Christian Clichés: God Hates the Sin but Loves the Sinner

Posted on by

A common cliché used by Christians is:

I hate the sin but love the sinner.

The reason Christians use this cliché is that they want to be on God’s side and the sinner’s side at the same time. Most Christians, except for the Fred Phelps, Ken Silva, Peter Ruckman kind of Christians, want to be liked and respected. They know the Bible says some pretty harsh things about non-Christians and the sins they commit.

Here’s the problem with this cliché. God doesn’t think this way. Note what the Bible says about God and how he views sin and the sinner:

God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. (Psalm 7:11)

The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth (Psalm 11:5)

Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows (Psalm 45:6,7)

Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy. These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,(Proverbs 6:15-17)

I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. (Amos 5:2)

And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbor; and love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith the LORD. (Zechariah 8:17)

I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. (Malachi 1:2,3)

As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Romans 9:13)

For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: (divorce) for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. (Malachi 2:16)

Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, which I also hate. (Revelation 2:5,6)

The Bible is clear. God not only hates sin but he also hates those who do it. According to good, old fashioned, substitutionary atonement, Evangelicalism, God would even hate the Christian if it weren’t for Jesus standing between God and the Christian.

Look at what God did to Jesus on the cross. It is hard not to conclude that God really has a problem with anger. He beat his son to death, not for his own sin, but for the sins of others. Talk about taking the whole sin and sinner thing seriously.

As a pastor I never used the hate the sin but love the sinner cliché. The Bible is quite clear on the sin/sinner issue. God turned the devil loose on the human race after Adam and Eve sinned and he has been punishing the human race ever since. Christians, because of Jesus’ atonement, are protected from God’s anger over sin, but non-Christians bear the full-brunt of God’s wrath.

Ponder the message of the book of Revelation. What’s the central theme of the book? The rapture? The second coming?  What does the writer of Revelation spend most of his time writing about? Wrath. Judgment. God does some pretty sick stuff to the humans who are alive when Jesus comes back again, and when he is all done, what does he do? He sends all the non-Christians to the Lake of Fire to be tormented day and night for all eternity. This sure makes me want to break out in song and sing, What a Mighty God we Serve.

I used to explain God’s view of sin and sinner this way:

Imagine you are taking a walk in the woods and come upon a skunk. Before you can run, the skunk raises its tail and sprays you. Do you at that moment say I love the skunk but hate his smell? Of course not. The skunk is directly connected to the smell. No skunk, no smell.

So it is with sinners and their sin. Sin is what sinners do. You can no more disconnect a sinner from his sin that you can a skunk from his smell.

I should note in passing that most of the God hates talk is found in the Old Testament. The person who talks the most about God hating? None other than, the man after God’s own heart, David. Smile

Christianity would be better served if it jettisoned the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation. As long as these books remain in the Bible, Christians will continue to have a hard time explaining to the non-Christians that God really loves them and has a wonderful plan for their life.

God may be love but he sure has a mean streak.

Related posts:

  1. John Chisham Shows Gays How Much Jesus Loves Them
  2. God Gave Me Breast Cancer Because He Loves Me
  3. Why Did You Become A Christian?
  4. Dear Christian, Your Blog Comments Say Volumes About Your God
  5. Pensacola Christian Colleges Warns About Evil Bloggers
  • Paula

    I have to weigh in with Bruce here.  Despite the harm done by “off the wall” cultish religions, I believe most religions are more a force for good than bad in the community.  Even though I don’t still believe absolutely everything I was taught growing up in church, I am grateful for it.  I know the difference between the faithfully married, homebody parents I had and the kind of parents some others had.  The rules they taught me to live by have led to a stable, unmessy life and a thirty nine year marriage to one good man.  Being taught that certain things are wrong keeps a person out of trouble until they are old enough to personally see the wisdom in the rules. The youth activities provide a safe social life for teens to supplement the school functions and other things the parents allow them to attend.

    I am not implying that none of the non religious have morals, or that they don’t teach them to their children.  Still yet, I have never forgotten my mother telling me as a young girl that when people lived by the set of morals our church believed in, they rarely did the kinds of things that would result in divorce.  At the time, I could see it was true.  I only knew two divorced people until after I was grown.  Unfortunately, the churches are now full of divorce, but I still believe it is less likely if a certain moral code is believed and observed.

