Disqus - Latest Comments for CharlesBakker

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 22:51:49 -0000

Hi Agnostic,
The point of the article is to lambast Christians for an apparent logical incoherence in their ethical position. It is suggested that the incoherence consists of picking and choosing which scriptures apply today and which do not. However, as I, and many others, have pointed out, this incoherence does not actually exist because of the death and resurrection of Christ. When Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins, the laws which were given to us to identify our sinfulness and to provide ethical guidance were no longer needed. In their place a kind of Christian virtue ethic was given with love of God and others as its basic values. Thus, we are not simply picking and choosing scriptures that we feel apply. We are applying scripture in its entirety. This being said, it is a shame that many people who claim to know Christ have not read the whole Bible. They are missing out on what God would like to say to them about Christian ethics and so much more. It is a shame that so many more Atheists and Agnostics have not read the whole Bible for the same reason. Charles

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:17:20 -0000

Also, I forgot to add, that a discussion about what morality is does not necessarily render arguments about where morality comes from invalid. They are two different discussions. However I still concede that I over-simplified my definitions and I created a false dichotomy by only treating two systems.

Even Dawkins and Armstrong would agree that all humans have a sense of morality in that it is a human condition. To this end, I have nothing to say except that I agree. It is once this sense of morality becomes articulated that it is a belief system and therefore open to the comments made above.

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:41:37 -0000

Hello willis08,

I want to thank you for calling me out on over-simplifying the issue in my earlier comments. I considered the subjective nature of morality at the time I was writing, but I did not feel as though there was enough to it to bother exploring it. You have shown me that I was wrong in creating a false dichotomy. It is not that your arguments necessarily need to be better supported, it is that they ask critical questions which must be addressed; therein lies their value. Thus, I will hopefully address them in two points:

First, as for sociopaths, I agree. I have no answers for how we ought to consider those people who have been born without the capacity to prioritize "blue" over "yellow" (this was an apt description by the way). In the one sense we are reducing morality to a numbers game. Whatever the majority feels to be right is right and therefore those individuals who disagree need to be handled appropriately. I do not like this mentality because I do not believe that the majority must be right a priori. For example, if it could be demonstrated that 8 out of 10 people living before Christopher Columbus thought that the world was flat, it doesn't mean that they were right. Indeed, not only is there overwhelming proof that the world is roughly a sphere, but today I wouldn't be surprised if 9.9 out of 10 people today thought the world was round. And if this was the case - as I suspect it probably would be - then we would have to ask ourselves which "majority" is right? I bring up this point because I want to demonstrate the necessity for outside confirmation/negation of human belief. Now, before I continue, I am not one to believe that it is possible to attain to a purely objective worldview; Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn as well as others both demonstrated the subjective nature to all epistemology. Nor am I one to fall prey to the idea that if all epistemology is subjective to a degree, then everything is relative and one person's answer is just as likely to be true as another person's. No, I believe that John Polkinghorne hits it right on the button when he advocates a "critical realism" which recognizes its own limitations but still seeks truth. Going back to majorities, the way that we are able to confirm the accuracy of a theory is to test that theory. Therefore, if it becomes possible to fly either right off the edge of the world or right around it, then such a flight will be able to determine which theory is right. I would apply this then to morality. Just because more people than not believe that murder is wrong does not mean that it necessarily is. Rather, all this truly means is simply that that is what the majority believes and they might be right or they might be wrong. In any case, we need to apply to something outside of ourselves to confirm if the idea that murder is wrong is actually true. For me, I apply to the Bible. However, I fully recognize that this is something I do in faith just as whatever outside confirmation you eventually decide (or have decided) upon is also something you decide upon in faith. You agree that morality is something that exists, however you disagree that the Bible ought to be that "outside determining factor". This is more than ok with me (I don't necessarily agree with some of the things in the Koran, but I would not want to be criminalized for it), so long as you recognize that this is the disagreement. This leads me to the second point that I would like to address.

I apply to the Bible for my outside source of confirmation for several reasons: To begin, I have yet to demonstrate the necessity for applying to an outside source. I showed that when it comes to scientific theory we are able to determine the accuracy of the beliefs of the majority in certain instances. However, why should morality be treated the same way as intellectual belief - something that can be confirmed or denied? Well, my argument would be that both morality and scientifc theory are belief systems. Both nature and nurture play key roles in the development of our worldview and consequently the values we hold. As a result, even the way that we approach the search for truth is shaped by many, many factors that are beyond our control. For example, Socrates sought truth out of a pure delight in its appropriation (philosophy meant for them love of wisdom). For he and some of his students, truth was to be sought in part for its aesthetic value. However, he also recognized that there was a pragmatic benefit to truth as well. Thus, in his "Republic" he outlined what he felt to be the ideal political system for governing human society. Interestingly enough, he rated the democracy as one of the least effective systems because he felt that ruling ought to be left to those philosopher-kings who had a better understanding of truth. For him, the beauty of truth affected how he approached it. Who knows what factors in his upbringing, education, surrounding society, caused him to feel this way? The point is, that he was shaped by the world around him which affected how he in turn would shape that very same world. For myself, when I approach morality, I believe that there is one morality which is more right than others (however even this morality may or may not be perfect). I believe this partly because I was brought up as a Christian and this is inherent to our belief system, and partly because I consider myself a critical realist.

I recognize that I am most likely mistaken about certain things, however I continue to hold to the idea that one morality is superior to others because that is something that I have observed to be true about the world around me. Even if there was nothing truly morally wrong about murdering a small child, I would oppose those who do murder small children because I believe it to be wrong. I am able to believe this because I am able to believe that my moral sense is superior to theirs (or their lack thereof). I know that many people cringe to hear me talk about exclusivity in positive terms like this, but the fact is, they also have worldviews that they cannot help but believe are superior. If they did not feel that their post-modernism was right and my critical-realism was wrong, then they would not be calling me out on my exclusivity. Indeed, it is the biggest flaw in post-modernism that it excludes the exclusive. As people begin to realize that not all theories are equal (i.e., the world is flat) and that this is something they already believe to be true, they will be forced to decide upon a system that is inherently exclusive. For me, it is Christianity. For others it may be Neo-Atheism. Whatever the case may be, it is impossible for everyone to agree. (The trick is to find ways to peacefully disagree with each other in a dialogical way - such as the way we are in right now - so that the truth, whatever it is, may be more evident to all.) Incidentally, I don't believe that a person ought to believe that they have a perfect handle on things either. This is dangerous and well, wrong; for people are capable of being mistaken. I know I have already demonstrated that I do not necessarily agree with the majority simply because they are the majority, however a pragmatic reason drives me to concede that we must agree upon some rough form of morality otherwise chaos will ensue. In this, I am not saying that whatever moral system we agree upon is the best one, rather it is simply one that I will uphold for practical reasons. If it is possible if not necessary for one morality to be superior to others then we need some outside determining factor to help us to decide what that system will be.

I will not get into why I believe the Bible is the best system for the job. That is the subject of another conversation. However, I do hope that I have at least given a credible answer for why I adhere to a moral system that I am not necessarily always happy with. I trust it to be more comprehensive and wise than I am, in the same way that a Mormon adheres to the book of Mormon or a Neo-Atheist adheres to the views of humanists.

Again thanks for your comments,

Charles

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 23:17:02 -0000

Thank you for your encouragement! It is truly a blessing to know that God has allowed me to be a blessing to others.

_________________________________________________________________
New! Faster Messenger access on the new MSN homepage
http://go.microsoft.com/?li...

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:13:16 -0000

I would agree with Connor in this matter.

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 17:12:13 -0000

See above.

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:55:56 -0000

I replied to this through email, but it hasn't shown up on this page yet. So I thought I might try it the old fashioned way.

Thank you so much for asking this question! Another way of phrasing it is, how did people in the Old Testament go to Heaven if Jesus hadn't yet died for their sins? I want to add, that your question is not elementary, but actually shows quite a bit of critical thinking ability. So, here goes, though if I am unable to communicate clearly I can refer you to others who may be better suited.

John 3:16 is a familiar verse for many people, so I will start here and continue through to verse 18: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.

This summarizes for us what the method for salvation is now that Jesus has died and risen once more. In other words, these verses capture what the New Testament is all about. The question becomes, then, what is this belief that John is talking about? I mean, is it an intellectual recognition and acceptance of the historical accurateness of the story of Jesus? Or does it have to be something deeper; something of the heart? Well, let's take a look at a passage that might illuminate this for us a little bit more clearly.

James 2:14-26 is a fairly lengthy passage, but since it deals with what we are talking about, I will copy it out here in full: "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

What James is talking about here is the idea that a person cannot simply believe in the existence of Jesus and what He did. They must demonstrate that belief as well through their actions. A metaphor that I like to use here is that of sitting in a chair. Let us say that you see a chair that looks quite fragile, you would demonstrate your lack of faith in that chair by not sitting on it. Conversely, if you saw a chair that looked quite sturdy, you would not think twice about taking a seat. It is the same with having a faith in Jesus. If you truly believe that He died for your sins and rose once more, then that belief will so radically change your perspective on life that you will not think twice about then following His teachings. If you profess belief in Jesus with your mouth, but live in a way that does not align with what He teaches in any way, then you are, as James puts it, a fool; for even demons believe in Jesus. I want to make it clear here that it is the faith which we are enabled to have through God's grace that enables us to have eternal life (Ephesians 2:8-9), but that faith will not be genuine unless it transforms the heart of the believer. Now, back to the Old Testament.

