steppin, roach stompin' wearing line dancin' white boy trying to get on the set of Soul Train. Or maybe not.

My point was that when I found out about all of the above -- that getting to heaven was supposed to be about grace, salvation, and all that crap, not about being a good person, I was no longer interested in going there, and I could no longer swallow the idea of such an illogical and (can I say this about God?) megalomaniacal higher power. I'd rather just be a good person.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

When my mother told me that evolution is okay, because god's the guy who flicked his finger and set the entire chain of life in motion, I realized that just about every religion demonstrates a willful lack of rational thought. And that's when me and god broke up.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

You guys wanna start somethin' don't you? Just can't leave it alone. Rational does not necessarily equate to a steadfast belief that the natural world is the be all end all. If anything, I would say that a belief that our knowledge represents all there is to know, thereby relieving us from faith of any sort, is irrational.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Yeah, but there is a difference between assuming we know all there is to know, and believing some crap some dead guy made up a long time ago.

I'm sorry, Rudeboy ... should I rename this thread "Rudeboy vs. The Atheists"? I'd pay to see that movie, by the way. Especially if there was nudity.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Damb straight there'd be nudity. How else cold I fill you all up with the ummm... spirit?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Just leave it alone? See, that's the problem I have! It's been my experience that the religious are generally content to simply take things on faith, and walk away from the physical facts of the world, or simply decline to examine them more closely. Usually for fear that a fact might upset the delicate tightrope act that is faith.

But yeah, if there was more nudity involved in religion, I could totally get with that.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

It's not just irrational, though... it's completely undesireable.

Supposing for a second it's really really so - you got a bunch of people who don't give a whit for being a good person, but think god is gonna collect them all together and punish everyone else for (for what? oh yea..depravity) existing - and they make our time here completely annoying by acting on that general assumption, all the while assuming *they* are part of the 'elect' -

and spending eternity with that bunch of gits is supposed to be what we hope for?

I think not! Even if I did believe it was true, it's still be horseshit!

And there's no getting nekkid in heaven. I don't think Calvinists even believe in penises.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

But they do do good! It's a mistake to assume that a person is elect if he does not show the outward signs of submission to God. And what is God? Yep. God is love.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

And it's loving to create most people just to toss them in hell...so wouldn't it be presumptious for any good Calvinist to attempt to be better?

(You still ain't gonna get any in heaven, rude...)

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

The calvinist expression of religion was simply a manifestation of the basic psychological belief that all men are equal, except that some are more equal than others. Not to mention simple vanity. Do you think whatshisface postulating this idea of 'the elect' honestly didn't believe one hunnert percent that he, himself, was not only elected, but fully vested in his salvation plan?

In calvinism, God isn't love. God's a country club.

And, similar to Lynda's remark, a nasty hell-tossing god isn't a god I want to have anything to do with.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

I am so going to get into heaven.

I don't know if I subscribe fully to all of the points of Calvinism. they do seem to make sense (in that irrational christian way) if you believe in a God that is omniscient. How could he not know who will eventually end up believing?

And, if you believe that God created man, then isn't it a more loving God that allows his creation to have a free will? It is a matter of free will.

Here's a vey simple way to look at it. So simple that it is often glossed over. God equals everything that is good and right. God is not just good, God is good. Get it? Good, cuz most christians don't. If you believe that there are two forces in the world that one must choose to serve one being good (God) and the other being evil then, by not choosing good all that is left is evil. Foresaking good of his own free will man has chosen evil. From the christian perspective, God has told you what awaits if you if you do not choose good. That's when we start getting into evangelism - making sure that everyone has heard.

Anyway, if you don't believe, then much of what I wrote has very little meaning and rightly should not. You have to believe the fundamentals for it to jive.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

What's wrong with unconditionally accepting good as a concept rather than as a personification?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

"I don't know if I subscribe fully to all of the points of Calvinism. they do seem to make sense (in that irrational christian way) if you believe in a God that is omniscient. How could he not know who will eventually end up believing?

And, if you believe that God created man, then isn't it a more loving God that allows his creation to have a free will? It is a matter of free will."

Right...so suppose (in that irrational Christian way) I can accept that much.

Tell me again why I want to spend forever with a God that CARES whether or not I believe? With all the criteria he could possible choose as being a priority, that's the one?

That ain't love. That's ego.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Nothing. However, this is a thread about Calvinism being horse shit or not. Since Calvinism is rooted in biblical scripture then accpeting that God was personified, literally, at one point in time is essential.

See, you guys can't get me. You keep thinking I'll revert to the old stupid redneck that I am and make blanketing statements concerning Bible being the true word of God. Or you figure me to go off on some tangent about truth and light and how you're just blind. You want to hear me trumpet repentance and shove Bible down your throat. Well I won't. I ain't gonna do it. And you can't make me. Before you get me to have a full on Bible battle - you gotta profess your faith. Otherwise we're standing on different terrain. I, on fluffy clouds of heavenly righteousness and you, well you, on the burning brimstone of hell. (that was a joke)

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Above was ref to echo.

I'm not sure how better to explain why God cares. In my view, I think of it as two armies, one that upholds law and decency and good and one that exist only to rape, pillage and plunder. Now, you have to choose one or the other. The general of the good army cares which side you're on cuz if you're not with him you're against him.

Like I said, you have to accept the fundamentals before any of this stuff does anything but make you feel angry at the notion that you would be left out of heaven because you did not profess faith in the biblical God.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Nah, it doesn't make me angry because not accepting those fundamentals means I'm not exactly worried about that brimstone stuff. I get extremely annoyed by all the holes those who do believe work so hard to ignore...saying you have to have faith to understand the logic of it isn't really saying much, is it?

It DOES however amuse me that a monotheist religion can be so heavily into duality without ever once acknowledging how much attention they devote to meditating on the competing side. (God *could* exist without a belief in Satan, but not the Christian religion's version.)

If I didn't know anything at all about Christianity, there are some churches I could walk into where I'd hear more about Satan than about God, and confusedly think that's who they worship.

Know what I mean, Vern?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

In that case, I vote for it being horseshit. On the point of Unconditional Election (are you sure you didn't make this up?), as we (and Thomas Hobbes) all know, man is self-serving. Those acts of kindness, when done with heaven and hell in mind, are really meant to demonstrate our own power.

Besides which, I don't know how you can "cause" someone to "willingly" obey the gospel. If salvation is predetermined, what's the point of converting?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

"Right...so suppose (in that irrational Christian way) I can accept that much."

Hey!!!!!

Lyyyyyyynda. Roger Bacon. Sir Isaac Newton. Gregor Mendel. Lemaitre.

"In that irrational Christian way". Geez!!!!

"Tell me again why I want to spend forever with a God that CARES whether or not I believe? With all the criteria he could possible choose as being a priority, that's the one?" Don't you care if your kids believe the truth, or a tissue of lies? You cared an awful lot whether a kid of yours believed an obvious untruth---that the moon landing is a hoax.

You wanted your kid to use her head. I think God wants us to use ours, too.

...And not ignore the obvious.

I think you would care even more if your kids pretended that you didn't exist. I imagine, if they persisted in that pretence or delusion, life at home would eventually get pretty uncomfortable for you.

"That ain't love. That's ego."

No. It depends on whether it's the truth or not. If it is...it can be the wish not to have another person delusional or so badly mistaken that they will make all the wrong decisions.

(By the way, I despise Calvinism, as you know, Lynda, and most other religions that negate free will. But I couldn't let that one pass. Otherwise, Rudeboy is doing pretty good on his own, whether it's a troll or not.)

--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Yeah. I know what you mean Bertha.

That little blurb about having to have faith to understand the logic wasn't quite right tho. You can treat it like anything else. Like a fantasy bedtime story if you want. Get to know the characters and they'll be real for as long as your traipsing through their lives. Ooops, guess even that takes some believing. But in the big picture, so do other things in life, like evolution for instance.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Al.. I'm just going to assume you didn't note I was quoting rudeboy and leave it at that, 'k?

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Heaven, hmpff!

We will go into a tunnel towards a blinding light.

We will feel overwhelming love emanating from the light.

We will arrive at the foot of the giant throne.

Eventually our eyes will adjust and we will be able to observe the glory of the unimaginable face of God.

After a long uncomfortable silence, God will go, "What?" and shrug his shoulders.

And that my friend is the culmination of it all.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Well...almost. I'm afraid my eyes glazed over at the namedropping there for a second and I didn't read the rest.

"I think you would care even more if your kids pretended that you didn't exist. I imagine, if they persisted in that pretence or delusion, life at home would eventually get pretty uncomfortable for you."

If my kids were expected to believe in me on faith ("No really, she's right there! See?") rather than because I'm right there getting in their faces every day, it would be delusional for me to expect that it was a punishable offense if they failed to believe in me.

My kids don't HAVE to believe I exist. I'm there.

-- Anonymous, May 15, 2001

Does this mean that on your death bed you can accept Christ and that'll all be groovy?

Personally I'm gonna bribe God with chocolate chip cookies, cuz I make some damned fine cookies, and I think God is a little jealous of Santa.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Yeah, but with rudeboy, I have no expectations. With you, I do. And when you don't use the quotes, one assumes you're agreeing with him...