  • Jim Jones

    Bruce: “So no empirical proof, just your opinion. That’s fine, I just wanted to make sure everyone, including yourself, understands where you are coming from.”

    Where is the empirical proof? Apart from a lifetime of observation that is.

    • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

      Your observations are just that, your observations? You can hardly come to meaningful conclusions on religion and morality since you were never a part of a religion and your sample set is quite small and not very diverse.

      What sociological studies can you point to to support your conclusions about religion and morality? How many studies? What questions were asked? What religions were studied? How long we’re they studied?

      I suspect, just my personal opinion, based on my observation of your comments, is that you have a lot of homework to do.

      • Jim Jones

        Not so much homework. I have posited a perfectly logical analysis which proves that morality cannot come from religion, religion can, at best, co-opt it. The Bible and the Qur’an offer a horrific morality, and the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are notorious and also immoral.

        Can you point me to any valid studies which show that religion does improve people? Can you point me to a religion whose morality is above reproach?You yourself pointed out that the more secular a society is, the more likely it is to be good and moral. As counter examples, I am told that Utah is the largest consumer of porn amongst all of the states.

        http://www.pcworld.com/article/160566/utah_online_porn_capital_of_america.html

        And this is not restricted to Mormons

        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16680-porn-in-the-usa-conservatives-are-biggest-consumers.html

        For a more brutal comparison, consider the recent Yugoslav Wars, fought throughout the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 1995. The wars were complex: characterized by bitter ethnic conflicts among the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, mostly between Serbs (and to a lesser extent, Montenegrins) on the one side and Croats and Bosniaks (and to a lesser degree, Slovenes) on the other; but also between Bosniaks and Croats in Bosnia (in addition to a separate conflict fought between rival Bosniak factions in Bosnia).You would think that a Europe that had come out of WWII and the millions slaughtered then would have had enough of murdering their neighbors. Clearly they had not. And yet they all had their own strong religious identity.

        I await the reports of terrorist bombings by atheists trying to supplant religion. Perhaps I will have to wait until the religion of peace finishes this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boko_Haram

  • Jim Jones

    “To say that “my morality is relative”, is to say that I really don’t have
    morality, and thus cannot be trusted.”

    Everyone’s morality is relative. Morality is a balancing of competing interests.

    Example: The bible tolerates both slavery and the murder of ones children. We do not. Therefore, we apply an external source of morality to the religious source. Every religion is judged by such external standards, and thus religion is not the source of morality.

    • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

      Sure religion is a source of morality, that is unless you are positing that humans are born with innate morality.

      Morality is taught by parents, teachers, friends, religious leaders, culture, etc. We all learn a moral code from somewhere or someone.

      • Jim Jones

        “… humans are born with innate morality.”

        Far from it. Human nature is to be stupid, ignorant and vicious. Family teaches you better. Religion? Not so much.

        http://freethoughtblogs.com/blaghag/2012/01/no-florist-in-rhode-island-would-send-jessica-ahlquist-flowers/

        • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

          Nowhere does the link you posted say the decision not to deliver the flowers made by a Christian or a religious person. You and FFRF assume so.

          What empirical proof do you have that people would be just as good or better without religion? Especially since the vast majority of people are religious and decent people it would seem that religious has a Positive effect. Yes, our parents teach us morals and their teaching, regardless of whether or not they are religious, is heavily influenced by the religious culture.

          I am not persuaded in the least that we would be better off without all religion. Some types, yes , but in matters of morals and ethics, religion, along with humanist philosophical systems, has much to offer the human race.

          • Jim Jones

            Why would non-Christians care? She opposed a superstitious display and aroused the frenzy of idiots.

            For every person improved by religion, 100 more are much reduced by it. Mormon teens have one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and of teen suicide in the US. However their rate of teen suicide pales in comparison to that of the native peoples of Alaska – 9 times higher than elsewhere. It occurs to me that they might be better off with their original native beliefs – Christianity doesn’t seem to have helped them any.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            So no empirical proof, just your opinion. That’s fine, I just wanted to make sure everyone, including yourself, understands where you are coming from.

      • Christopher Patrick Aro

        I beg to disagree with you here Bruce.

        Humans ARE born with an innate sense of right or wrong, albeit in a very simple and crude form.