Did you notice in those verses from James that there were two references made to Old Testament figures who were counted righteous (or for our purposes, saved)? The first was Abraham. Romans 4 and Galations 3 both take on the question of why was Abraham considered righteous. Both conclude that He was considered righteous because He believed God, He had faith that what God said He would do, would come to pass, (Galations 3:6; Romans 4:18-25). Basically, I believe I can summarize the entire Bible by saying that we need to place our faith in God. What does this faith look like? It looks like the kind that doesn't doubt the truth of the Bible in the same way that it does not doubt the structural integrity of the chair.

I do want to point out something very important. God used Abraham in a mighty way to father the nation of Israel. He did this because He was preparing the way for His Son Jesus to come and die on the cross for our sins. This theme of looking forward to the Messiah is all throughout the Old Testament. The prophetic books are Christo-centric (centre around the coming of Jesus Christ). Indeed, this is the major difference between Judaism and Christianity. Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah and that that New Testament is the fulfillment of everything that the Old Testament is pointing towards. Judaists do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah and therefore they still adhere only to the Old Testament, which in turn, means they are still waiting for the Messiah to come.

How do people in the Old Testament go to heaven? They go to Heaven in the same way that we do, by believing in Jesus with the type of faith that James and Paul described for us. Did they know that His name would be Jesus or that He would die on the cross? Some may have, not all. It was simply a matter of believing that God would send His Son like He promised to through the prophets. It comes down to believing that what God says is true, and such belief will also inspire action. This makes it seem so simple, and in a way it is. Yet, so many people have a hard time believing that the Bible is true. Maybe their reasons for doing so are well-thought out, and maybe they aren't. Regardless of what the reasons are, they are the only reasons that keep these people from being saved.

Good Question! I hope I answered you sufficiently without getting too lengthy.

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sat, 05 Sep 2009 00:44:04 -0000

Did you notice in those verse from James that there were two references made to Old Testament figures who were counted righteous (or for our purposes, saved)? The first was Abraham. Romans 4 and Galations 3 both take on the question of why was Abraham considered righteous. Both conclude that He was considered righteous because He believed God, He had faith that what God said He would do, would come to pass, (Galations 3:6; Romans 4:18-25). Basically, I believe I can summarize the entire Bible by saying that we need to place our faith in God. What does this faith look like? It looks like the kind that doesn't doubt the truth of the Bible in the same that it does not doubt the structural integrity of the chair.

Good Question! I hope I answered your question without getting too lengthy.

_________________________________________________________________
New! Get to Messenger faster: Sign-in here now!
http://go.microsoft.com/?li...

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 12:56:14 -0000

Self-awareness and Morality

I would agree to a degree. That is, I agree that there is no clear-cut limit between morality/self-awareness and its absence (animals that may be self-aware and humans that are handicapped beyond that capacity), but I do believe that it is possible to say, here is morality and here is not. I view it like crossing a national border. In some places, there is no way of knowing whether you are in one country or the other i.e., a field, a river, etc. According to a map, you are in either one country or the other, but when you get out there for yourself it is almost impossible to discern without a fence or some other indicator.

By the way, that mirror test sounds fascinating.

When it comes to the nature vs. nurture debate, I sit somewhere in the middle. I do think there is much to support the idea that we are raised within certain cultural parameters and that these largely shape our worldview and our behaviour (see the example of a girl who was raised in a shed). However, there is also the fact that there lies within us the capacity to learn these concepts, which means that there is some part of the puzzle that is hereditary. I confess, I am more lenient to holistic explanations than reductionistic. I just feel that there is usually more to the picture than just the individual parts.

Evolution is still a theory

I have no doubts that you have witnessed evolution. Even I, without any formal training, have witnessed some of its effects. Yet, the point I am trying to make is that "Evolution" is an interpretation of the facts. Regardless of how well it seems to fit the facts, it is a theory. Please do read the Cleland article. It will explain things better than I can.

While I have your attention, I want to ask you something that you might be able to help me with. One of the main arguments of the Intelligent Design proponents is that mutations are always harmful. Would you be able to give me some examples of mutations that were helpful?

Finally, just because we don't understand why someone would do something doesn't mean they didn't do it. God could still have ultimately created these organisms. I have already described for you Theistic Evolution.

French

I do have to point out that I find it ironic that earlier you would point out that morality is something we inherit through nurture yet here you assert that even had you been brought up in a religious country you would have still rejected what you were being taught. The only way that this would have been possible (and it would have been, I assure you) is if there was something within you that was not nurtured that could reject what was.

Determing the revelation of God's will

There are people who live in denial about World War II, the moon landing, the asteroid that killed off the dinosaurs, the ice age, and the list can go on and on. Yet surely you don't believe that none of these things occurred simply because not everyone can agree that they did.

God is omnipotent, but you have to take into the consideration that He purposely limited what actions He would take to reveal Himself to us. Why did He do this? So that those who chose Him would have done exactly that - made a choice. At least the God described in the Bible did this. If we are talking about different God's then it is simply speculation.

By the way, I had never heard of the mirror test that is done to test for self-awareness, but that doesn't mean it never happened. I trust that you are telling the truth, and if need be, I can research until I am able to verify if such a test actually occurred or not. I also trust that the Bible is telling the truth about the existence of Jesus, in the same way that you are trusting whatever sources tell you otherwise.

"If I hear a warning siren telling me that there is an air raid, may I disregard it simply because it cuts out once in a while or it doesn’t sound quite the same as it did before?"

When there are thousand of different sirens ringing all the time, and never any air raid, it's really hard not to disregard them.

This was actually quite an excellent answer. Let's take a look at the boy who cried wolf. He kept making false alarms, but when the wolves actually came, no one listened. The typical moral of the story is to not make false alarms. In our case however, the point is that the wolves eventually came. Just because there are many false alarms (and on this I completely argree with you) does not preclude that there isn't one that is actually warning of some impending danger. I agree, it isn't necessarily easy to determine which is the correct one, but I would rather begin the process then bury my head in the sand.

You are French. I believe you have most likely heard of Blaise Pascal. I recommend researching his famous "Pascal's Wager". It articulates much of the basis for why I think the way I do.

Generational curses

You can only assume that the mother, if informed that she would become pregnant, would not proceed to get high anyways for whatever reason. Indeed, we can take disbelief for example. What if the mother didn't believe that she would get pregnant because there had been so many people telling her that she would, when nothing ever happened? There are simply too many variables to make the assumption that the mother would choose not to get high in the first place.

I have said this before, but it bears repeating. God is not the active force in a generational curse. I can say this for a couple reasons:

First, just because we have laws that tell us that we will go to jail if we murder someone does not mean that our Government is choosing to punish us for our crime. Indeed, it could be very detrimental for the government, for whatever reason, if we were to go to jail, but (I would hope) they would still be forced to be consistent in punishing us. In the same way, God is forewarning the people of Israel that there will be a punishment for a crime. He doesn't do this after they have committed that crime, He does this in the process of creating their laws. Thus, it is still their choice, having been fully warned of the consequences, to commit the crime and thus impart on their decendents the curse.

Second, like I said before, a generational curse isn't some voodoo enchantment that will physically harm those cursed. A generational curse is God taking away His protection of a person and their family (this by the way, is again an incentive to keep the person from making the decision to do wrong). This protection is not something that we deserve, it is something that God grants us of His own volition. Thus, when He takes it away He is not doing us any wrongs, since that protection was not ours by right. This protection has a physical and a spiritual dimension. Physically, a manifestation of an unprotected person is fetal alcohol syndrome. The mother made certain decisions and these had certain consequences. Again, more examples include the developmental effects that bad parenting has on children, AIDs that have been contracted by the parent and passed on to the child (I don't want to open up a can of worms here, so I will just note that I am fully aware there are plenty of people who have unwittingly received AIDs through rape or a lack of honest disclosure.), and so on. I know you don't believe in the spiritual realm, but a curse also includes the opening up of the familial line to demonic attacks. What I am saying is that a curse is better described as the consequences of one's actions. It is not God sitting up in Heaven dealing out lightning bolts to people's children.

Finally, a generational curse is indeed a choice. It is just not God's choice. Like I said before, a law that has been set before the crime is no longer an example of the law enforcer choosing to punish someone. It is the person who breaks that law in the first place who chooses to do so. A mother who injects heroine regardless of whether she knows she will have a baby or not, still chooses to inject that heroine. The consequences are just those things which will inevitably follow. Finally, and I don't have time to get into it here, but generational curses are also able to be broken. People who have been cursed are not forever trapped by that curse.

I hope my tone has not been confrontational in any way.

_________________________________________________________________
Click less, chat more: Messenger on MSN.ca
http://go.microsoft.com/?li...

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:10:43 -0000

Hi Twazzi,

I apologize for the shortness of this reply but I am in the middle of moving. I thought you might be interested in reading this http://www.literaturecollec... another word for fundamentalism is nationalism, and Orwell explores the concept brilliantly. Enjoy!