I imagine it's not a matter of faith if one is in Heaven and in the direct presence of God every day, either, as your kids are with you. *Grin* They'd just go, "Whaddaya, blind? Look over THERE, in the bright light! Here, have some sunglasses first..."

OTOH, some things are a matter of faith, or at least belief to GET to that point. I would not advise someone who persists in the quixotic belief that the moon landing never happened, or that the earth is flat, to try out for the space program---which is, after all, the only conceivable way you can get to the point to see with your own eyes whether Armstrong and Co. DID leave traces on the moon---and ADMIT to those beliefs. I doubt if they will be admitted by the powers-that-be in NASA into the space program.

I don't advise anyone who DISbelieves in the universality of natural law acting everywhere in the observable universe the same way---which is, after all, just a belief, not a priori demonstrated by anything--- to try out for a career in physics or science in general. Or who believes that at any moment natural law will reach a limit and chaos ensue in its stead to try it either. (Again, there is nothing that forces that to be so...unless, perhaps, you feel that the universe was Created by an ordered, reasonable Mind who would not capriciously cause such an end to natural law. Otherwise, paraphrasing what Einstein said, the most unintelligable thing about the universe is that much of is intelligable.)

Yes, I namedropped again. Mea culpa.

Beliefs do matter. And most disciplines have unevidenced beliefs at the heart of them. Like most axioms, they are taken on ....faith.

The trick is to discover which of them are mindless prejudices, holding us back--- and which are necessary for the discipline.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Rudeboy, you're not a Calvinist, you're a Manichean. Lynda B. is right when she says it's funny that Christianity would focus so much on the forces of light and the forces of darkness -- or, at least she's right that that's funny Christianity, aka heresy (sorry, my R.C. roots are showing). The Manichees, Gnostics, Cathars, and I'm sure many others, viewed the world as split between the personified realms of good (God -- apparently a descendant of the Zoroastrian Ahura Mazda) and evil (Satan). In those splinter faiths the ultimate triumph of good either was going to be a squeaker or was up for grabs.

Augustine cleared up the duality thing in the 4th-5th centuries, rejecting the existence of an evil force. He rationalized evil as the "deprivation of a due good," analogous to shadows. In the same way that there are not things from which darkness emanmates, and darkness and shadows are the absence of light, so there is no source of evil -- Evil for Augustine is the absence of God's grace.

Calvin, of whom I know little, was too much a fan of Augustine for me to believe that he imported duality into his brand of the faith. As for the five planks of the Calvinist platform you posited, rudeboy, I've never been able to understand the Unconditional Election one. If you buy the idea of the Christian God, isn't it inconsistent to hold both that (i) Christ died to save all and (ii) that only the few are Elected? I know you'll want to quote "Many are called, but few are chosen," to me, but stow it and explain how the two ideas can be reconciled.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Man. I love you guys.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

How dare you label me Tom! Just kidding.
Evil for Augustine is the absence of God's grace.
Of course this is the way I think of it. The thing about the opposing armies maybe fouled up where I was coming from. Maybe I should've said that the other army does not create evil, nor is it innately evil, but rather, because it foresakes the good, it dwells in it. Not necessarily by choice, but because there is no alternative. I can see where I may have clouded the issue further with this:
God is not just good, God is good. Get it? Good, cuz most christians don't. If you believe that there are two forces in the world that one must choose to serve one being good (God) and the other being evil then, by not choosing good all that is left is evil.
There is no great evil being that eminates evil force from his evil ray gun machine. There are beings that, through denial of God's sovereignty, live in evil. The greatest of these beings being Lucifer (that was a funny sentence). That's where the common misconception comes of an evil force comes from. But, in my opinion, you and Augustine are correct. It is easier for me to think of this way: God is good. If the opposite of good is evil, in the absence of God there can only be evil.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Augustine did NOT "clear up the duality thing" -- he may have written that there was no evil, but his writing still bears the stamp of his many years as a practicing Manichean dualist. In fact instead of moving forward on duality, he moves it BACK to the mind/body split of Plato.

But, really, back to Calvin.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Sigh. The FORMAL teaching of Augustine cleared up the duality thing. True and sad it is that he never entirely erased the imprint of Manicheism on his thinking and apparently never woke up to the fact that neoplatonism was another guise of his old errors. Neoplatonism is like the sea that the early Christian authors swam in. For a real nondualist view you have to go back to Paul. (Shudder. Sorry, but I have deep problems with the self-appointed Thirteenth Apostle.)

But inded, back to Calvin. rudeboy, I really am interested in how the Calvinists reconcile the concept of election with universal redemption.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

I second that... Ya'll are great, and know so much about religion! (my heart's going pitter pat.)

2 things:

First, for those who've decided to become atheist after listening to the, for lack of a better explanation, "hokie" ideals propagated by someone you were in contact with, not all Christians believe what you were told. (And even ones of my faith might say they do, but it is not always a view of the church, but rather "state faith" based out of a context of culture (influence of Calvinists, Presbyrs, etc) and "popular belief" rather than actual doctrine or true intellectual examination. )

You, however, are *[un?]fortunate* in that you are intelligent folks who recognize crap when you see it and ask why instead of accepting on blind "faith." (I think it runs both ways) This knowledge & examination, however, can prove exceedingly frustrating in certain circumstances, as with religion.

Educated at a Catholic institution and as a Catholic, I was taught and I believe that the role of religion has been, historically, to answer *the big questions* - where we can from, what happens when we die, why do bad things happen, etc. The Book of Genesis, for example, gives two different accounts of creation. Interestingly, there are similar themes and components in the Judeo-Christian accounts to other religions/faiths/whatevers. Because Catholics (and others too) believe in, and this is *key*, a non-literal interpretation of the Bible (a Bible with myths and tales and metaphorical references presented in the context of the times), you don't have those disbelievability clauses from the Bible and subsequent propated thought of "there's no way [insert here]"

(Of course, Catholics have their own set of problems, but having to accept that which your mind tells you is simply impossible and crazy talk is not one of them.)

Okay, circling around to my second point[s] which is that "blind faith," a faith without ever questioning, isn't really faith. Faith is defined (by Encyclopedia Britannica) as "inner attitude, conviction, or trust relating man to a supreme God or ultimate salvation." How can you know anything thing in your inner attitude if you don't know about it? The two seem mutually exclusive to me.

And, I would say, by that very definition athiests have faith - faith there is no God.

My third, special added bonus point, is with regard to salvation through works and salvation through grace alone. In Calvinism there is the predestination element thrown in there. Notably, one of the the Protestant Reformation's primary doctrinal questions was re: grace through works and grace by faith. In 1999, Lutherans and Catholics signed a declaration at Augsberg saying that it was, basically, both. (Missouri Synod Lutherans didn't sign.)

As far as the proposition that by "accepting the Lord as your saviour" you "gain eternal salvation," these theologans would argue that you don't have a choice in salvation - it is a free gift from God. Basically, you've got it whether you like it or not. There's no choice about it.

So therefore, *everyone* has salvation - a free gift from God, that can't be given back.

I'm curious to know, do any of the athiests posting have other spiritual beliefs that you follow - about having peace in your soul & spirit that you use to guide your decisions? Do you think then that if you die having lived at virtuous life, your soul will "rest in peace" and you'll.... ? What, I don't know? I'm seriously curious. Or do you see the role of religion as that of a moral guide in people's lives and since you have your own well examined thoughts, you don't want to fool with the "other stuff?" (I'm not trying to be attacking at all - truly interested.) What happens to you when you die as an atheist in your opinion?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

From the tongue of Pastor Bill Bethea:

"With all due respect to the brilliance of Calvin, I must personally reject his system as a whole as well as its antithesis (Arminianism). I see both truth and error in both systems. I offer no system of my own but simply surrender my logic to that realm of understanding which I will not enter until the next life."

This just about sums my thoughts as well. However, in the spirit of debate... I Calvinist may say that a sinner will always sin if he is left to himself (without God). It is only through and by God that a sinner reverses his own natural principles of choice. After God changes the sinner, the sinner, will begin to choose God through things like repentance and conversion. But, it must be God that changes the sinner. Accepting that no sinner can be changed only by the hand of God, we can ask when God knew that the change would occur. Since God is omniscient, thinking that he knew the same day as the sinner knew or the day the sinner was born is silly. Immutable, unchangeable God always knew. Whatever God does - he intended to do that thing from eternity.

Christ says (Jn. 15:16): "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain."

Romans 9:11-13: "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated;" and verse 16: "So then, it is not of him that: willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy."

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

the role of religion has been, historically, to answer *the big questions* - where we can from, what happens when we die, why do bad things happen, etc.

True enough. And history has shown us it is foolish to explain things we do not know using a God. One by one the Gods have fallen as we gain understanding of our universe. No longer does anyone believe in the Rain God, the God of Thunder, the Sun God, etc, because we now know how those things work.