        Humans are born knowing that HUMAN LIFE IS PRECIOUS, particularly their own, and that it is wrong for that life to be taken. Call it the self-preservation instinct if you will, but all of human morality find their foundation on that.

        That basic morality is then reinforced and refined by, as you said, parents, teachers, friends, religious leaders, culture, society in general, and so on and so forth.

        • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

          Nice try, Christopher but you are going to have to prove your assertion here. You are assuming certain religious beliefs that are NOT in evidence.

          Years ago, a two year old picked up a hammer and plunked his older brother in the head killing him. Was he going against an innate morality that taught him life is precious OR was he just being two? (that’s a rhetorical question, btw) Sucks for the dead brother but….the toddler was just being a toddler.

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Hmm. Good point. But I would dismiss that as an “accident”, seeing as the child was only two.

            My point was, if a child knows that a certain act will lead to death, then he/she won’t do it, unless something was wrong with him/her psychologically in the first place.

            I take it that the child in question was emulating Tom and Jerry, or some other cartoon show where the laws of physics and causality are set aside purely for entertainment purposes? If that’s the case, then the urge to hit his brother in the head with a hammer came from an external influence, rather than an innate desire to inflict pain (or death) on his part.

            Even a baby knows innately that if it doesn’t eat, it will die. There is no pre-conditioning required to teach a baby to cry for milk. The baby KNOWS innately that it needs sustenance to survive.

            So back to the child in question:

            Barring other hereto undisclosed information, I would blame the parents/guardians for leaving an obviously dangerous tool just lying around for a child — who cannot yet tell the difference between hitting someone on the head with a hammer in a cartoon and ACTUALLY hitting somebody in real life — to just easily pick up and actually try to do it.

  • Jim Jones

    Bruce: “So you think that Jesus on a cheese sandwich is the best Christianity has to offer?”

    Maybe. You can’t deny that for too many this suffices as ‘proof’ of something. I simply see no valid proof of anything, and I’m a newcomer to this party. People have been pointing this out for over 100 years, when it was much more difficult to do. Even the morality falls way below par. Movie westerns almost always have higher moral standards than Jesus supposedly taught, and so do many other books of fiction. And then there are the real life heroes who do so much more.

    • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

      I would say the Sermon on the Mount is pretty standard for morality and ethics. (in general)
      Even the OT law, for all of its craziness, has at its core, the idea that offense requires restitution. Such a view would be a huge improvement over our current legal system of incarceration.

      I realize you can’t see the forest for the trees on this but, regardless of its historicity, there is much the Bible has to offer. I am a card-carrying, liberal atheist but I see great value in some of the things taught by Jesus. (and it doesn’t matter to me if he did or didn’t exist) I approach all literature this way, not just the Bible…….

      Instead of deciding which moral viewpoint is higher perhaps it is better to ask which viewpoint best suits me and the life I want to live.

      Real life heroes are feeble and fallible. Well worthy of emulation, but why do you hold Jesus to a higher standard than real life heroes? (I am just focusing on the moral/ethical issue)

      • Jim Jones

        Bruce: “I realize you can’t see the forest for the trees on this.”

        I believe I can. Sure, there’s plenty in there to like, some that even I like, but overall the bible is very problematic.

        Example: one thing that has always concerned me is, where is the commandment, “Don’t hurt a child”?

        Instead we get, “Honor your father and your mother”? Some don’t deserve that; those that do need no commandment.

        BTW, I did try Grayling’s “The Good Book, A Humanist Bible”, but I wasn’t overwhelmed. Maybe the Boy Scouts’ Handbook is a better guide to morality?

        Shouldn’t I hold Jesus to a higher standard than anyone else if I am going to hold him, fact or fiction, to any standard at all?

  • Jim Jones

    Bruce: “You have to decide what to waste your life on. I was a pastor because I loved helping people. I would be a social worker if I wasn’t a pastor.”

    They see some damn ugly stuff, and deal with people who are far from rational. My mother did it for a while. She said she mostly split the women (and most she saw were women) into two groups. One group she took to a lawyer to get the divorce started. The other group she took to the local asylum for evaluation. Of course, maybe marriage drives you crazy!

    • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

      We live in a messed up world. My wife and I took in foster children and the level ospf dysfunction was astounding. Of course, that’s how I grew up so I have a real soft spot for people with messed up lives.

      As to marriage…I quite agree but I like the craziness. :)

  • Jim Jones

    Anonymous: ”You want evidence; I totally understand that – makes sense.  So what evidence would you find admissable and compelling?”

    A black slab which is always warm and can’t be cut as in “2001 – a Space Odyssey” could work. Best would be a god who could bend photons from the sun and write a clear message on the moon (three days every 100 years would suffice). What we have is a (presumed) god who goes to great lengths to be absolutely undetectable. Perhaps we should honor that be pretending she isn’t there at all?

    • Discordia

      As long as both the slab and the moon graffiti were signed so that we would know WHICH god was giving us the heads- up about his-her-its existence.  I’d hate to worship the wrong one, don’t you know!

      • Anonymous

        So when asked for what evidence this is the best reponse you care to provide?  Can’t you just be honest and say “look, I don’t think there is ANY evidence that could make me believe” if that is indeed the case?

        Some people seem to say – “if there is just ANY evidence for a God then I would take it more seriously.”  Then someone will respond – our existance is evidence…  And one might respond “that is not evidence, it can be explained another way”…

        Jim – there are many amazing discoveries on our planet and in our universe.  I do not rememember 2001 but to think that an always warm, uncutable black slab is something more amazing than the discoveries already made seems off to me?  I have a feeling if a black slab was discovered you would consider it a new scientific discovery and not be “woah!  that one proves God”.  So the only thing I can assess is that your comment is simply in gest.

        If we are not honest with ourselves and each other how can we have honest discussion?  Might it be the honest truth that you really cannot think of ANY reasonable evidence that would suggest a creator as a reality for you?

        I do not want to get into a debate here.  These start to cause me to lose interest because they dive into the world of right-fighting…  So, I will just accept that there is some evidence you would accept… and am confident that you would understand that the evidence you accept (as pointing to a creator) others might reject.  Each person carries their own burden of proof in matters such as these.

        • Jim Jones

          There are thousands of things a ‘god’ could do, presuming, of course, we would have a way to make sure it wasn’t the result of some “space alien” trying to trick us. How would you distinguish between the two?

          • Anonymous

            And of course you forget to mention “there are thousands of things a God could do – presuming of course there was NO OTHER WAY TO POSSIBLY EXPLAIN IT OTHER THAN GOD.”  Right?

        • Discordia

          Your problem with this is that you refuse to accept answers you don’t want to hear.  If I told you I rode a dragon to the grocery store every week, what would it take for you to believe me?  A warm fuzzy feeling?  A vague image in a cloud? Perhaps a odd-looking grease stain in a pizza box?  Oh wait!!  There are lots of stories about dragons so that should be proof as well, right? It works for Christianity, after all, with all those stories in the Holy Bible.

          The proof of the existence of God is the same as for the existence of faeries or intergalactic starships or the cure for cancer. SHOW ME!!  God can create the entire universe in less than a day but then he finds it necessary to go out of his way to hide from all of humanity and to put all sorts of things in the way to ensure people lose their faith?  ESPECIALLY when the lack of faith on the part of anyone will send them to hell FOREVER??  And you find a being like this worthy of worship and love? 

          God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players*, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a Dealer who won’t tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time.Footnote to above: * ie., everybody.—-From Good Omens by Terry Pratchett

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            I could probably be comfortable with a belief in a deistic form of God. A creator who set things in motion and said “there ya go. Do with it what you will.” The problem for me is I see no way to get from this version of God to the Christian God. While I can look at the natural world and say, ok, maybe…but I see no evidence for the Christian God, the one described in the Bible. Where is the God that is supposedly intimately involed in his creation? Like you said, why is he hiding?

          • Discordia

            I could also be comfortable with a deistic God, I suppose, though setting everything in motion and walking off seems a little irresponsible to me.  I am comfortable now with not having to believe in any god.

            PS
            I’ve still not gotten any email notifications of a single one of your replies to any of my comments.

          • Jim Jones

            You need to sign up for the RSS feed to get those.

          • Discordia

            I get notifications from everyone who is a registered Disqus user except Bruce.

          • Anonymous

            “there ya go.”