I guess to summarize, I would just state that when it comes to democracy, it does not matter what you believe (Atheist, Christian, Hindi, etc.) so long as you learn to respect the beliefs of others as you would have them respect yours. Every world view or belief system is by definition that which its adherents believe to be true. Thus it is inevitable that people are going to disagree with each other. It is how they disagree that affects everything else.

Oh, I also enjoyed learning that you are 75. I find talking to people who have been around for a while is almost always rewarding in some way.

Charles

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:00:26 -0000

Your comment actually explains for me quite a bit. You see, I am a Canadian, and our politics are quite a bit more egalitarian in nature. We do not have a Republican party that is backed by a veritable host of conservative fundamentalists. Mind you, we do have a Conservative and a Liberal party, but neither of them are swayed in any major way by any particular religion i.e., see our Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a Protestant, who took part in Catholic mass. I guess what I am saying is that I, as a Canadian, have never understood why there could be so much hostility to Christianity. I don't feel threatened by other religions, why should other people feel threatened by me?

Obviously we disagree about the validity of the Bible (I too have done considerable research into the history of the Bible. See my comments below). But we do agree about the seperation of church and state. It seems that the political history of the U.S. has largely been reactionary: The country is founded by Christians who seek relief from secular powers in Europe. Eventually, humanists and various religions begin to hold sway in the education and political systems, since America is a democracy that by definition must allow for alternative methods of belief. As a result, Christian fundamentalists start to throw their weight into the ring and begin to fund politicians who agree with Christian values. And finally, and again as a result, people who disagree with Christian values begin expressing hostility towards Christians for imposing their values on everyone. Am I correct in summarizing American history in this way? Incidentally, a radio broadcaster by the name of Allan Cross noted the other day that rock music flourishes when there is a conservative government in power. For example, grunge was extremely popular during Bush senior's time in office, as was punk during Margaret Thatcher's time in British parliament.

Also, just a note on the age of a document (I have treated this more fully in some of my other comments.) We still use the Pythagorean Theorum in modern trigonometry, yet that theorem is over 2,500 years old. Just because something is old does not make it untrue. The converse is also true, just because something is old, does not make it true. The Bible and The Illiad are both ancient documents, yet they disagree with each other. They cannot both be true, assuming of course that one of them even is. Furthermore, just because something is new does not make it true either.

Finally, I figured you could take "no" for an answer, I just thought it was humerous that you argued your way into a corner there. If you chose to respond to me in a way that supported your position then you were in essence not taking "no" for an answer, which in turn invalidates your charge that Christians are those who cannot take "no" for an answer. The only other option was to not respond to me at all, which would render you consistent in your charge, but would leave your comment unsupported. I really was not trying to be an ass, I just wanted to point it out, as I am a Christian who enjoys talking about what I believe. This being said, I wouldn't want to ever be forced to live by someone else's view of morality, as I hold to a very high one. Thus I totally agree with where you are coming from on this.

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:02:03 -0000

Ok, now I am really curious! What is it that you had hoped to find? I'm not
challenging you or anything here, I am just not sure I myself can think of
any other responses than those that disagree or those that agree with the
original article.

--------------------------------------------------

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 01:17:07 -0000

Please don’t consider your response useless. It is people like you, who take the time to rationally explain things to people seeking to learn, who help conversations to be enlightening. I have learned a lot tonight about where evolution now stands. As I said before, I have read Darwin, but his work has long since been outdated by the many advances that have been made in science. Thus, I count it a privilege to have someone with a Doctorate in Biology take the time to explain to me something that I apparently knew little about. You’ll have to forgive my ignorance as I am still catching up. I grew up learning only one side of the argument – Creation, and thus am still learning about Evolution.

As for all your points regarding evolution up until the comment about life, I defer to your authority in the matter. Having said this, I do know enough about the philosophy of science and its methodology to hold firm to my conviction that it is still a theory.

Regarding your point about there being a reason for life, I am not sure we are quite on the same page here. The reason for life and the meaning of life are quite different. There could be no reason for life whatsoever (as you have proposed) but that would not prevent people from deriving meaning from it. Yes, I would speculate that God instigated the big bang, and yes I would admit that neither of us can ever prove for sure what the original catalyst was. We are forced to make a faith statement (I have said this a lot lately.) Yours might be that the universe began ex nihilo (from nothing) and mine would be that God was the original catalyst.

Am I correct in assuming that you are saying something to the effect of: “Suppose there is a God/Creator, what reason is there to worship Him?” There is no reason. Nothing in the simple fact that we are created implies that we must in turn worship our Creator. That is of course unless there is something that tells us we ought to worship Him. Thus we come back once more to the question of the validity of the Bible.

Regarding naturalism and cognition, I think it might be easier if I re-worded my objection. I had hoped to avoid this since it will have a religious inference that I did not want misconstrued. We know that animals have emotions. We know also that animals have cognitive abilities such as memory and even some problem solving skills. We even know that animals have social behaviors and the ability to communicate. All these things are characteristics that humans share with animals. Yet, there is something different about humans. Some might call this difference a soul. I prefer to call it, for the sake of our discussion, self-awareness. In any case, coupled with this self-awareness is a sense of morality. Now, I would argue (tentatively, for you may be aware of something that I am not) that humans are the only animals that have this sense of morality. The question then, and I ask it without malice, is how did our sense of morality evolve? You might have an answer. I however am at a loss. For some interesting reading see “The Problem of Pain” by C. S. Lewis; especially his chapter on animal pain.

A fact is an observable and recordable phenomenon, not the result of logic. I could give you some pretty logically sound reasons for the existence of God, but this does not make His existence a fact. Evolution is still a theory, in the same way that gravity is still a theory. Both of these theories are extremely capable of explaining the many facts that we have collected i.e., the variability of species, the behavior of bodies of mass in relation to each other, etc. but they are neither of them facts in and of themselves. It is more accurate to describe them as descriptive frameworks that house facts.

I want to apologize for my diatribe on the “F-Word” that was meant for a bit of a different audience. I know it seemed like I was criticizing your use of the word, but I assure you, I wrote those words for the benefit of my fellow Christians who hail from a far more conservative background. The French like to use religious words for swearing do they not? (I am Canadian and have therefore been exposed to the language.)

What method would you propose for determining whether God has revealed His will or not? I have given the method of limited mass consensus for the basic tenets of the Bible as being a determinative factor of His revelation. You deny this for whatever your reason is (and it may be valid, I do not know) yet you give me nothing to go on. I ask that you articulate what it would take for you to be convinced that God has revealed His will. If not, I stand firm on my conviction that regardless of your claim that too many people disagree about His will for it to have actually been revealed, there are many more people who agree about the basics. For this, I only have to point to the Christian denominations as proof of my point. On this point I would ask this question. Let us say for a moment that I am right. Let us suppose that God did reveal His will but that He chose not to force people to believe what He wanted them to believe for His own reasons. Does this mean that you can disregard His revelation on the grounds that He did not make it clear enough? If I hear a warning siren telling me that there is an air raid, may I disregard it simply because it cuts out once in a while or it doesn’t sound quite like I expected it to? I would be hard-pressed to find someone willing to agree with me when I made the claim that it wasn’t fair, I should have been more adequately warned. The Bible even makes the claim that people will not understand the Truth because they do not want to find it, (Matthew 13:14-15). Finally, I didn’t say what I “wanted”. All I did was quote the Bible directly, and then summarize the points that were made. Obviously, this is based on the assumption that God revealed His will through the Bible as opposed to some other means. Yet, I would think that you would be welcome to a document that recorded God’s will, as that is exactly what you claim is missing.

Worship is a time of praise. You are not going to find an intellectual reason that will cause you to become convinced that worship is a necessary thing. It is the natural expression of one’s adoration for that which one adores. Until you can adore God in this way, you won’t be able to express your adoration. So the real question you need to pursue is whether this God exists or not. You cannot make the argument that, even if there is a God, you see no reason to worship Him, because for you, it doesn’t apply. You can’t understand until you are in the position to understand. Thus I advise you to stop considering the matter of worship until you have more fully considered the matter of the existence of God. If God does not exist then your problem is solved. If God does exist but does not require worship then again, your problem is solved. If God exists and requires praise, then again, your problem will be solved though in a different way – you will worship God inevitably anyways. Finally, if God exists and desires praise, then you can finally address the problem of whether or not you want to worship Him.

Regarding the emotional response to Christians, I must admit, I am on the same boat as you are. As a Christian, I do believe in evangelism. However, as a realist, I recognize that the society that we live in is repelled by aggressive tactics and self-righteous hypocrisy. Thus, I evangelize in the way that I am now. I simply explain why I believe what I believe. I do not try and force a conversion. I do not try to trick you into becoming a Christian by scaring you with the doctrines of Hell or promising benefits that are available only to a Christian. Although I would note something here. If you were aware that the world was going to end in some drastic way, and you sincerely believed that this was true, would you not try to warn those around you? Having said all this, I believe that the evidence is compelling enough for me to place my faith in the validity of the Bible. I have not wandered into this blindly. I have considered the options. I am convinced that the Bible is true, but I am not convinced that it is my job to make sure that you agree with me. Please note that this particular section is also aimed at my Christian companions.