The fact that our existance is unexplained does not imply a God. In fact, explaining a mystery with a bigger mystery just doesn't make any sense. If we were made by God then where did God come from?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

So now we see from Rudeboy's quotes that the concept of predestination goes back at least as far as the gospel of John, and that the idea of salvation through faith and grace go back to Paul the "13th Apostle."

In that case, why does poor Calvin get all the flack? Because people see his version of predestination as exclusivity, rather than comforting? I say, predestination is predestination.

People have been arguing about faith vs. good works for at least 1,960 years, and they are certainly not going to stop now. Calvin was totally in line with the other major thinkers on this issue. Within the context of Christianity, Calvin is not a load of horse shit.

But you know what would really be interesting is seeing whether Calvin is a load of horse shit if his views are taken outside the Christian realm. Can Calvin offer something to athiests, or Manicheans?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

If we were made by God then where did God come from?

I don't know. In Summa Theologica, Aquinas attempts to address this question "scientifically" by explaining the first, unmoved mover of all things subsequent. The arguement goes both ways - if there is no God, then how was the universe created? From where did all these particles, etc, come?

Sticky wicket, that one.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

"But you know what would really be interesting is seeing whether Calvin is a load of horse shit if his views are taken outside the Christian realm. Can Calvin offer something to athiests, or Manicheans?"

B.F. Skinner strikes me as suspiciously like a secular Calvin. In Calvinism, Man is but a puppet of God, in Skinnerian psychology, we are the sum total---the puppets--- of our genetics and our environment.

Skinnerian boxes who react, rather than choose.

--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

I believe AC/DC summarized the situation most eloquently and succinctly with their famous words: "Who Made Who? "

And Tom, have a look at Free will and the omniscient God over in Al's forum where I fail to convince Al of what you just said.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

What happens to you when you die as an atheist in your opinion?

Compost.

I'm actually not trying to be facetious ... I think you die, you decay, whatever you were is gone. That's it.

And it doesn't matter whether or not you lived a good and virtuous life -- that only matters in the here and now.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

An atheist also has no one pattern of moral guidance, though we all may specify reasons for individual morality (or lack there-of)

bullshitt! what has my religious beliefs (or lack therof) got to do about how moral a person I am?? Because there is no hell/punishment I can do what I damn well please??? That the only reason religious people are moral (and I guess a few of them are) is because they are scared of the consequences??

Why can't I just be a good person for the sake of being good? I'm not doing it for any reward. Atheist Are Moral Too. :)

- t

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

I'm not sure what you're objecting to Tracy?

What I'm trying to say is there's no central atheist morality -- the only consensus is a lack of belief in a god or gods.

and may I add, before someone beats me up real bad on that post, I should correct that to say you can believe in an afterlife and be an atheist. (though I would find it odd myself)

and second, of course you may not believe in a god for any reason, or no reason at all and be an atheist.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Al said: "Roger Bacon. Sir Isaac Newton. Gregor Mendel. Lemaitre.

'In that irrational Christian way'. Geez!!!!"

Just to challenge your thinking Al ... I've seen you debating religion for as long as I've known you, and you often name a few names like this to show that rational, thoughtful people can be Christians.

And yet, I notice everyone you name, both here and elsewhere, lived a century or more ago, or occasionally just 60 or 70 years ago.

It seems to me that as science and phliosophy have advanced, fewer and fewer people who would be considered "intellectuals" believe in any form of literalistic, orthodox Christianity. (I know there are some, possibly many, who adopt a spiritual view of the faith, or hold to some form of spirituality without so much definite form, but not what would be considered "orthodox" Christianity ... or any other religion, for that matter.)

So my challenge to you is, could you name as few as ten prominent scientists born in 1940 or later, who are church-going, Bible- believing Christians? They don't even have to be famous in the popular sense, but respected and well-regarded in their fields.

I don't mean anyone who has made an offhanded reference to God in some speech or other, but who would feel at home with a group of Baptists or Lutherans or Catholics in believing that a personal God exists and was incarnated in the person of Jesus.

I'll spot you Paul Davies (b. 1946.) Nine to go ...

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Al said: I imagine it's not a matter of faith if one is in Heaven and in the direct presence of God every day, either, as your kids are with you. *Grin* They'd just go, "Whaddaya, blind? Look over THERE, in the bright light! Here, have some sunglasses first..."

OTOH, some things are a matter of faith, or at least belief to GET to that point. [...] I don't advise anyone who DISbelieves in the universality of natural law acting everywhere in the observable universe the same way---which is, after all, just a belief, not a priori demonstrated by anything--- [...](Again, there is nothing that forces that to be so...unless, perhaps, you feel that the universe was Created by an ordered, reasonable Mind who would not capriciously cause such an end to natural law.

Beliefs do matter. And most disciplines have unevidenced beliefs at the heart of them. Like most axioms, they are taken on ....faith."

But natural law proves only that there are natural laws, it says nothing about why there are. I think it's safe to assume the natural laws won't suddenly cease functioning, based on the evidence that they've been humming along for several billion years so far. And if they ever do stop, we'll deal with that when it happens.

The whole question of faith is interesting. The conversation I snipped this from (some distance above in this thread) was comparing God to a mom, and His invisibility and unobviousness to a mother's daily presence.

The way the argument goes, (A) God loves me; (B) God wants to save me from damnation; (C) Only my belief in God can allow Him to save me, but (D) God has made himself hard to find, impossible to prove, accessible only if I choose (at some cost to my intellectual honesty) to believe, and then no guidance to suggest how I should pick which particular religion or sub-religion's view I should believe in over all the others.

If God loves me, knows I have a terribly fate awaiting and wants to spare me that fate, why not make it easier? If you're a rescue worker in a helicopter trying to save people from a flood, you don't deliberately position your helicopter and the ladder behind a fog bank and then expect the victims to find it. You make it as visible and easy to reach as you can.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Geez, Michael H, sciuntists who believe in God? Impossible -- because I mean them are some smart folks, sciuntists.

WHat qualifies as a scientist? Do you mean research scientists only? Or will anyone with a B.S. do? How about autodidact web programmers? TV repair people? Is it only the folks with liberal arts degrees you want to disqualify?

Actually, my uncle Bohdan Matvienko Sikar, a Brazilian physicist who has made significant practical contributions to the extraction/distillation of alcohol from sugar cane (for use as auto fuel in tropical Brazil), and a career as a research scientist, believes in God. His belief in God is as close to "orthodox" as any other belief he holds.

That's two, I guess.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Grace said: Educated at a Catholic institution and as a Catholic, I was taught and I believe that the role of religion has been, historically, to answer *the big questions* - where we can from, what happens when we die, why do bad things happen, etc. The Book of Genesis, for example, gives two different accounts of creation. Interestingly, there are similar themes and components in the Judeo-Christian accounts to other religions/faiths/whatevers. Because Catholics (and others too) believe in, and this is *key*, a non-literal interpretation of the Bible (a Bible with myths and tales and metaphorical references presented in the context of the times), you don't have those disbelievability clauses from the Bible and subsequent propated thought of "there's no way [insert here]"

But then how do you choose what you believe?

If there is never to be any tangible evidence of a deity, and if the stories are to be taken as myth and poetry, there's no particular argument for or against any particular belief system. You have to pick what makes sense to you. For most people, it's what they were taught growing up (and that makes sense ... it's a psychological connection to childhood feelings of security), and for a few people, it's some other path as they grow older and make different choices.

But it's all arbitrary either way, isn't it? Maybe you feel comfortable believing that you are a sinner saved by grace, while someone else chooses to believe that there is no such thing as sin ... you like thinking that a triune God put on human flesh and walked among us while your Jewish friend prefers to believe that God is One and has never become man. You gain comfort in believing a virgin gave birth, while Shintoists in Japan commune with dead ancestors and the Wiccan across the way worships the goddess with nighttime rituals.

If there's nothing to be taken as literal, isn't all about what you're most comfortable with?

Okay, circling around to my second point[s] which is that "blind faith," a faith without ever questioning, isn't really faith. Faith is defined (by Encyclopedia Britannica) as "inner attitude, conviction, or trust relating man to a supreme God or ultimate salvation." How can you know anything thing in your inner attitude if you don't know about it? The two seem mutually exclusive to me.

But again, how do you answer those questions. If someone asks "How do you know your God exists?" and you can say "Because He created the world just as it says in the Bible," and have that backed up by FACT (which it isn't), then there is some concrete answer to the question. But if someone asks you "How do you know Jesus is God incarnate?" and all you can say is "Well, a lot of people thought so and it feels right to me," then you're back to just whatever feels good, a wholly subjective measure.

And, I would say, by that very definition athiests have faith - faith there is no God.

Hmmm ... maybe. But I think it's more simply not considering a belief that has no basis in fact ... to use an old friend's argument, you have faith that there's not an invisible pink hippo named Daisy in my back yard ... don't you? Because the belief that there IS such a creature in such a location would be based on faith, and to extend your logic, to disbelieve in Daisy is an act of faith that she doesn't exist.