            I suppose we could be an experiment or entertainment where God is just watching…  that seems weird to me, but…

            But seriously, how is he hiding?

          • Anonymous

            If I showed you a car what would it take for you to believe that someone created it?

            “The proof of the existence of God is the same as for the existence of
            faeries or intergalactic starships or the cure for cancer. SHOW ME!!
             God can create the entire universe in less than a day but then he finds
            it necessary to go out of his way to hide from all of humanity and to
            put all sorts of things in the way to ensure people lose their faith?”

            Your point confuses me.  It sounds like you are giving a proof for “a God” but then limiting it to the Christian God.  Do you believe in NO GOD or just NO CHRISTIAN GOD?  I guess I am not sure on your position and I apologize.  Do you believe there is NO GOD or just NO CHRISTIAN GOD as described in the Bible?

          • Discordia

            I don’t believe in ANY GOD. Not a damned one.  Being as I am an EX CHRISTIAN I generally limit my arguments to the CHRISTIAN God because no one is here arguing for the existence of Thor or Bast or Kali or Zeus AND because that is the most popular god to worship in America.  And it doesn’t make two shits WHAT god chooses to prove to humanity that it is the real deal, said god would have to do something totally amazing that cannot possibly be explained away by science to prove its existence.  And given that the general belief is that A GOD made EVERYTHING then I fail to see how asking for such evidence would pose much of a problem to that god.

            Until such verifiable evidence is presented, I shall continue in my unbelief of ALL GODS.  Period. 

          • Anonymous

            Ok, so provide a possible example of such evidence…?

          • Jim Jones

            A Borg cube at the center of the universe – or?

          • Anonymous

            What science do you follow that says there is a center to the universe?  And sci-fi machine would do it for you?  No, once again you can only provide nonsense.  Perhaps the real answer is NOTHING.  There is NOTHING that could prove to you a God, any God, exists.

          • Jim Jones

            That’s because such a thing is impossible. You can’t even define what a ‘god’ is.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            So Jim, exactly what would you consider evidence that a deity exists?

          • Jim Jones

            If the bible had Euler’s identity in it, I would have to seriously ask how such a thing is possible. If messages appeared on the moon with no explanation, I would give some credence to the ‘god’ theory. If amputees suddenly started regrowing limbs with no medical intervention, I would await some evidence that this was a natural occurrence. But ‘Jesus’ in a toasted cheese sandwich? Ain’t gonna do it.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            So you think that Jesus on a cheese sandwich is the best Christianity has to offer?

          • Jim Jones

            “If I showed you a car what would it take for you to believe that someone created it?”

            There are two sorts of things in the universe; things made by humans and things not made by humans. You can’t tell the difference?

          • Anonymous

            You know I can tell the difference.  You just have a “I hover above you attitude” that is clear.  I highly respect all those who post here and disagree with me; but your posts simply come across (to me) as school-yard drivel.  You know I can tell the difference…  Can you tell the difference between pointed discussion and silly hostility?  I don’t think you can so from here on out I will simply ignore you (on this blog).

          • Jim Jones

            You have merely admitted that I have defeated you on every point. I await any post by you that changes that, even slightly. Perhaps some evidence or some logic? Go on, try it.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            Defeated?

            Not sure that that word can or should apply to a blog discussion.

          • Jim Jones

            I see no discussion. He has merely insulted me: “school-yard drivel” adds nothing to the discussion. It doesn’t even apply here in any sense.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            I see it more like two ships passing in the night. Maybe you will have to agree to ignore one another. :)

          • Anonymous

            No problem Bruce.  I agree.

        • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

          Chris, I think many atheists are sincere when they ask for evidence. That said, for myself, it is unlikely that any evidence would be sufficient to prove the Christian God exists, the God described and defined by the Bible. I am quite agnostic about the God question. If a God does exist and chooses to reveal itself I hope I would believe. But, as it stands today, I see no evidence for a God.

          • Anonymous

            I think they (most) are sincere too.  The problem isn’t evidence, it is the interpretation of evidence.  You cannot convince me that someone clearly as intelligent as you was preaching the Gospel and believed there to be NO EVIDENCE for its reality.  The evidence didn’t change, your interpretation of it did.  Yes, I understand new evidence and new wisdom may come but it doesn’t change other evidence – just our interpretation of it.