I am afraid I do not understand your point on generational curses. Are you stating that it was not the mother’s choice to first start smoking and/or snorting cocaine? I think that even real life experience would indicate otherwise. Sure, she may have become addicted and been unable to stop while pregnant, but she did make that original choice. Finally, I would caution you about criticizing my knowledge of modern evolution when you in turn have little or no first-hand experience regarding the Old Testament, something that I have studied with varying intensity for about 18 years now. If I am to learn about evolution, you in turn should learn about Theology. Please do not mistake my tone here for angry or insulted. I am just surprised that you would base your knowledge about Generational curses on information that you have “heard”. In addition to my knowledge of the Old Testament, I have also studied generational curses and blessings more specifically as I thought there might be some correlation between them and homosexuality (the results are inconclusive at this point). Thus, when I say that a) no one is innocent (Romans 3:23), b) the majority of the Old Testament is not filled with stories of genocide, and c) Jesus and the Old Testament do not disagree. Rather Jesus fulfills the Old Testament, I do so with an authority that you lack in the same way that I lack authority when it comes to evolutionary theory.

Please do respond, you have posed the best questions so far. I am very much enjoying this process - I learned about evolution today!

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:54:45 -0000

Might I interest you in what I have said? See above.

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:48:56 -0000

Actually you can find references to this in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1.

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 18:42:55 -0000

Very well said.

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:52:41 -0000

In that case, what you have stated is not true. Will you take "no" for an answer?

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 16:50:22 -0000

I would begin by stating what I have made clear to everyone else already. It is not my intent to convert you to Christianity. I say this to hopefully reduce somewhat the tension that is currently present between us. I hope that you do not feel threatened or offended by what I have said or what I have yet to say.

Let’s begin with your first paragraph. A previous respondent made a similar all-inclusive comment to the one that you have made here: “…I just want to tell you that you don’t understand a thing about what evolution is…” The problem is that you have made a statement which I can easily disprove by quoting for you the last sentence of Darwin’s “On the Origin of the Species” the sixth edition, which I read in its entirety: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” Darwin is here explicitly stating that the Creator instigated the process of evolution. In addition, I am currently half-way through his later “The Descent of Man”. I concede to you that I am not nearly as educated as those who devote their life to the theory, but I deny that I have no understanding whatsoever. Also, if you are referring to evolution as defined by the Neo-Darwinists then I can only claim to have read descriptions of the theory as opposed to very many works by its proponents. This being said, I have read Huxley and Dawkins.

1. It is not strength but adaptive capabilities that determine survival. You are right in pointing this out. I failed to define what I meant by “strength” and by “fight” in the comment that I believe you read. I define strength here now as that ability which most enables an organism to survive whether that is speed, stature, agility, attractiveness, etc. I am able to define it as such for the word “strength” can be used to describe more than just physical ability, i.e., The Vikings were a “strong” race. I define “fight” as whatever activities take place that assert the dominance of one or more beings over one or more others. If you refer back to my question, you will note that these meanings fit the context of what I attempted to describe.

2. You are right; bacteria have a higher chance of surviving that humans do. I only ask then, why is it that humans have evolved to a state of consciousness whereas bacteria remain undeveloped? If the best adaptable are able to procreate and therefore to evolve into higher life forms then why is it that Bacteria are not among the higher animals, so to speak?

3. Again, I completely agree with you. Species are just a concept that we employ to help us determine the differences that we observe in the animal world. If I follow the thought correctly, all animals are simply different variations of the same original species. This by the way would sufficiently answer my question about the weak individuals. I thought I was missing something. Thanks!

4. Life is just chemical reactions that keep on going. That was a statement made by a being that is capable of thought. I would be interested to know how a naturalist can explain consciousness. The statement “I am aware that I am aware”, exceeds the ability of naturalism to explain, as a series of chemical reactions could never be aware of itself. As for life, if it is a series of chemical reactions then it is a series of actions that are the result of some original catalyst. What was this catalyst and more importantly why was there a catalyst to begin with? Whatever answer you give for this question implies that this question has meaning. How do chemical reactions deal with the concept of meaning? Actually, while we are at it, how do chemical reactions deal with concepts at all? The existence of cognition is the ultimate failure of naturalism.

5. Natural selection is not a theory it is a fact. Well, Creation is not a theory it is fact. Are you shocked by this statement? If so, why are you shocked? I have just as much legal right to make this claim as you have to make yours. Furthermore, your worldview is not inherently worth more than mine. You might respond to me emotionally with something to the effect of “Are you blind? We observe natural selection all around us all the time! It is as obvious as the idea that dust collects where it is hard to clean!” To which I would respond, based on what evidence? First, you are assuming that what you are observing is natural selection. Second, you are assuming that natural selection will never be disproven by some future discovery or advancement in science. Third, you are assuming that science is the best epistemological system for determining which knowledge is valid and which is not. Sure, all these assumptions could eventually be supported through some logic or other, but then you are faced with the problem of not being able to justify the use and value of logic by using logic. My point is this; you operate from a world view that consists of pre-suppositions. Indeed, we all operate from these worldviews which in turn slant the way that we see the world around us. Even if you were to claim that you do not have such a worldview, I could turn around and state that that statement is simply an expression of your worldview. Let us then be very careful about stating that what was once a theory is now a fact. Indeed, even those most fundamental theories of gravity and thermodynamics which Newton proposed are still just theories, and somewhat disproven at that (see Einstein’s “Relativity”). See my above notes for more on theories, scientific methodology, and faith statements. In conclusion of this point, I know it may not have seemed like it, but I too would consider natural selection to be the best unifying theory for explaining the causative history of the observable universe. I just happen to also believe that this does not disprove the Bible. Where is the Dodo bird now?

6. If you could prove for me “beyond a shadow of a doubt” that God did not create the world as it is, whatever amount of time ago, you would be perhaps the most revolutionary philosopher that ever lived. I would be very interested to read your proof. Also, do I understand you correctly when I say that you do not believe it is possible to prove one way or the other that the universe is a product of our imaginations but that it is not worth believing that this New Age philosophy is true because there is no good reason to? If this is the case, then I agree. We cannot prove definitively that this theory is not true. What we can do however is raise the concept of Consensus Reality. That will throw a wrench the New Age philosopher’s gears. That we are forced to work with what we have got, is also something I would agree with.

7. Why should we obey God? If there is a God, would this even be something that we should be allowed to determine for ourselves; as though we, humans, have the ability or the right to defy what God asks of us. This is presumptuous to say the least. However, that you are even asking the question determines two things: either, there is no God and thus you are able to pose such a question, or else there is a God but He allows you the ability to choose whether or not you will obey Him. The only other option is a God who demands obedience, but He cannot possibly exist since you have already posed the question. To this end, I would point out that the God who allows us to choose, fits the picture of the God of the Bible.

8. How the "fuck", are you supposed to know how to obey God? (Let’s just be real here, though it might be considered rude in some circles, I do not consider a synonym for “sex” to be wrong. Having said this, when using it in the way that we both have just now, it does not make grammatical sense. Think about it; let’s replace our usage of it above with the word “sex”. It doesn’t sound quite right does it? Thus I avoid using the f-word in my writing for two reasons: I rarely have the opportunity to use it properly, and I seek to avoid unnecessarily offending my readers.) Now, it is interesting that you should ask this question as the answer is obvious – read the Bible. Of course you might object to the validity of the Bible (see my above notes) or else you might point out the fact that there so many different religions that all have different interpretations of the Bible, so who is right? Well, you can start by looking for the elements that are both in the Bible (for many religions add to or take away from what is clearly written) and that are common to differing religions. Most religions that use the Bible will admit that they believe there is a God, further more, most would also admit that Jesus was a real person and also the Son of God. These are just two points that most Biblically based religions would agree on. It seems to me then that there is a way to know what God wants of you. Incidentally, I will leave you with a series of verses that define what God wants from us.

a) Ecclesiastes 12:13 “Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” We see here that the Biblical answer to the question about why we exist is to fear God and keep his commandments. (I would note here that fear does not necessarily mean we need to be scared of God, rather we ought to have a proper respect for Him.) So then, what are those commandments?

b) Matthew 22:35-40 “One of them an expert in the law, tested him with this question: Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law? Jesus replied: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” Jesus is basically saying that everything that was written in the Old Testament about what is expected of man can be fulfilled in two simple commands: love God and love others. Our question now becomes what is love and how do we do it?

c) 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trust, always hopes, always perseveres.” Now that we know what love is like, how do we do it?
John 14:15 “If you love me, you will obey what I command.” Admittedly, this brings us back in a circle. What the commands? Love God and others. How do you love God? Obey His commands. However, there is more to the story.

John 14:24 “He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own: they belong to the Father who sent me.” Thus we see that if we love God we must obey His teachings. What are these teachings? Well that is what the four Gospels are for. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John record for us what Jesus taught. I will summarize by saying that Jesus taught that man is sinful and therefore in need of a Savior, because of this, Jesus came, as the Son of God to be a sacrifice that would provide salvation for all those who seek it. He also taught that He would rise again after having been killed on the cross, and that He would go back to Heaven where He would be waiting for everyone who believe in Him. Don’t take my word for this however; if you truly mean what you say when you stated that even if you did want to obey Him you wouldn’t know how, you will at least consider reading these four books. That hinges of course if you want to obey Him.