I'm curious to know, do any of the athiests posting have other spiritual beliefs that you follow - about having peace in your soul & spirit that you use to guide your decisions? Do you think then that if you die having lived at virtuous life, your soul will "rest in peace" and you'll.... ? What, I don't know? I'm seriously curious. Or do you see the role of religion as that of a moral guide in people's lives and since you have your own well examined thoughts, you don't want to fool with the "other stuff?" (I'm not trying to be attacking at all - truly interested.) What happens to you when you die as an atheist in your opinion?

I'm not certain I'm an atheist, but I guess I'm close.

I think religious ideas can provide a good moral guide to people who would rather not make hard choices for themselves. I believe, for example, that stealing is usually wrong, but there can be circumstances that justify it. That forces me to have to consider borderline cases and figure out in individual situations whether it was wrong or not. Someone else might simply point to the Ten Commandments as enumerated in Exodus and say stealing is always wrong 'Cos the Bible says so!'

Your question about what happens after death is probably not well premised. If an atheist doesn't believe in such a thing as a soul, the question of what happens to the soul after death is pretty much meaningless.

I think that when your body stops operating, you no longer exist, just as you didn't exist before you were born. If there is an existence after this life, then I'll be surprised - pleasantly or not depending on whether the universalists are right.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Yowsa...lots here, so forgive the longish post -

"First, for those who've decided to become atheist after listening to the, for lack of a better explanation, "hokie" ideals propagated by someone you were in contact with, not all Christians believe what you were told."

First... people don't 'decide' to become atheist, I don't think - atheism is simply a lack of belief in the concept of deity. I don't think you can manufacture belief - you can decide you don't much care for the god you believe in based on what you've heard a that deity's nature, but that's not atheism. (And this is the largest reason I find the idea of punishment for failure to believe as both illogical and not a worthy stance for any deity worth following - said deity would *know* whether the person in question came equipped with 'belief genes' - you either do or you don't.)

"Educated at a Catholic institution and as a Catholic, I was taught and I believe that the role of religion has been, historically, to answer *the big questions*"

Or attempts to, yes. And I don't necessarily regard religion as an inherently bad thing - while it has great potential to cause bad things (an excuse for violence to others, a deterrent to the gaining of unauthorized knowledge, a sanctioned method of bilking its followers), it also has potential for good things, as does any social construct - it provides a common language for people to discuss abstract ideas, provides structure for a collection of social customs and personal morality, provides people with comfort about those areas where knowledge is currently lacking.

But valuing and living by a religion need not have anything to do with belief or even faith, nor is it a requirement for someone who does believe - religion is about groups of people gathering together under a common language of belief and set of moral rules.

"And, I would say, by that very definition athiests have faith - faith there is no God."

Not necessarily - most atheists would simply be defined by lack of faith in the idea that there is. This may seem like a subtle difference, but it is a crucial one. And since the only thing that bonds those identified as atheists is a lack of a particular trait, your questions regarding atheist attitudes can only be answered on an individual basis - atheism is not an organized social construct the way religion is. There is no dogma, no creed or expected mode of behavior that unites any atheist with any other.

"I'm curious to know, do any of the athiests posting have other spiritual beliefs that you follow - about having peace in your soul & spirit that you use to guide your decisions?"

I am not an atheist, I'm agnostic (as short and to the point as I can - I do have beliefs that come and go, but in absence of any evidence beyond a 'feeling' I have to regard those beliefs in the same manner as I do my occasional belief that 'everyone is out to get me' and try to avoid conducting my life according the vagaries of my belief of the moment. I am certain, however, that whatever I or anyone else 'believe' on the subject of deity if one or more does exist is inaccurate, and that it would be impossible for us to comprehend its nature well enough to exact penalties on those who have a different opinion about it.)

As to what gives me peace and guides my decisions? The idea that this life matters and is likely all we've got, so it is important not to waste it on excessive pettiness. That our legacy is whatever good we pass on to others and hope that they'll continue to pass it up the chain.

"Do you think then that if you die having lived at virtuous life, your soul will "rest in peace" and you'll.... ?"

I find one of the more comforting passages to be 'dust thou art and to unto dust thou shalt return'. I don't see that living a virtuous life has much to do with it. Living ones life is important while we're alive - after we're dead, even the worst of us make good fertilizer.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

"So my challenge to you is, could you name as few as ten prominent scientists born in 1940 or later, who are church-going, Bible- believing Christians? They don't even have to be famous in the popular sense, but respected and well-regarded in their fields.

"I don't mean anyone who has made an offhanded reference to God in some speech or other, but who would feel at home with a group of Baptists or Lutherans or Catholics in believing that a personal God exists and was incarnated in the person of Jesus.

"I'll spot you Paul Davies (b. 1946.) Nine to go ..."

Too easy, Mike. (Oh, sorry, I mean, Michael.) One change: I refuse to be narrow-minded though, and include just Christians. If God speaks to most of us, some channels might be more right than others, but it would be hubris to consider only one Message to be the message. Believers of many faiths have something to offer, including Moslem and Jewish scientists. The other nine are:

George Ellis, Quaker, cosmologist, co-author with Steve Hawking. (Natch!) Heck of a nice guy in correspondence, also.

Alan Sandage, successor to Hubble, expert on the universe's expansion.

Pauline M. Rudd, biochemist at the University of Oxford. Her research deals with problems associated with diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and hepatitis B. Pauline is also an associate of the Community of St Mary the Virgin in Wantage, Oxfordshire.

Freeman Dyson, cosmologist, inventor of the term "Dyson Sphere"---and winner of the Freeman award for religious thinking. In his acceptance speech he says, "We Christians", BTW.

Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Chair of the Department of physics and involved with the discovery of pulsars, and also a member of the Society of Friends.

Lindon Eaves is the Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics and Director of the Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and behavioral Sciences at the Medical College of Virginia Commonwealth University. He is also an Episcopal priest.

Carl Fe it is a noted cancer research scientist and is occupant of the Chair in Health Sciences at Yeshiva University, where he serves as Chairperson of the Science Division of Yeshiva College since 1985. Prior to that he was a research scientist at The Laboratory of Immunodiagnosis at the Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research. He is also a Talmudic Scholar and has lectured and taught Talmud classes for many years.

Bruno Guiderdoni is an astrophysicist at the Paris Institute of Astrophysics. His main research field is in galaxy formation and evolution. He is one of the referent experts on Islam in France and has published 30 papers on Islamic theology and mystics.

Martinez Hewlett is an Associate Professor at the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Hewlett is a founding member of the St. Albert the Great Forum on Theology and the Sciences.

Arthur Peacocke is a retired physical biochemist and an Anglican priest. He is the former Director of the Ian Ramsey Centre, St. Cross College, Oxford, and before that, the Dean of Clare College, Cambridge. Peacocke was instrumental in the founding of the Society of Ordained Scientists, and has written several books on science and theology, including God and the New Biology, Intimations of Reality, and his Gifford Lectures, Theology for a Scientific Age.

John Polkinghorne is an Anglican priest, the President of Queens' College, Cambridge University, and former Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge. Polkinghorne resigned his chair in physics to study for the Anglican priesthood. After completing his theological studies and serving at parishes, he returned to Cambridge. During the same time period, he wrote a series of books on the compatibility of religion and science. These include Science and Creation, and most recently, Science and Providence, and his Gifford Lectures, The Faith of a Physicist.

William Stoeger is a Jesuit priest widely known for his work in theology and science. He is Adjunct Associate Professor of Astronomy at the University of Arizona, and Staff Astronomer for the Vatican observatory. Stoeger's recent research has focused on projects in theoretical cosmology, with an eye on building more adequate connections between theory and cosmologically relevant astronomical observations and observations of the microwave background radiation.

Gee, did I miscount? Give more than asked?

Oooops.

Sorry about that...

---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

"But natural law proves only that there are natural laws, it says nothing about why there are. I think it's safe to assume the natural laws won't suddenly cease functioning, based on the evidence that they've been humming along for several billion years so far. And if they ever do stop, we'll deal with that when it happens."

(Gently.) No, you won't, Michael. You'll be dead. Instantly, without thinking about it. Your body depends on the laws of science. And yes, it could easily happen. Read up on phase transitions in inflationary cosmology, and how we might just be in a looong plateau that could end any second. It's happened before in the history of the universe. It could happen again---like that! And there is not thing one we could do about it.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

(applause) Pokinghorne and Ellis I knew (even have Polkinghorne's book), the rest are news to me. (Some I've heard of but wasn't aware of their faith.)

So given that you have a number of contemporary scientists to cite, why do you stick with people like Newton, who could reasonably be considered products of their time and not especially relevant (so far as holding faith and science in harmony) today?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Then we'll all deal with it equally as well as we would if we worried about it in advance, won't we?

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

"And Tom, have a look at Free will and the omniscient God over in Al's forum where I fail to convince Al of what you just said.

"-- Dave Van (davevan01@hotmail.com), May 16, 2001."

Because it's not a compelling argument. Foreknowledge is not Force, and if I see someone freely making a choice, it does not negate their freedom in making a choice. Another reason I laugh at predestination.

-- Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

"So given that you have a number of contemporary scientists to cite, why do you stick with people like Newton, who could reasonably be considered products of their time and not especially relevant (so far as holding faith and science in harmony) today?