            You say you see no evidence for a God.  But what you’re really saying is you see no evidence that you ACCEPT as evidence for God.  To some people it is as easy as “intelligent things = an intelligent thing maker” and for others it is not.

        • sgl

          @nobrains:disqus: let me turn the question around to you: “what evidence would it take to convince you that Mohammed was the true prophet and Islam is the true religion?  (and hence, Jesus was not god, and not the messiah).”

          or, “what evidence would it take to convince you that Zeus is the real god and creator of the universe?”

          or, “what evidence would it take to convince you that Shiva (Hinduism) should be worshipped as the creator of the universe?”

          I’d guess you’re having a hard time thinking of anything that would convince you. well, that’s exactly how some/(many?) atheists feel at your request/demand to list what evidence they would require to change their mind.  or, to put in a more humorous way, “we’re all atheists, i just believe in one fewer god than you do.”

          also, many of these types of questions conflate “creator of the universe” with “christian god”, completely jumping over the fact that even if there is proof that “something” created the universe, that doesn’t necessarily also prove that the christian god was the one that created it.  (and given the tens of thousands of sects of christianity, it doesn’t necessarily prove which particular sect is the correct one.  Calvinists? armenians?  unitarians? catholics, eastern orthodox, or protestant?)

          so what’s “obvious” to you, is actually quite a few steps, each one requiring a set of assumptions and faith. 

          –sgl

          • Anonymous

            Yes, but I tried to clarify and perhaps did so poorly.  My question is NOT “what would it take to prove the CHRISTIAN GOD is the creator of the universe?”  Sorry if I stated it poorly.  My question is what would it take as EVIDENCE of a (purposeful) CREATOR?

          • sgl

            ok, what would it take to convince you there was no creator god, and that everything just existed, or the big bang created it, etc?

            i doubt you’ll be able to come up with anything, not because you’re being disingenuous, but because your world view already presupposes god exists.

            my view expressed in a comment on another thread applies here too:

            ————————————————–
            http://fallenfromgrace.net/2012/01/12/christianity-is-the-only-rational-worldview-says-dan-phillips/#comment-413131635

            “Complexity denotes design. As does order.”

            Is god complex?  If so, then someone/something must have “designed” god as well, to be consistent with your hypothesis.  Therefore, there must be a meta-god, a god that created god.  and wouldn’t the meta-god be complex too?

            It sounds like an answer, but it’s really not an answer. All you’ve done is add a level of indirection to the creation of the universe.   eg, Without god: “matter and energy existed/appeared in the universe, and we’re not sure exactly how/where.”  With god: “god created matter and energy, but we’re not sure how god got here.”

            Second problem with this argument is: Assume I agree that complexity proves god exists.  Now, how do I decide amongst all the various flavors of gods in the known world?  Ie, doesn’t your argument apply equally well for muslims, hindus, native american indian “great spirit” believers, shamans, neopagans, etc?  It really seems to get me no closer to the “truth” at all.

            ————————————————–

            same idea as above, but with some psych experiments thrown in:
            ————————————————–
            http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/gilbert/blog/200611the_vagaries_of_religious_expe.html

            For most people, the material universe, biological life, and human consciousness are the kinds of curious, complex, well-ordered phenomena that require explanation, and an intelligent designer seems to provide just that.

            But there are at least two problems with this explanation. First, explanations that rely on the inexplicable are not explanations at all. They have the form of explanations, but they do not have the content. Yet, psychology experiments reveal that people are often satisfied by empty form. For instance, when experimenters approached people who were standing in line at a photocopy machine and said, “Can I get ahead of you?” the typical answer was no. But when they added to the end of this request the words “because I need to make some copies,” the typical answer was yes. The second request used the word “because” and hence sounded like an explanation, and the fact that this explanation told them nothing that they didn’t already know was oddly irrelevant.

            ————————————————–
            (see some additional experiments at the link)

            and another psych experiment, done with political examples, but i strongly suspect the same applies to religious beliefs:
            ————————————————–
            http://web.archive.org/web/20090228201432/http://www.searchmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2008%20November-December/full-politicalbrain.html

            The Science of Persuasion, by  Jonathan Hemmerdinger

            Westen and his colleagues conducted studies of the brain to examine how partisanship influences reasoning. To do this, Westen gathered a group of devoted Democrats and a group of devoted Republicans prior to the 2004 presidential election. He showed each group contradictory statements made by John Kerry and contradictory statements made by George W. Bush. Then, subjects rated the degree to which they saw a contradiction.