9. Generational Curses. That you think punishing the children of the offender is despicable does not make it false. Indeed, just because you don’t like the Bible does not make it untrue. (See an above note where I, a Christian, make a similar statement about not liking certain portions of the Bible). What makes a document true or untrue is the accuracy with which it describes reality, whatever that may be. I would question something however. If the Bible is a work of fiction and the characters within it are all made up, then why is it that you have such an emotional response to the stories presented within it? For example, if I were to read a fantasy novel that described a power that unjustly slew thousands of fictional characters I would have only as much a response as one would expect from someone who knew that they were reading only a fiction. This is a point that I find interesting. To address your charge more directly however, I would point out the fact that generational curses are all around us yet we do not feel they are caused directly by God, rather we point to things like entropy and genetics to explain why things are the way they are. For example, a mother who gets high on cocaine while pregnant with a child will give birth to a child that is addicted to drugs. Is this fair? Of course it isn’t. However, it is exactly the same concept as that of the generational curse. A parent does something stupid and their children bear the consequences. Another example is that of an alcoholic father who beats his children. Psychology shows that these children will bear serious emotional scars that will, in turn, affect how they raise their own children. Again, the consequences of the parent affect the children, the grandchildren, etc. It is often said that God’s wrath is simply allowing us to do what we want to do. That is to say, His punishment is to allow the natural consequences of our actions to occur. Thus, God is not the active force in the generational curse, we are. The only thing He does is to allow what would happen to happen. However, if you take a look at Generational Blessings, you will see that God blesses for a thousand generations. This is a lot more than the 4 or 5 that are cursed. A blessing therefore is God intervening and helping us to make decisions that will have good consequences for our offspring. I hope that this gives you a bit of a clearer understanding of the concept of generational curses and blessings.

In conclusion, I would just reiterate that I only hope here to answer questions in a way that will hopefully allow you to understand where I am coming from a little bit better. I welcome your criticisms and questions.

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:29:26 -0000

You are correct that the big bang is a singularity through which no information can pass, however this also precludes the possibility that the creator of the big bang could have had any effect on how the universe evolved after the big bang.

More importantly, how can you say that the "Bible [is] true and the best historical causative explanation" when it contradicts everything we observe about the universe? Besides the obvious things like the age of the earth and the fact that there are way too many species of animal to fit in Noah's Ark, why didn't anyone else see a star appear in the sky over bethlehem and write it down? why do we have no record of the census that Mary and Joseph were supposedly in town for? For that matter, why can't the gospels even agree with each other?

and finally, you say that we should be educated about christianity before we discount it. Does that mean that you have educated yourself about every other religion on earth before discounting them?

Please know that it is not my intent to try and convert you to Christianity. I simply seek to provide a credible explanation for why Christians believe what they do. You should also know that I am a 21 year old college student who is studying architecture technology at a community college. That is to say, I am not a Greek scholar, I am not a pastor, and I am not a philosopher. I just happen to be a Christian who wants people to know that Christianity is not an intellectually defunct religion.

So, in response to your objections I must begin by stating that you have given many of the biggest questions that people have for Christianity. The argument goes like this: Christianity is based on the Bible. If the Bible is false Christianity is false. Therefore we must disprove the Bible.

One argument raised is that, and I quote, the Bible is “a collection of texts written and compiled by superstitious Bronze Age and Iron Age human beings.” One of the inferences here being that an ancient document cannot be as accurate as a modern document since a) the modern document is better informed by advancements in science and b) the modern document is better recorded whereas the ancient document is subject to damage, change, misinterpretation, etc. However, while these points are worthy of consideration, I propose that ancient document X is just as capable of containing truth as modern document Y. For example, Proverbs 30:33 states: “For as churning the milk produces butter, and as twisting the nose produces blood, so stirring up anger produces strife.” I am sure that we would both agree that these statements are true today, yet they were written thousands of years ago. Indeed even modern trigonometry textbooks still use the Pythagorean Theorem today, 2,500 years after its inception. Thus we see that there is such a thing as a timeless truth and that the age of the document containing has nothing to do with its validity. This argument goes the other way too however; just because a document is ancient does not mean that it is inherently anymore accurate than a modern document. Some folks like to point to a book like the Bible and claim that it must be true since it has stood the test of time and criticism for so long. To these folks I simply have to point to other ancient texts such as The Egyptian Book of the Dead which refers to Osiris a god other than the one and only Christian God, in order to prove that age does not equate to accuracy. (This is of course, assuming that the Egyptian Book of the Dead doesn’t have it right.) It is an interesting thought however, that the Bible will still be around even after you and I have been gone for many years. The other inference that is made in the statement quoted above is that the authors of the Bible believed in a non-existent God. This argument against the Bible is predicated by the belief that God does not exist. In other words one must first prove that God does not exist before one can disprove the Bible. If this is the case, and I believe that it is, then the conversation moves beyond the scope of this comment. One thing is sure however, the argument that God cannot exist because the Bible is false and the Bible is false because God does not exist, is circular. One must either take one route or the other. For us, let us proceed to take a look at the validity of the Bible.

Before we continue however, I would like to address your first paragraph. You stated: “… this also precludes the possibility that the creator of the big bang could have had any effect on how the universe evolved after the big bang.” This statement is based on several assumptions:

1. That the Creator(s) of the Big Bang is contained by what is other than our physical universe. Our definition of a singularity is that no information can leave it for such information would have to reach the speed of light and would therefore become infinite in mass. What if the information did not have any physical properties? What if the information, not being governed by the theoretical physical laws of our universe was able to “be” wherever it so chose. I guess what I am saying is that you are assuming that God is governed by the laws of the universe, and furthermore, by laws which have yet to be observed and are therefore just theories.

2. That the Creator(s) of the Big Bang did not design the singularity in such a way that the universe would unfold according to plan. There is an interesting branch of Theology which is known as Theistic Evolution. Basically, adherents of this theory believe that Gen. 1-11 need not be taken literally. They hold to what is called the Framework theory which proposes that those first chapters of Genesis were written in a very similar style to documents which were circulating in the Ancient Near East at the time and that as a result, they were not meant to be a literal rendition of what happened but were instead a Divinely inspired poem that made a radically different truth claim in a framework that was familiar to readers of that day. In this way, theistic evolutionists believe that the epoch of evolution is true but that it did not start from nothing (ex nihilo). They believe that God started the ball rolling, so to speak. Indeed, this is a fascinating theory as it would actually be easier to explain through causation than the theory that the Big Bang came from nothing. Now, I am aware that scientists and philosophers claim that because the Big Bang was a singularity we cannot know what was before it and that all talk about the original cause is futile, since we cannot guarantee that the laws of our universe applied before its inception. Yet, I would simply point out what I previously stated – God is not governed by the physical laws that He created. In any case, it is conceivable that God created the universe in such a way that it would evolve in the same way that it apparently has. Indeed, this would help to answer the question about fine-tuning and the staggering statistics that point to the improbability of evolution occurring.

3. That the Big Bang occurred at all. Now I realize you did not make the statement as a claim that the Big Bang occurred. However you did use it as a way to question the existence of a Creator as described by the Bible. Since I understand that you don’t believe in this God, or at least not in the one in the Bible, I may take it that you assume the Big Bang to have occurred.

The Big Bang Theory is just that, a theory. There has never been an observable singularity recorded. That is not to say that there will not be one eventually. Rather, that the theory remains unproven. I would refer back to our discussion about the evidential methodology of the sciences which deal with history (*See the end of this note). I stated: “Scientists who deal with history… seek a theory that can unify all the data that they have collected.” In our case, the science is cosmology and the reigning theory is that of the Big Bang. Stephen Hawking sums up the theory nicely in his “A Brief History of Time”. I suspect actually, that you are probably already familiar with this work. His summary would best describe what I would consider to be the most unifying theory about the origin of the universe based on the evidence around us i.e., the expanding property of our universe as observed by the red spectrum, and the background residual heat signature that is universal and therefore indicative of a Big Bang. However, just because it presently best explains the universe as we observe it, there is no guarantee that tomorrow someone won’t make a revolutionary discovery that changes how we view things. Indeed, these discoveries have happened before via Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, and Einstein. History shows that the likelihood is that there will be even more revolutions in thought to come. Thus, I am very tentative about stating that the Big Bang happened. At this point, as a Christian and as a thinker, I would simply state that it seems apparent that the Big Bang occurred and that this does not necessarily disprove Creation. When you start to draw a picture you must first place your writing utensil on the paper. This place is your starting point. God could have had a starting point when He began the process of Creation/Evolution or perhaps both and that point could have been the Big Bang. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that based on the patterns of growth as opposed to instantaneous development that we see around us, this is likely the case.