-- MichaelH (bstreet@3harpiesltd.com), May 16, 2001."

Because for MOST of them most people would go "Who?"---even for Ellis or Dyson...whereas most people have heard of Newton. (I hope.) To me intelligent people are somewhat timeless, and I don't think a contemporary reference is in many cases stronger than a famous one. That may be my blindness.

However, in all fairness, I think it is fair to say that there is a greater number of nonbelievers among scientists than believers.

---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

"So given that you have a number of contemporary scientists to cite, why do you stick with people like Newton, who could reasonably be considered products of their time and not especially relevant (so far as holding faith and science in harmony) today?

-- MichaelH (bstreet@3harpiesltd.com), May 16, 2001."

Because for MOST of them most people would go "Who?"---even for Ellis or Dyson...whereas most people have heard of Newton. (I hope.) To me intelligent people are somewhat timeless, and I don't think a contemporary reference is in many cases stronger than a famous one. That may be my blindness.

However, in all fairness, I think it is fair to say that there are a greater number of nonbelievers among scientists than believers.

---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

"The way the argument goes, (A) God loves me; (B) God wants to save me from damnation; (C) Only my belief in God can allow Him to save me, but (D) God has made himself hard to find, impossible to prove, accessible only if I choose (at some cost to my intellectual honesty) to believe, and then no guidance to suggest how I should pick which particular religion or sub-religion's view I should believe in over all the others.

"If God loves me, knows I have a terribly fate awaiting and wants to spare me that fate, why not make it easier? If you're a rescue worker in a helicopter trying to save people from a flood, you don't deliberately position your helicopter and the ladder behind a fog bank and then expect the victims to find it. You make it as visible and easy to reach as you can."

Maybe it's the wrong analogy.

Maybe the whole point of existence is for us to learn to make an unforced judgement towards the good...without coercion, with instruction available ---but not forced--- onto us.

A sizable minority of humanity has claimed to have religious experiences. Between ten to twenty per cent. Are they all deluded?

Or does it reflect something real?

I think you know me well enough, Michael, to believe me when I say it would cost me some "intellectual honesty" to not believe. For then I have to either dismiss the anthropic coincidences as meaningless coincidences, even to one part in a billion billion in some cases, or that our cosmos is a tiny part of a much large multiverse---part of an ensemble of universes for which there is no evidence and no possible way to verify it.

Occam's Razor bids we not---needlessly---multiply explanations. Billions of unobserved, unverified universes to justify the existence of the one we observe---seems to me to defy Occam's Razor---compared to the explanation of a single extra entity---a Creator.

Dave's argument about a god explanation always having been proved wrong---sort of misses it. If one could prove the universe must necessarily exist the way it does, that it's the "ground state" of existence....then one would have a case.

Instead, we know that the universe once---wasn't. That either by quantum fluctuation, black-hole/white-hole formation, or "Let There be Light"---there was an actual beginning to time, to space, to it all. We call it the Big Bang. Why then? Why not before? Why not later? The "ground state" of existence seems to be---nonexistence.

I submit that the evidence---anthropic and otherwise---points more to the universe being deliberately made for the developement of intelligent life. Not human life. Just intelligent life.

At that point, you begin to wonder what such a Creator wants us to use our intelligence for...and perhaps...just perhaps...it's to discover for ourselves what is ethical...and what is not. To advise and perhaps guide, but never force. EVen to the point of having a morally neutral universe, where one can die by mischance, have bad things happen to good people---because if goodness is invariably rewarded right away, people would start to do good things---out of self-interest.

Instead, He wants us to discover the good and true---for ourselves. We're not directly helped or given an easy time of it---because it's a poor teacher who doesn't let the student find the answer to the questions ---for themselves.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

Beth: I'm curious as to how many Christian denominations have this concept (i.e., salvation through grace rather than salvation through works) as their basic tenet. All of them? All the Protestant denominations? I honestly don't know. This is the theory I grew up on, although it didn't actually become clear to me until one day when my grandfather (a minister) took me aside and told me that you didn't get to heaven by being a good person; you got to heaven by accepting Jesus as your savior.

I'll say what I always understood this to mean, even though I doubt I'm contributing anything new.

The theology as I understand it (and yes, I think it applies to all of the mainstream Christian denominations) is that being a "good person" isn't enough because God is perfect and no human is ... so grace, which comes through faith, is the ticket to heaven.

That said, I don't think any credible Christian person would argue that means just say "I believe in Jesus" and then continue to live as sinfully as you want. The New Testament argues in several places that no one who is truly "saved" desires to sin, and if tempted into sin, seeks immediate forgiveness and to straighten up.

Mind you, that's not a creed I follow either. But I think it does have some internal logic. However, I cannot reconcile the idea of a loving omnipotent God who can't find a way to extend salvation to all who seek it (or even to all, period) regardless of their personal belief system.

-- Anonymous, May 16, 2001

I suppose I'd like to think that the "salvation through grace" clause is a way around the idea that you can buy your way in to heaven. Perhaps it's a backlash against indulgences, or a nod to the idea that we don't really know which religious beliefs are right....so you do your best, and in the end it's up to whatever Being is up there to decide (regardless if you're Muslim or Hindi or First Baptist).

As to preordination, I guess I believe that God can hop in and preordain your life if He really feels like it, but he's got a lot of people and events to worry about. So he sets you out with a "preordained" set of guidelines, depending on your belief system, your family and culture, and a bit of inner wiring. I think part of what keeps the whole idea of religion going (all religions, not just the Christ-centered ones) is the hope that when things get completely out of hand, there's some hope for a miracle.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

The predestination argument is not about what God wants to do, but about logical conclusions imposed by Christian beliefs about God's nature. Major premise 1: An all-powerful being by definition can minutely adjust the beginning of a series of events so that the events must fall out and conclude in a single, predictable way. Major Premise 2: An all-knowing being by definition knows how events will fall out and conclude from before the time they are set in motion. Minor premise: God is both all-knowing and all-powerful. Conclusion: Even if God does NOT adjust things minutely, God's decision to start the universe in a particular way coupled with his awareness of how things must fall out and conclude means that God in effect decided (actively or by omission) the course of each minute event in your life at the dawn of time.

The flaw in the argument (what is the term for a syllogism with two major premises?) is that it does not take into accounts quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, which teach that not only can human observation not predict the "choices" made by particles at a subatomic level, but that there is no rule governing those choices and by definition no predicting them. Unfortunately, the easy answer to this is, "Yeah, but God knew which way the quark would crumble at the beginning of the world, and if God couldn't adjust it, then God is NOT all-powerful."

I think that free will is like the famous challenge to the all-powerful genie: "Make a rock so big you can't lift it." By definition, there is no such rock for an all-powerful person. But then, if there is something prohibited to the all-powerful, how can you call that person all-powerful? The only solution is to say that the all-powerful one DECIDES not to make the rock he can't lift. And voila, predestination. QED.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

A belated answer to Michael's "challenge" -- there are a surprising number of scientists who believe in God or define themselves as religious to varying degrees.

I'd wager this is more common in the US compared to many other places -- especially places where religion is associated more firmly with backwardness and being an intellectual almost always means you've left God behind, along with believing in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, etc. Religion is more "tame" and evolved in the US, it's a community definer, it's in the courts, on the money, and in bed with us. Its wide reach is one of those anomalies that set this country apart among peers. Depending on the particular list of "peers," other indicators include the death penalty, trying children as adults, poor quality of pre-college education, health care system, work habits, belief in UFOs and other supernatural phenomena, general level of knowledge about the rest of the world, attitudes toward alcohol consumption and viewing of sexual content vis-a-vis minors, automobiles and public transport (and legal driving age), and so on.

Anyway, back to the question, there's one American (born ca. 1940) whom I shouldn't name here but can tell you he's almost a shoo-in to grab the medical Nobel in the next 10 years. He's a volunteer missionary and he firmly believes that when he and his wife both die they'll meet up in heaven and live happily ever after.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

If God is all knowing and all powerful then he knows what everything will turn out like. Since time has no meaning to him, our yesterday at 10am, our today at 9am, our ten years in the future are just - well, they just are for him. No past, present or future where only he is concerned. Maybe, something about that holds the meaning of life.

Why would he make us go through a bunch of crap if he knows who will follow him an who will not? It makes sense to me, right now, at this very moment, more than it ever has before, that our lives are truly testing grounds. That we as high order beings can grow and learn, can choose of our own free will and know the power of our choice. He guides us, but still, the choice is ours to make. And through the making of the choice we gain, we learn. Isn't that just like a father? It really does make sense to me, especially when you realize, according to scripture, that humans will be higher up the hierarchy than even the angels.

Damb. Who put the Jesus freak pill in my coffee this morning?

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

"Well does it seem more likely that their experiences are real with differing and often contrary extra-worldly supernatural things, or that our brains aren't all wired the same? I would apply Occam's Razor to that question. Considering the likes of Mozart, Einstein, and many others, which is more likely?