Now, let us take a look at the second paragraph of your comment and the one most relevant to our talk about the validity of the Bible. You ask how I can claim that the Bible is true and the best causative historical explanation when it contradicts everything we observe about the universe. I am going to let you off easy on this one and just refer you back to Proverbs 30:33 where we see that the Bible does not in fact contradict “everything we observe about the universe”. I like that you are willing to challenge what I have to say as it indicates you think for yourself. As for the rest of the paragraph, I am going to have use numbers again:

1. The age of the earth. See above to my discussion about Theistic Evolution. That the universe could be 14 billion years old, does not in fact disprove the Bible as the Bible never makes a claim about the age of the universe. If the universe is truly 14 billion years old (again a theory that seems best able to explain the facts at this point in our cognitive history) then it can only disprove the Biblical literalist’s theory that the universe is 6-10,000 years old based on the chronological records. However, even a Biblical literalist cannot say when Lucifer was cast out of heaven (Isaiah 14:5-20). They can infer that the Fall took place some time before Adam and Eve were in the garden for that is where He tempted them to sin. Yet there is no time given. Thus it is conceivable that some sort of universe existed for Lucifer to be cast to before the Garden of Eden was created. This is especially true when we take a look at Genesis 1:1-13. These events occurred before there were lights in the sky to demark day and night. And these are just the arguments that concern a Biblical literalist. A non-literalist, let alone a Theistic Evolutionist who believes in the Framework theory have even less of a problem with the age of the Earth contention. In summary, I restate that the age of the earth does not disprove the Bible as the Bible makes no claim regarding such.

2. Noah’s Ark. Creationists believe that all humans descended from a common pair – Adam and Eve. Evolutionists believe that all humans descended from a common pair of whatever species it was that we were before we attained consciousness and our status as humans. Creationists believe that, even though we came from two people, the world around us is filled with billions of people who are all unique in appearance, ability, etc. Evolutionists believe that natural selection favours those best able to survive. In our case, humanity as a species is best able to survive over all other species because we came from progenitors who were best able amongst other species and their own to procreate.** Creationists believe that only the original progenitors of each family of species of land animals and birds were brought on the ark. Genesis 6:20 clearly states: “Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal, and of every creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.” To illustrate, it would be equivalent to God saying that dogs, cats, elephants, etc. should be brought on the ark, as opposed to Golden Retrievers, Black Labradors, African elephants, Indian elephants, etc. Thus there would be enough room for two of every kind if seen in this way. Actually, if you wanted to, you could also point to the fact that on the sixth day of Creation, Adam names all the animals. Now if he had had to name the near countless varieties of species that exists today he would never have finished by the end of the day. In both cases, I believe that genetic variation, Divine selection, (the same as breeding but on a much bigger scale), and indeed, possibly evolution are points which do not disprove the story of Noah and the Ark. Finally, there are historical records in many other non-Biblical cultures that there was once a world wide flood.

3. The Star of Bethlehem. For this, I am afraid that I am way out of my league. My only recourse is to refer you to studies done by others that would indicate that the star of Bethlehem is legitimate.

a) See “An Astronomical Re-Appraisal of the Star of Bethlehem – A Nova in 5 BC” by David H. Clark, John H. Parkinson, and F. Richard Stephenson http://adsabs.harvard.edu/a...

b) See “The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi” by Michael R. Molnar http://books.google.ca/book...

c) See “The Star of Bethlehem” by David W. Hughes http://www.nature.com/natur... and http://adsabs.harvard.edu/a.........

d) See “The Star of Bethlehem: An Astronomer’s View” by Mark R. Kidger http://books.google.ca/book...

I feel that to continue giving you references at this point would be superfluous on my part. If you are interested in finding out more, Google has a “Scholar” option under the “more” tab at the top right corner of the page. This will allow you to search for peer-reviewed academic works on any given subject. In conclusion, I believe that the evidence points to the legitimacy of the Bible in regards to this point.

4. The Census. Again, I am afraid that I am out of my league when it comes to giving you a proper explanation on this point. So once more, I can only refer you to articles and studies that would indicate that the census actually did take place.

a) See “The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2” by Wayne Bridle http://digitalcommons.liber... Please notice the year 5 BC makes another appearance.

b) See “The Nativity Census: What Does Luke Actually Say?” by John Thornley http://www.jstor.org/pss/64... I am afraid that with this one, I cannot provide you with very much either way.

For the sake of length, please refer to Google Scholar if you would like more information. Once more, I believe that the evidence indicates that the Bible is correct in its claims.

5. The agreement of the Gospels. I must confess, I have been typing for the past hour or two and am now getting weary. I refer you to “God on the Docks” by C. S. Lewis (a Christian apologist and a brilliant literary critic (the first Professor of Medieval and Renaissance English at Cambridge)), “Letters from a Skeptic” by Gregory A. Boyd (A Christian theologian and a graduate of both Yale and Princeton), and “The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition” again by G. A. Boyd. Basically, both of these well-qualified authors point out that the Gospels bear all the marks of a historically accurate account that would have hailed from that time. Such marks include: the inclusion of seemingly pointless information long before the style of literary realism was created, the agreement with various other historical documents from that period, and the verification of truth claims such as the star of Bethlehem, the Roman census, etc. Finally, Google Scholar will direct you if you need further assistance.

Finally, we move on to your last paragraph. Let me put it this way. If someone were to claim that your belief system was false would you take them seriously if they didn’t have a clue what they were talking about? I find it insulting when people claim that I believe a lie when they have not even taken the time to understand why it is that they believe it is a lie. Have they examined Christianity and found it to be incompatible with the world that they observe? Or have they simply jumped on to the band wagon of folks who wish to discredit Christianity? I do not know, but what I do know is that I would never seek to disprove someone else’s worldview if I did not first understand what their worldview was all about. In the end, if I were honest, I would just feel foolish when they articulated their worldview in such a way that illustrated how much I had assumed to be true that wasn’t. So yes, I have at least sought a preliminary understanding of the all the other major religions of this world. And yes, I still believe the Bible is the most unifying theory that best explains the causative history of the world. And, you are more than free to disagree with me on that ;)

* I base my thought about this aspect of science on Carol E. Cleland’s excellent paper “Methodological and Epistemic Differences between Historical Sciences and Experimental Sciences” which can be found at http://spot.colorado.edu/~c... courtesy of the University of Colorado. For more on the philosophy of science see Steve Fuller’s “Dissent over Descent”. See also the respective works of Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn.

** My question at this point is why there exist now within our species those who are weaker than others i.e., the mentally handicapped, the sickly, etc? Why is it possible for there to be stronger and weaker individuals in any of the species that inhabit our planet to exist simultaneously? The only possible answer is that there must have, at one point been some condition or circumstance (such as drafting in war) that favoured the existence of a weaker individual so much so that they were able to find a mate to procreate with. That this occurs does not challenge the theory of natural selection until you begin get much higher up in Darwin’s infamous “Tree of Life” illustration. When did the first weak individual procreate? It could not have been in the original amino acids and proteins for when life was “one” it was neither stronger nor weaker. When life was “two” the two individuals were both strong since they were both necessary for procreation. When life began to multiply into “four”, “eight”, etc. they were all still the same species. Natural selection states then that only the strongest individuals within that species will procreate and thus preserve their DNA. The only way then that two species could ever occur is if there were at least four individuals equally strong but in different ways. Otherwise, there would only be one species on the planet – the strongest. Yet, isn’t natural selection determinative in that only the “strongest” survive? Out of those four, which were stronger? I have said that they were equal, but is this even possible? If there was a fight for survival, as Natural selection implies if not states outright, then these four individuals would have been forced to contend for the same resources. Obviously, two of them won the fight for resources and procreative rights; thus proving themselves stronger than the other pair. How then can there be a multiplicity of species. I do not expect you to answer, and I am sure that my question is most likely missing something, I just thought I would ask it anyways.

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:07:25 -0000

Lol. Don't feel guilty, I enjoy defending my beliefs. In fact, I enjoy it even more when people challenge them, as it affords me the opportunity to articulate my own thoughts on the matter.

I consider it your right and priviledge to disbelieve the Bible, so long as you are aware that ultimately we have to make a faith statement one way or the other. We can only rationalize up to a certain point before we are forced to recognize that all our previous thought is based on one or more fundamental assumptions.

By the way, I prefer not to use the KJV for the very same reason that you were unable to see any reference to homosexuality in that verse. The English word "homosexuality" is a rather recent word and did not exist at the time the KJV was written. This, coupled with many other differences in language usage, causes me to prefer a modern translation that has been written in a language style that people today can be more familiar with.

I welcome your curiosity!

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:49:11 -0000

a) See “An Astronomical Re-Appraisal of the Star of Bethlehem – A Nova in 5 BC” by David H. Clark, John H. Parkinson, and F. Richard Stephenson http://adsabs.harvard.edu/a...

b) See “The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi” by Michael R. Molnar http://books.google.ca/book...

c) See “The Star of Bethlehem” by David W. Hughes http://www.nature.com/natur... and http://adsabs.harvard.edu/a.........

d) See “The Star of Bethlehem: An Astronomer’s View” by Mark R. Kidger http://books.google.ca/book...

a) See “The Census and Quirinius: Luke 2:2” by Wayne Bridle http://digitalcommons.liber... Please notice the year 5 BC makes another appearance.

b) See “The Nativity Census: What Does Luke Actually Say?” by John Thornley http://www.jstor.org/pss/64... I am afraid that with this one, I cannot provide you with very much either way.

For the sake of length, please refer to Google Scholar if you would like more information. Once more, I believe that the evidence indicates that the Bible is correct in its claims.

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 18:45:17 -0000

So I will try to keep this as brief as possible. It will be hard to do so however as you have raised several key questions.