"And you can certainly propose an evolutionary explanation to religious experience -- the relentless faithful make it over the treacherous mountain pass. The attribute serves to help the species survive by motivating us to take on seemingly impossible tasks in the blind hope that faith in the one or many will carry us through. And sometimes it does."

Both excellent points. The varieties of religious experience (plus the obvious delusion of some---do I think God really told Son of Sam to kill people, for instance? No.) is troubling, and quite frankly, although I think some religious experiences are "true", I would be at a loss to construct some sort of experienct or test to determine same. It's like art. You know it when you see it, but...

Note I think that's deliberate to a certain extent...so no one can say, this is true, because God says so, and if you don't believe me, I'll split the moon in two to demonstrate it! God wants us to follow the good not because "God'll getcha if you don't" but because it's the good...so He deliberately veils part of His existence from us. If God who loves the good were as undeniable as the Sun in the sky, doing good would be a "Well, DUH!" situation, in our self-interest, and not a choice made without some real soul-searching. But obviously all that is IMO, and not necessarily so.

Oh, and your second point is very good also. Obviously there is some evolutionary advantage to some religions able to command many in times of crisises. We might be the only animals to have religions simply because they are a by-product of communication, of talking. I think and hope it's more than that. But that's my bias speaking.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

"Since time has no meaning to him, our yesterday at 10am, our today at 9am, our ten years in the future are just - well, they just are for him. No past, present or future where only he is concerned."

You should check out the movie Twelve Monkeys if you haven't. It plays with this concept beautifully. (For movie buffs, yes I know it's based on an earlier French film. I'm not sure the French one has the same scene where they explain the "insertion" of someone into any point in time, though.)

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

I'll end with this -- the term elect sounds so bougie. It can't help it. It rings of superiority - he wants me and not you. I know that is not the case. He wants us all. He developed an elaborate scheme to provide redemption for us all. Only thing is, he knows that no matter what he does, some of us will not accept him.

If some of the angels, who experienced heaven's grandeur, turned away from him ("the Fall"), then what does he expect from us? We live in a world of pain and hurt where absence of goodness is common. We've only stories and promises from some ancient book to go on. It is a leap of faith, a great leap of faith, to believe that anything better awaits.

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

Why would he make us go through a bunch of crap if he knows who will follow him an who will not?

This is precisely why I do not believe in predestination or that God is up in heaven with his little mainframe programming in the day's successes and failures for his puppets throughout the world. (while still not also believing in the watchmaker concept.) Seems like a bunch of hog wash to me.

(quick notes b/c I actually have a paper on Palestinian Refugees I should be writing)

I didn't didn't mean my comment about "becoming atheist" exactly as it came out. More of "realize you felt that way" etc. I think the realization, if you will, is about being in touch with who you know your true self to be and being true to that, rather than fighting against the urge to believe in something your gut tells you is hooey.

And I didn't realize that atheists didn' think there is a soul. That is good to know... But I do wonder, have you ever seen a dead person - say a relative? Did you ever have that feeling like the body just didn't "feel" like the person - the animae (sp?) if you will. (Which obviously is gone because the person is dead, but still...) In every person I've seen dead, it always seemed to me that the body became like a, for lack of a better phrase, a "shell" holding what the person really is. I may weigh X lbs. I may be 5'3". I may be blonde with blue eyes. I may be fair. But these things do not really describe who "I AM." Yet they'd exist (for a period) after my demise. Where does who "I AM" go when I die, in your opinion. Does it too cease to exist?

Socrates (via Plato), in the Phaedo, made very compelling arguements for the existance of the soul... have you read these and what did you think?

Lynda B - 'dust thou art and to unto dust thou shalt return'. I also find very comforting. Ash Wednesday is my favorite service because, to me at least, it encompasses my abstract (actually more Buddhist type) thoughts of the nature of God. I tend to think of heaven as more of the state of the soul rather than an actual place. The pope alluded to hell as this type 'state' about 2 years ago... I thought prior to that I was just a wacked out Buddhist-Catholic. I also tend to think of "God" not necessarily a person, but when in unity with "him," one is in unity with all things. Is there a similar atheist or agnostic concept? Like a "sensational" (as in tactile) reality one strives to live within?

re: Al's comment However, in all fairness, I think it is fair to say that there is a greater number of nonbelievers among scientists than believers.

I believe this is by virtue of the modern scientific revolution... Augustine and Aquinas, indeed most medieval philosophers, considered philosophy "science" as they were trying to, through reason, prove the exisience of God, among other things. In medieval times, oddly enough, philosophers were scientists...

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

but when in unity with "him," one is in unity with all things.

But not necessarily pantheism. Suppose, I guess, hard to explain. Basically, a overall unity of oneness that is almost orgasmic feeling. (or better?)

-- Anonymous, May 17, 2001

This is precisely why I do not believe in predestination or that God is up in heaven with his little mainframe programming in the day's successes and failures for his puppets throughout the world.

I always thought that this was a bum rap. Certainly God is not up there programming away. I think that's a misunderstanding about what predestination is.

Fist off, there is no programming to be done. There are no unthunk scenarios. There is nothing that will happen that he does not already know about. It's quite illogical, in terms of an omniscient, omipotent, omnipresent God, to believe otherwise.

From the tiniest detail to the very outcome, our time on earth is known by him. Why then, if he knows who will accept him and who will turn away, would he not dispense with all the drama? The answer is clear. We are beings, enitites. We're not simple forms that learn and acquire knowledge only to one day have it erased and replaced. Our flesh and bone will return to the dust and whither, but we are not our flesh. We are more.

I firmly believe that God allows us our transgressions, allows others to trespass against us, to teach us. It's a bit like working out. You lift the weight, you run around the track, you spin your little fanny off. These things are not pleasant, but they are the only means to a healthy body. It is the same with our spirits. During each negative experience, at each trial, with every tribulation our reliance, our faith,in him grows.

Maybe it's more like teaching someone to fish instead of just giving them heaven. It means more when you work for it.

Somebody musta slipped me another Jesus mickey.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

Ack! My paragraphs merged.

That's what I'm here for, darlin'.

-- B

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

Grace, I re-read the Phaedo a few months ago and am sad to report that the "proofs" for the existence of a soul that exists independent of the body were not very convincing after all. Plato/Socrates relies too heavily on creating opposite categories, inferring that if X exists then its opposite must also exist, but his categories seem arbitrary and very much man-made. It might fly in a courtroom, but it wouldn't change the laws of nature.

The Phaedo is still very powerful on an emotional level, and I recommend it, just not as proof of immortality.

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

Al: (plus the obvious delusion of some---do I think God really told Son of Sam to kill people, for instance? No.)

But why not? In the Old Testament, God frequently told his chosen people to go out and slaughter their enemies, and sometimes let them keep the women as spoils of war. So why wouldn't he sometimes tell people, "You are my instrument of justice. Kill the following people." It makes just as much sense.

Obviously (to me, anyway), the ancient Israelites were as much a warrior people as any other culture of the time, and believed their God mandated their actions as probably the other cultures believed their gods mandated theirs. The Israelites won, and so their beliefs were validated and ultimately became scripture.

But if you believe the Bible is in any way a divinely inspired text (whether literal or not), then one part of the image it paints of God is that is not averse to commanding slaughter. If he commanded the Israelites to slay this people or that, then how can you know he didn't command the Christians to take Mecca in the eleventh century (Crusades), or conduct the Inquisition, or burn witches?

And if he didn't do those things, then maybe he didn't tell the Israelites to do what they did. And if he didn't, then the part of the Bible that says he did is flawed and not an accurate picture of the deity. And if that part is wrong, how do you know the more benign parts aren't equally wrong?

-- Anonymous, May 18, 2001

*cough* I could be wrong on this, as I have not read Calvin's Institutes from the front cover of volume 1 to the back cover of volume fifty thousand, and I am thus taking, on faith, the word of my favorite professor, but - I am under the strong impression that Calvin wasn't terribly interested in predestination, but rather had painted himself into a (theo)logical corner and needed the whole 2 pages he dedicated to predestination in order to climb out. The gist of his argument, as far as I remember from reading it a few years ago, was "yes, well, one obviously needs to accept (insert explanation of predestination) for all this too work but since we can't know anything about who God has elected there's no point talking about it, let's talk about something else instead." But maybe that's just me. Personally, I don't see any traditional theodicy that even *begins* to work other than "Free will is a greater good than any other possible value." - but that is an intuitive stance on my part, not a reasoned one.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Oops. Didn't notice that using carats would take out the text due to the whole html-like thing. Meant to say, "... one needs to accept (insert explanation of predestination here) for all of this ..."

I fixed it for you in the original message.

-- B

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

"But why not? In the Old Testament, God frequently told his chosen people to go out and slaughter their enemies, and sometimes let them keep the women as spoils of war. So why wouldn't he sometimes tell people, 'You are my instrument of justice. Kill the following people.' It makes just as much sense."

Two reasons:

The fact that Son of Sam strikes anyone examining him as obviously delusional. In other words, it's not so much what he imagined God telling him, but that he himself strikes anyone with any degree of psychiatry or psychology as unbalanced. If Carl Sagan (before his death) told me he had just seen an alien landing, I would go to see if an alien landed. If Son of Sam told me had had just seen an alien landing, I would look for a strait-jacket. Nothing's changed except the teller....and that person's credibility.