Let's start with the first paragraph. You have made two assumptions: a) That the Big Bang occurred and b) that the Creator(s) could not have structured the Big Bang in such a way that it would produce a universe that evolved according to plan.

Assumption A: I would refer you once more to my discussion on the historic sciences. In our case, we are dealing primarily with Cosmology. Before I continue, I would credit the article http://spot.colorado.edu/~c... with providing an excellent articulation of the nature of the methodology of science. I stated: "Scientists who deal with history... seek a theory that can unify all the data that they have collected." To this end, Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" (which I suspect you are familiar with already) is a perfect example of just such a unifying theory. The Big Bang certainly seems to fit all the evidence i.e., the residual heat signature of the Universe, the expansion of the Universe, the behaviour of light, etc.

There are few things to keep in mind however. First, a theory is just a theory. There is nothing to guarentee that tomorrow a discovery might be made that will alter the way we view the world in the same way that Newton first, then Einstein have. Second, the best unifying theory does not automatically disprove the other theories, even those that disagree with it. As it is a theory and not a proof, it does not have this power. As for proof, this is also a tricky thing to get ahold of. Let us take an experiment that predicts that when we flip the switch the light bulb will turn on. Then let us assume that this prediction has been proven true the last 300 times we have flipped the switch. What is problematic is that there is no way of knowing for sure if the light will turn on the next time. We can make educated guesses based on our statistics that it will most likely turn on, but we cannot say for sure. There are too many variables, too many unknowns. Thus science, becomes quite concerned with probabilities. Is it likely that the Big Bang occurred? Sure, it would appear so based on the evidence. But there is no way to say for sure. We cannot reproduce it in a lab, and we cannot produce a first-hand account of it happening so many million years ago. My point is this, we need to be careful about how much trust we place in science. I would conclude this part with the reminder, that I cannot guarentee that the Universe was Created anymore than you can that it evolved. We are forced back to making faith statements.

Assumption 2: There are at least seven different Creation theories that I am aware of. Several of which include evolution in their scope. As I don't feel it is necessary to get into them all, I will simply refer you to two concepts. The first is Theistic Evolution. The second is more theological in nature, Framework Interpretation of Genesis. A quick search online should provide you with an adequate starting point.

Now on to your second paragraph. You start by making a very easy statement to disprove. "...when it contradicts everything we observe about the universe?" Proverbs 30:33 clearly states: "For as churning the milk produces butter, and as twisting the nose produces blood, so stirring up anger produces strife." I am sure you would be forced to agree with this statement. Thus I propose that you made your statement without truly thinking it through. I understand what you are trying to say however. How can I say that the Bible is the best historical causative explanation when it contradicts many different facts that we observe about the universe? The answer is simply that I do not feel it contradicts true history or science at all. Obviously your rejoinder to this claim is that I base my conception of true history and science on my interpretation of the Bible. And guess what, you're right! Now I challenge you to articulate for me a self-consistent worldview as widely adhered to as the Bible that you operate from in determining what you consider to be true science and history. You see, once more, we each are reduced to faith statements. I believe the Bible to be true and I believe that science and history, when they are accurate, will agree with what it says. You believe that the Bible is not true and therefore you believe that science and history, when they are accurate (however you are able to determine that) will disprove the Bible. We both operate on pre-suppositions.

But this doesn't answer your questions, so let's take a look at those now shall we.

1. The age of the earth. Let's actually expand this question to that of the age of the universe. There are many different theories about how old the universe is the two most extreme are: evolutionary scientists and theistic evolutionary Christians believe that it is somewhere between 14-15 Billion years old based on evidence they have gathered by observation and deduction, on the opposite end of the spectrum we have Christian Biblical literalists who believe the earth and universe to be 6-10,000 years old based on the chronological records that they have in the Bible. Who is right? Well, for a Christian, it depends on how literally one interprets the Bible. Literalists contend that the entire Bible ought to be taken literally as it is a straight-forward revelation from God. Non-literalists contend that the intended meaning of the Bible is more important than the meaning that we might infer today. That is to say, what was the context of the Bible as it was written all those years ago? Was it allegorical, symbolical, literal, poetic, legal, etc.? I am not saying that they believe that what the Bible has to say is not relevant to today, indeed, it is quite the opposite. They still believe that the truth of the Bible is applicable to those of us still walking, it is just that the think there is a better way of determining what that truth is, than by taking everything at face value. To this end, I would fall into the non-literalist camp. Having said this, I would adhere to very stringent hermeneutical principles in how I interpret the Bible. Going back to our question of the age of the universe, the Bible never ever makes a statement that says anything to the effect of "The age of the universe is X years old." Thus, this is one of those topics that I find interesting but not critical to the issue. Believe whatever you want to believe about the Bible, you won't find me saying that you are wrong.

2. Animals in Noah's ark. If you adhere to Darwinian evolution then you ought to have no contention with Noah's ark, for you must inevitably believe that all life on earth evolved from a few organisms. I refer now to the infamous "Tree of Life" illustration in Darwin's "The Origin of the Species". We see that every being on earth comes from a few original beings. Indeed, the ark claims nothing less. Christians, even literalists, believe that the ark was filled with the original animals that have since varieated to create the diversity that we see today. Indeed, we could go further back and say that Christians believe every human being, as incredibly diverse as we observably are, came from Adam and Eve. Thus, it is no challenge to us that there were less animals on the ark than there are now. The Bible says that God stipulated that two of every kind of animal go on the ark (Gen. 6:20). This is more or less equivalent to what the evolutionist claims.

Actually, here is aquestion that I have for the evolutionist. Let us suppose that natural selection is indeed the mechanism that allows for evolution. Let us further suppose that natural selection is best described as survival of the fittest. If this is true then let us go back to our supposed origins. Let us suppose that we began as that first proper mix of amino acids. If after time, we could conceive that these proteins developed sexual systems to be able to reproduce, then we are forced to consider the first pair. Now here is where I find natural selection interesting. Let us call this first pair A and B. They have offspring C. C either kills A or B (depending on its sex) and mates with the surviving progenitor, or it mates with D (another offspring of the appropriate sex). And the process continues on and on until a new species that is stronger than the first, comes along and kills off the first in order to survive, for that is the way that Natural Selection works. This process, in turn, repeats itself over and over again, each time the strongest only is able to survive and procreate. How is it then that we have a multiplicity of species? Shouldn't there only be one species? Admittedly if the living requirements and the natural habitat of the species also varied then I can understand how there could be more than one species, but I am left with an inadequate definition for natural selection. For how could the stronger and the weaker species survive simultaneously? If we came from fish, why are there still fish? If from birds, why are there still birds? And so the questions go. Anyways, I just thought I would toss that out there. I am fully aware that I am likely missing something. I do not ask these things in a challenging way. Rather, I am simply curious.

3. The star above Bethlehem. I really, really do not want to sound cruel or sarcastic here, but have you even looked into this for yourself? I suggest you start by at least Googling "The Star of Bethlehem". In any case, there are ancient coins that suggest other people saw the star.

http://www.eclipse.net/~mol...

http://www.space.com/spacew...

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/top...

4. The census that Mary and Joseph took part in. Again, I believe that a quick search for evidence on the internet will give you an adequate start. I will admit, there is a 4 year difference in varying accounts of this census, but that it took place is much more likely than not. See last link above.

I hate to refer you to quick internet links on this topic, but my answer to your questions is already growing lengthy, and the evidence supporting my position seems to me at least to be fairly easy to access.

5. Why don't the Gospels agree with each other. I would argue that they do agree with each other. As they were written by different authors, there were different emphasis placed on various aspects of Jesus ministry. Indeed, the study of historical literature would indicate that the Gospels are valid historical documents. For a more full explanation and defense of the credibility of the gospels see Boyd's "Letters from a Skeptic".

As for your last paragraph. I would first ask you this, if I were to discredit what you believe most fundamentally, wouldn't you prefer that I first knew what I was talking about? If I knew nothing about what you believed you wouldn't take my accusations very seriously would you? In answer to your question however, yes, I do believe that one ought to be educated in every mode of thought that he seriously seeks to discredit. I have done precursory studies of the various major religions and I feel that I understand them adequately enough to remain committed to my Christian outlook. That being said, I have not sought to question any of their tenets in my comments here. All I have done is to defend myself. Sometimes I wonder though why people are so bent on disproving Christianity. As for me, I have never gone on blogs that attempt to rip apart Buddhism so that I may add my own comments about the inconsistencies that I see in it. So why is it that so many in the West do this to Christianity?

The answer to this still eludes me, but one thing seems to repeat itself. People get angry when they get scared. There is a statistic that indicates more often than not the stronger a person is homophobic the more likely it is that they are a closeted homosexual. When people feel threatened by something they lash out in an attempt to remove the threat. If this is true of you, I would ask, purely out of curiousity, what it is about Christianity that threatens you? Do you feel that it is a belief system that has been adequately disproven and is therefor intellectually inferior to your own modern/postmodern beliefs? Please do not feel that I am attacking you. I just think it is fair to ask some questions of my own.

In conclusion, I am 21 years old, a student of architecture technology at a community college, and I have no formal training in any of the subjects that I have been discussing. If I have failed to explain something adequately, or worse, correctly, then I apologize.