Two: one could, in the main, make a case for the Hebrew people stopping in the long run the continual slaughter of innocents demanded by the Pheonician religion (if anyone thinks that was Hebrew propaganda, I commend them to the Salaambo tophit of Carthage, also Pheonician-derived, stuffed with the bodies of sacrificed children) and using a lesser evil to stop a greater...as the carnage of World War II eventually stopped the greater carnage of Hitler. Many of us, if we had a time machine, would be tempted to drop an atom bomb on Berlin in 1938 to stop the extermination of six million Jews, and a lesser number of gypsies and gays. That doesn't make us bloodthirsty, just wanting to save a greater number of people by stopping some lunatics.

If you have any reason to suppose that Son of Sam's victims were a threat to humanity at large, go for it. That they would later birth Hitlers or Stalins and that the heroic Son of Sam saved us from a horrible fate, go for it.

But arguing from negative evidence is hard to do.

Good luck. *Grin*

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 19, 2001

Al, you're missing the point. Obviously the Son of Sam killer was delusional. My question is, how do you know Moses, Joshua and other ancient Hebrew leaders (in the Bible stories anyway, regardless of whether they're historically accurate) were not?

It's quite easy to read the Old Testament stories of the conquest of the Promised Land as simply the Hebrews' desire to take a land they wanted, slaughter the people already there, and to rally the troops, they trumpted it as God's "gift" to them neatly packaged with His judgment on the heathens. (Leaving aside the possibility that the books were written much later, and reflect the ancients' mindset that says slaughtering whole cities full of people is perfectly ok if God's on your side ... in other words, simply an account of how Israel came to be devoid of modern sensibilities that shy away from conquest as an acceptable means of land acquisition.) Much more recently, Europeans justifed the Crusades, and later, slaughter of native Americans under the rubric of "manfiest destiny," i.e., God is giving us this land. Are those just as acceptable to you as the war on the Canaanites?

The farther back in time something happened, the easier it is to not really grasp the horror of it.

So yes, a modern-day serial killer who says God is giving him commands through his dog is obviously crazy ... but an ancient leader who says God is giving him commands through a burning bush is not at least suspect?

And sure, you can give the ancient Israelites credit for ending the practices of some other races, but they had their own practices that are no more savory (executing defiant children, for example)

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

World War II was a case of several nations choosing to stop a great evil before it became greater. They weren't conquering lands for their own occupation, and they weren't claiming they had instructions from God conveyed through the jawbones of asses or the configuration of entrails.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

"Al, you're missing the point. Obviously the Son of Sam killer was delusional. My question is, how do you know Moses, Joshua and other ancient Hebrew leaders (in the Bible stories anyway, regardless of whether they're historically accurate) were not?"

In terms of the Bible story, regardless of whether they're historically accurate?

Plagues of frogs. Rivers of blood. Angels of Death that avoided certain families if they had something inscribed on them. A whirlwind by day, a pillar of fire. Manna.

Such things rather ensured that Moses was speaking for the Creator of Things that Are.

Now, if you're arguing whether such stories are historically accurate, that's a different kettle of fish, and one which, quite frankly, no one knows or can prove. Yet you said "in the Bible stories anyway, regardless of whether they're historically accurate"-- -and the answer is rather obvious.

If a person says he's talking with God, I might nod and smile, but if a person says he's talking with God, and then parts the Red Sea, then I might tend to give a little more credence to him.

Unless of course his name was David Copperfield...

"(Leaving aside the possibility that the books were written much later, and reflect the ancients' mindset that says slaughtering whole cities full of people is perfectly ok if God's on your side ... in other words, simply an account of how Israel came to be devoid of modern sensibilities that shy away from conquest as an acceptable means of land acquisition.)"

It's a possibility, certainly. As is the obverse.

"Much more recently, Europeans justifed the Crusades, and later, slaughter of native Americans under the rubric of 'manfiest destiny,' i.e., God is giving us this land. Are those just as acceptable to you as the war on the Canaanites?"

Welllll...are they to you? Or are you giving what land you own back to the Indians of the Washington area? I freely confess, despite my sympathy with the plight of many native Americans, I have little intention of giving any land I might have to the original owners of the land, who were the Cherokee, who we shamelessly slaughtered on the Trail of Tears.

Because there's never an end to it. The Cherokee might have taken the Tennessee lands from other tribes. Certainly that sort of thing happened quite often... "The farther back in time something happened, the easier it is to not really grasp the horror of it.

"So yes, a modern-day serial killer who says God is giving him commands through his dog is obviously crazy ... but an ancient leader who says God is giving him commands through a burning bush is not at least suspect?"

Which may be why God would give Moses (in terms of the story) tokens by which he could prove who he was an ambassador for...

"And sure, you can give the ancient Israelites credit for ending the practices of some other races, but they had their own practices that are no more savory (executing defiant children, for example)"

(Nodding.) At no time did I claim the ancient Israelites were perfect or near-perfect. Except...despite the provisions for that---the only time I can think of that actually happening is those bears sicked on kids for mocking a bald prophet, which was a supernatural, rather than a practice done by a court. It didn't sound like the Israelites actually did that, in practice---or at least we have no evidence of same. We do have evidence for, say, the Baal-worship and the killing of children.

"World War II was a case of several nations choosing to stop a great evil before it became greater. They weren't conquering lands for their own occupation, and they weren't claiming they had instructions from God conveyed through the jawbones of asses or the configuration of entrails."

No, Stalin instead took half of Europe in the name of Lenin, and many felt they were on God's side as they firebombed Dresden or atombombed Hiroshima.

And exactly when did the Israelites get instructions from the jawbones of asses (Samson's weapon at one point) and the confirguration of entrails (the Greeks' favorite method of divinition)? They sacrificed animals, sure, but not for divinition. Or do you know something about the urrim and thimmin that the rest of Biblical scholarship doesn't?

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- MichaelH (bstreet@3harpiesltd.com), May 21, 2001.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

I've just skimmed through this -- impressively -- long forum, glad to see that there are still folks out there happy to argue theology, from whatever position, with whatever rhetoric. Makes me glad.

I'd also like to point out that one aspect -- a sort of "low church", practical belief aspect -- of Calvinism that's shared with the protestant Puritanism that informs the whole history of America is the belief that God favours the wealthy, inasmuch as the wealthy, no matter what they've done, have clearly done something right, otherwise God would not have seen fit to bless them in this life. It's a major divergence from Catholic thought; the whole "rich man/camel/eye of a needle" thing.

Inasmuch as the American system of wealth acquired through hard work ("The American Dream"), irrespective of the awful class system of Europe (though we all know it really didn't go away, did it?), is a secular enshrinement of the Calvinist/Puritan ethic, it follows that America is probably the most Calvinist country in the world, just at the moment.

Just a thought.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

This is getting longwinded and way off the original topic, but I'll soldier on with the assumption that it's ok, and try to be concise.

In our last installment, I made the observation that the character of God as portrayed in the Old Testament is what it is - including commands to slaughter people as the Israelites conquered the "promised land" - regardless of whether the stories are literal truth or myth/legend.

Al replies: In terms of the Bible story, regardless of whether they're historically accurate?

Plagues of frogs. Rivers of blood. Angels of Death that avoided certain families if they had something inscribed on them. A whirlwind by day, a pillar of fire. Manna.

Such things rather ensured that Moses was speaking for the Creator of Things that Are.

Um no, not at all. No more than a beanstalk and a menacing giant ensured that Jack had sure enough bought some magic beans. The ten plagues could have been (and most likely were) simple legends made up decades or centuries later to make the story more powerful, maybe based distantly on truth. Certainly there's nothing remarkable about insects eating crops or frogs climbing out of rivers or solar eclipses.

Now, if you're arguing whether such stories are historically accurate, that's a different kettle of fish, and one which, quite frankly, no one knows or can prove. Yet you said "in the Bible stories anyway, regardless of whether they're historically accurate"-- -and the answer is rather obvious.

You've totally lost me here. What I meant was, the character of God as portrayed in the OT is part of the "divinely inspired" account of God according to Jews, Christians and Moslems. That if the Bible truly is inspired by God, then that's part of the image of Himself he wants people to believe, regardless of whether the stories are literally true.

I had said: "Much more recently, Europeans justifed the Crusades, and later, slaughter of native Americans under the rubric of 'manfiest destiny,' i.e., God is giving us this land. Are those just as acceptable to you as the war on the Canaanites?"

To which Al said: Welllll...are they to you? Or are you giving what land you own back to the Indians of the Washington area? I freely confess, despite my sympathy with the plight of many native Americans, I have little intention of giving any land I might have to the original owners of the land, who were the Cherokee, who we shamelessly slaughtered on the Trail of Tears.

No, I'm not. Things are the way they are now, and what was done was done centuries ago by people I had no influence over. But neither am I going to write a heroic epic about the Noble Europeans led by God to slaughter the heathen savages.