Keep em' coming!

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:01:03 -0000

I will reply to this comment first as the other one might take a bit of time. Before I continue, I would like to commend you for taking the time to check out the Bible for yourself. If people only ever took each other at their word our world be much more confusing than it already is.

Ok. So 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." NIV

The book of 1 Corinthians is actually a very long letter (epistle) that Paul is writing to the Corinthian church. In the verses I typed out above you will see that homosexual offenders are listed among the wicked who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Thus I can truly state: "that there are still passages in the New Testament that do not advocate homosexuality." That the passage does not go into detail about homosexuality does not change the truth of what I have said.

As for 1 Timothy 1: "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers-and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine." NIV

The Greek word for "perverts" is ἀρσενοκοίτης which means "homosexuals". Again we have a passage that does not focus solely on homosexuality but names it as a sin amongst others.

I am glad that you brought up the "law" as this is a topic that many people get confused about. Indeed, the original article that has sparked this entire conversation is based on a misconception of the law. The key passage that I refer people to about this issue is Romans 7. I fear I must copy Romans 7; 8:1-4 out at length here for the sake of clarity.

"Do you not know, brothers-for I am speaking to men who know the law-that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.

So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, [fn] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. [fn] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do-this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God-through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit." NIV

We can see from these verses that the Law is meant to function as an identifier. By illustrating for us what is Holy we are able to see that we are sinners. Furthermore, it shows us that those who break the law are subject unto death. See also Romans 5:12-21. The question arises then, is there any hope? Is there anyway that we can defeat sin and therefore render the law uneffective? The answer is yes. The only way to defeat sin was for someone who had never sinned to pay the price of sin (death). Thus when Jesus died (something that had till that time only happened to those who were sinners) he entered a new type of information into the system. He defeated sin and consequently death which in turn was forced to allow Him to rise back to life. In doing so, Jesus offers us a way out. By believing in Him (John 3:16-19) we are able to be freed from our sin and its consequence - death. So now that there is a way out, the people who choose to take that way no longer need the law since it was only useful when sin and death had control over them. However, for the people who are still under sin and death the law does still serve a purpose in that it points out that they are sinful and in need of a saviour. Thus: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for... them that defile themselves with mankind." is true.

I hope that this answered your question.

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 11:12:28 -0000

I am quite glad that you mentioned morals. I take it then that you would agree that we, as humans, are all endowed with a "moral integrity" as you put it. The first question then becomes, where does this morality come from? A Christian, such as C. S. Lewis might point to the obvious and state that it comes from a moral law giver (see Mere Christianity). A true atheist (and there are few who actually follow out such a belief system to its logical ends) such as Nietzsche would state that morals are just a political weapon used by the church to retain power. I would also note, that although Nietzsche hated Christianity he did admire its ability to control. To develop Nietzsche's point further, we could turn to Neo-Darwinists such as Huxley and Dawkins who would assert that morality is simply a mechanism that humans have evolved over the years through natural selection. So where then does morality come from?

First we need to define what "morality" is. I contend that it is the ability to determine right from wrong. It is what enables me, as a human being, to know that murdering an innocent child is wrong. It is my sense of justice. So let us now turn to your comment. If moral integrity is the ability to determine right from wrong then the first part of my statement: "I cannot condone his actions..." would indeed indicate that I have such a sense and furthermore that I am able to act on it. The second part of my statement "Though I truly wish I could" in reference to the fact that I cannot condone what I believe to be wrong does not in fact suppress my morality at all. Isn't morality that which can tell the difference between right and wrong? To supress such a thing would mean that I would no longer be able to differentiate. Thus I propose that if my statement were truly to be an indication that I have suppressed my moral integrity it would need to be reversed, i.e., "Even though I would normally not be able to condone his actions, I am able to do so now because I wished to." Are we able to determine right from wrong based on a wish to do so? I think the evidence would indicate otherwise. Morality is in-born in us, whether that is through the grace of God or the evolved status of our species today, (or perhaps both).

So now that we know more about morality, we can once more address the question of where it came from. That it is a law is certain. It is as present in us as anything we can perceive in the world around us. If that law is something we have developed through evolution then we are forced through the argument of causation to explain what occurred before the big bang. Of course, no evolutionist can answer that question through science because a) it is a metaphysical question that lies outside the scope of the physical sciences and b) the big bang is a singularity which means that no information from before the big bang can reach those on the other side. So it becomes a faith question. Do you believe that the big bang happened ex nihilo (from nothing)? Or do you believe that there was a Being (God) or beings (Aliens) that instigated such an occurrence? Either way you cannot empirically prove that what you believe is true. You are forced to make a statement of faith.

Which leads us to "a collection of texts written and compiled by superstitious Bronze Age and Iron Age human beings." I do not create a false dichotomy when I say that you either believe the entire Bible to be true or you don't. I infer from your comment that you do not believe it to be true. Obviously I do. The real question then, is why should we or shouldn't we believe it? Scientists who deal with history, such as geologists, are never able to conclusively prove that an hypotheses that is prevalent in the scientific community is absolutely true. What they are able to do is to point to a theory about the history of the world as pertains to their discipline and state that it explains more facts than any other theory. The idea here is unity. They seek a theory that can unify all the data that they have collected. When such a theory is created; they maintain that it is the most likely to be true, but they cannot say that it is for sure. Even the theory of Evolution is simply that which the scientific community, for the most part, agrees is the likeliest cause for the evidence that they observe around them.

Thus there are two faith statements that you make when you claim the Bible to be false. First, you place faith in something which you believe disproves the Bible i.e., science, an alternative religion, etc. Second you place your faith in a different theory that may explain with more unity the causation for the observable world around you. These are both valid statements to make. However, simply as faith statements they are not inherently more accurate than the faith statements that I make in believing the Bible to be true and the best historical causative explanation. These faith statements must be made on sufficiency of evidence. If you are making your statements without having at least educated yourself about Christianity from as unbiased as possible a source then you are indeed utilizing your faith! If however, you understand Christianity sufficiently and still find it to be lacking then that is a fair conclusion. And maybe you have done this, I have no idea. As for me, I have read Christian apologists (those who defend Christianity) such as C. S. Lewis, Tim Keller, Ravi Zacharias, and so on, and I have found their arguments to be convincing. I have also read those who are adverse to Christianity or whose works are used to argue against it. These author's include Darwin, Nietzsche, Huxley, and so on. I have found their arguments to be much less convincing.

I will admit now, that I have had a bias, a paradigm that I have been operating from in my studies. That paradigm is that there is sufficient evidence to support my faith in the Bible. Has this affected my conclusions? Most definitely. Yet, everyone has just such a bias. There is no one who does not operate from some sort of assumption about the world around them, from some sort of Worldview. What we must be careful of is possessing a worldview that assumes that it assumes nothing. That is to say, so long as you are aware that your claims are based on faith statements and assumptions in the exact same way that mine are, you may proceed to argue against Christianity.

In closing, I will address your comment a little more directly. Why do I wish that the Bible, which I place my faith in, did not condemn homosexuality? The answer is because I know that it is not a choice. I did not choose to be attracted to women anymore than my friend chose to be attracted to men. I would also be clear here, to be tempted is not a sin. Jesus was tempted but remained sinless (Matt. 4). To be attracted to men, to be gay, is not a sin. It becomes a sin, according to the Bible, when we act on that temptation. In the case of my roommate, he has chosen to act on his impulses, and those actions are what I cannot condone. Yet, I would state that I have not seen anything horrible result from those actions. He is happy and in a rewarding relationship. This much I can be glad of. And this much is what bothers me about the scriptures. (It is wierd to hear a Christian be that honest isn't it?) I question why homosexuality is a sin when I cannot see the harm in it. Yet the same could be said about other things as well. What harm might there be in getting shit-faced? (Look at that, a Christian swore!) Afterall, getting drunk with the right people is just a lot of fun. Yet how many people have made choices while they were drunk that they later regretted when they were sober once more? I know that I have. This is why the Bible says drunkenness is a sin and instead advocates using moderation in such activities as eating and drinking, 1 Cor. 6:12. (Wow that's three in a row! I, a Christian, advocate drinking responsibly) However, I must trust that what the Bible says is true because I believe there is sufficient evidence supporting it. So in the same way that drunkeness itself might not seem harmful to me, homosexual activity doesn't seem repulsive or dangerous to me either. Yet, I would be wise and trust in a Being wiser than myself.

Thanks for reading what turned into a short book!

Re: 11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway - 11Points.com

CharlesBakker — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 17:55:09 -0000

I agree. It would. Further evidence to support the conclusion that we are no longer bound by the Levitican law can be found in Acts 10:9-16; 1 Corinthians 6:12-13; Colossians 2:13-17. However, there are still passages in the New Testament that do not advocate homosexuality i.e., 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1.

Just so you are aware, I am very close friends with several gay men, one of whom is and has been my roommate for the past 3 years. I cannot condone his actions (though I truly wish I could) but that does not mean I cannot love and support him in his journey. Furthermore, as I am not even close to being perfect, it would be hypocritical to judge anyone for their sins, in fact this is even a verse in the Bible (Luke 6:41-42). What I can do is simply be honest with him when he asks what I think about an issue. Other than that, I never preach or try to "convert" him.