I had further said: "And sure, you can give the ancient Israelites credit for ending the practices of some other races, but they had their own practices that are no more savory (executing defiant children, for example)"

And Al answered: (Nodding.) At no time did I claim the ancient Israelites were perfect or near-perfect. Except...despite the provisions for that---the only time I can think of that actually happening is those bears sicked on kids for mocking a bald prophet, which was a supernatural, rather than a practice done by a court. It didn't sound like the Israelites actually did that, in practice---or at least we have no evidence of same.

Since it was part of their law that they believed God handed them, they'd be defiant themselves if they didn't. Just because the few texts that have survived several thousand years don't record every instance of those laws being enforced doesn't mean they weren't, and daily.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

"In our last installment, I made the observation that the character of God as portrayed in the Old Testament is what it is - including commands to slaughter people as the Israelites conquered the 'promised land' - regardless of whether the stories are literal truth or myth/legend."

Um, not quite. What you SAID was, "Obviously the Son of Sam killer was delusional. My question is, how do you know Moses, Joshua and other ancient Hebrew leaders (in the Bible stories anyway, regardless of whether they're historically accurate) were not?" The question was whether they were delusional or not.

"Um no, not at all. No more than a beanstalk and a menacing giant ensured that Jack had sure enough bought some magic beans. The ten plagues could have been (and most likely were) simple legends made up decades or centuries later to make the story more powerful, maybe based distantly on truth. Certainly there's nothing remarkable about insects eating crops or frogs climbing out of rivers or solar eclipses."

But that's not what you asked. You asked what, in the Bible Stories, kept us from seeing them as delusional as the Son of Sam. The answer is---in terms of the stories---is that they could perform miracles--- like the parting of the Red Sea, which no matter HOW exagerrated, would have to be a miracle.

"You've totally lost me here."

We seem to be on even terms there....

"What I meant was, the character of God as portrayed in the OT is part of the 'divinely inspired' account of God according to Jews, Christians and Moslems. That if the Bible truly is inspired by God, then that's part of the image of Himself he wants people to believe, regardless of whether the stories are literally true."

So you're changing the question. The question isn't whether Moses etc. were delusional, a la Son of Sam--- the question is whether Jehovah sometimes feels justified in wiping out entire populations of nations, or ordering others to do so.

Of course.

Earthquakes. Plagues. Obviously God permits vast destruction of populations to take place. Considering there would be no life without Him, and that there is (according to the Bible) an afterlife, so no one is really lost forever, I don't think it's unreasonable.

"No, I'm not. Things are the way they are now, and what was done was done centuries ago by people I had no influence over. But neither am I going to write a heroic epic about the Noble Europeans led by God to slaughter the heathen savages."

I don't think anyone can claim that God led the noble Europeans to slaughter the heathen savages. Perhaps we should consider the Palestine thing a one-time thing---to make up for over five hundred years of slavery---not unlike the same feeling of sympathy that led to the creation of the state of Israel after the Holocaust.

"And Al answered: '(Nodding.) At no time did I claim the ancient Israelites were perfect or near-perfect. Except...despite the provisions for that---the only time I can think of that actually happening is those bears sicked on kids for mocking a bald prophet, which was a supernatural, rather than a practice done by a court. It didn't sound like the Israelites actually did that, in practice---or at least we have no evidence of same.'

"Since it was part of their law that they believed God handed them, they'd be defiant themselves if they didn't."

No. Part of Jewish law is that there must be two witnesses to any act worth executing people over. That wonderful provision means you have to be pretty dumb to do anything worth being killed over. There is a provision in the OT that homosexual acts are an abomination, worth killing over. In practice, someone would have to witness someone doing a homosexual act, and another person would ALSO have to witness that, before they could be killed. So in practice, it hardly ever happened. Similarly, disrespect for elders---you have to be idiotic enough to do it in front of several witnesses---to be killed.

I think the silence of the texts on this point is not because there were thousands of killings, and they just didn't happen to mention it. I suggest it is because it hardly ever happened. I further suggest it probably happened far less often than, say, a child is killed by a well-meaning but deluded parent trying to enforce "corporal punishment" on a child---in the United States today.

"Just because the few texts that have survived several thousand years don't record every instance of those laws being enforced doesn't mean they weren't, and daily."

I think the two-witness proviso for any execution shielded many people from the seeming harshness of those laws, myself. It's a matter of opinion---but either way, it can't be proved.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- MichaelH (bstreet@3harpiesltd.com), May 21, 2001."

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

Well let me be more clear then.

What I was trying to avoid was anyone saying "It's ok that there are stories about the Israelites slaughtering the heathens, because those stories aren't literally true." And my point was that regardless of whether they are literally true or not, they give specific clues about the nature of God as perceived by the Israelites, and therefore, if the Bible is inspired by God, you have to admit that that's a picture of God that God allowed - or caused - to be included.

So my question then is, if the God you worship either commanded genocide or merely allowed people to portray him as commanding genocide, then how can you say that later people who claimed God command them to commit genocide - Manifest Destiny, for example - were wrong?

Or to reverse it, if people who claim God commands them to kill now are delusional, how can you be sure people who claimed God commanded them to kill millennia ago were not also delusional?

I'm just asking how come your view isn't consistent?

And just in case my own answer hasn't been clear enough,I don't think that any god ever commanded anyone to kill anybody, if there even is a god. All people who claim God has commanded them to kill, or start a war, or exterminate a race, are either delusional or lying to further their own goals.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

"What I was trying to avoid was anyone saying 'It's ok that there are stories about the Israelites slaughtering the heathens, because those stories aren't literally true.' And my point was that regardless of whether they are literally true or not, they give specific clues about the nature of God as perceived by the Israelites, and therefore, if the Bible is inspired by God, you have to admit that that's a picture of God that God allowed - or caused - to be included."

Yes.

"So my question then is, if the God you worship either commanded genocide or merely allowed people to portray him as commanding genocide, then how can you say that later people who claimed God command them to commit genocide - Manifest Destiny, for example - were wrong?"

Um. Because (A) I am not aware of any religious proclamation, supposedly given by God saying that Manifest Destiny was demanded by God...so it was wrong in point of fact, and (B) I measure 'messages from God' by the messenger, usually. Anyone can claim to be a messenger of God. Thousands do, daily. I need something besides a claim.

"Or to reverse it, if people who claim God commands them to kill now are delusional, how can you be sure people who claimed God commanded them to kill millennia ago were not also delusional?"

Because, in terms of the stories, they were able to perform deeds no human could do without divine help. As opposed to Son of Sam...now, if you want to argue that the stories were all exaggerated, there were no miracles, and they were voicing their own prejudices and giving God's stamp on it, go for it! We have seen plenty of cases of that. I have no defense for that, except to say I don't think it quite meets the case, but no one can disprove such an opinion at this late date.

"I'm just asking how come your view isn't consistent?"

I think they are. I don't believe Moses, etc. were delusional. They didn't strike me as falling within the common psychiatric profile for delusional people. Any more than Jesus does. Whereas Son of Sam fits it quite well. If you choose to believe they were delusional, that's your privilege, and in that case, you might be right.

"And just in case my own answer hasn't been clear enough,I don't think that any god ever commanded anyone to kill anybody, if there even is a god. All people who claim God has commanded them to kill, or start a war, or exterminate a race, are either delusional or lying to further their own goals."

Just curious; if one believes in a God, one must necessarily believe in one that, for instance, allowed most biological life on Earth to be wiped out several times by large meteorites and comets (just ask the dinosaurs), who allows the Black Plague and earthquakes and thousands of other ways where death visits large populations.

I realize you are no longer a believer, but do you then feel ---at least hypothetically--that God would allow death in one way, but that it somehow gets inconceivable that He might feel that some wars were justified, despite a loss of life?

Just curious.

--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

This is rapidly becoming circular, so I'll let most of it go as unresolvable, but I'll touch on your last point.

Yes, if you believe in God and don't believe in a literal reading of Genesis, then you have to accept that this God allows not only large- scale catastrophic death, but also set up a system whereby life sustains itself by consuming other life ... and not solely plant life. Turn on any nature show and watch animals ripping into other animals, the only way they know to feed themselves. If Genesis were literally true, then you could say the world is like that because of the curse mankind brought down, and when God's original intent is restored, "the lion will lie down with the lamb." But that's not how it happened, so you have to rationalize that.

Sure, I can accept that a god might countenance a war to end a greater evil. My point was more toward people who believe God wants them to exterminate Jews, or Native Americans, or take Jerusalem from the heathen Mohammedans or burn witches.

If I believed in a God who occasionally moves people to take action, I could perceive Him working in Churchill or Martin Luther King, or Lincoln or the students in Tiannamen Square. But I can also see that as simply people motivated by varying combinations of self-interest and nobility doing the best they could in difficult times.

-- Anonymous, May 21, 2001

"I am not aware of any religious proclamation, supposedly given by God saying that Manifest Destiny was demanded by God.."

The trouble with religious proclamations is that they are so very much in the eye of the beholder.

Manifest Destiny: Promised Land and Land Theft

-- Anonymous, May 22, 2001