            It’s important to note that the contradictions that Westen chose were glaring. Anyone not under the spell of partisanship could easily see them. The partisans, however, were blinded. For the most part, Democrats only saw the contradictions of Republicans and Republicans only saw the contradictions of Democrats. Westen conducted similar studies about partisans’ opinions on the impeachment of President Clinton and the 2000 election controversy.

            From his studies, Westen found a few things. First, partisans don’t listen to facts, and their opinions are difficult to change even with hard evidence. Second, political opinions are generally not based on fact at all, they are based on emotions. In The Political Brain Westen writes: “The results showed that when partisans face threatening information, not only are they likely to ‘reason’ to emotionally biased conclusions, but we can trace their neural footprints as they do it.”

            By “trace,” Westen means using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to see what’s happening in the brain. The researchers found that subjects confronted with negative information about their party or candidate initially feel the unpleasant emotion of distress. It doesn’t last long. Very quickly, the brain uses faulty reasoning and false beliefs to counteract the negative feeling by reaching a false conclusion. The brain then produces positive emotion — a reward for having reached an illogical decision.

            The bottom line, according to Westen is that the “the political brain is an emotional brain.”

            ————————————————–

            my view is, plugging “god” into the equation to explain the existance of the universe is not really an “answer”, but psychologically it “seems” like an answer, (just like in the photocopy machine example), and all contrary information is glossed over and ignored, just like in the political partisan example.  the fact is, we really don’t know, but we dislike not knowing, so we invent plausible sounding “answers” that aren’t really answers.

          • Anonymous

            “ok, what would it take to convince you there was no creator god, and
            that everything just existed, or the big bang created it, etc?

            i doubt you’ll be able to come up with anything, not because you’re being
            disingenuous, but because your world view already presupposes god
            exists.”

            Again, the question I am asking is not what would CONVINCE YOU there is a (purposeful)
            creator of the universe (God) – it is what would you accept as evidence for such a creator
            (God).

            So if you wanted to point the question back at me (as opposed to answering it)  I suppose it would be “what would you accept as evidence that the universe came to be without the need for God?”

            Not much.  I honestly did believe this for years.  And, I guess what convinced me was that the God(s) of which I had learned about didn’t seem to have any reality to them.  The people who “worked for Him” appeared to be frauds, the world appeared in broken disarray, the theory of evolution seemed a plausable life-builder, if there was a God surely someone as bright as I was would have Him figured out…  Prayer seemed to have no power, there were thousands of religions – so??…  God seemed to come and go — problem with an old God, here is a new one…  If God created everything who created God?…  I could go on for days as to reasons not to believe in God (and I did!).

            BUT, THEN I LOOKED AND HONESTLY…

            I don’t see much evidence that directly suggests NO CREATOR; in fact, is see the polar opposite.  However, I can apply a different intrepretation of “creation evidence” to hypothesize a purposeless, undirected, creation.  But it would not be honest to what I witness.

            Remember, I was an atheist – yes, for real.  So my WORLDVIEW DID NOT PRESUPPOSE THAT GOD EXISTS, IT WAS THE EVIDENCE THAT LEAD ME THERE.

  • Anonymous

    All but the word on Esau do seem to be directed at the “thing” (sin) and not the person.  But I do not have enough knowledge in this area to really comment.  I do know this…  When my children do wrong I hate the wrong but love my children still.  I personally can hate the wrongs but love the wrong-doers.

    • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

      Ah, but God’s ways are not your ways.

      The bigger question is why is hate wrong? Is it always wrong to hate?

      • Anonymous

        God’s ways are not my ways indeed.  But that doesn’t mean we can have nothing in common.  I don’t think “hate” is wrong per-se.  As we read in scripture, God hates.

      • Jim Jones

        “Is it always wrong to hate?”

        Depends. How about the IRS?

        “It’s OK to steal from the government. They started it.” 

        • Anonymous

          Ok…  I actually had to click like on one of your posts!  :-)

        • Discordia

          ROFL!!!!

          *sighs*
          And when they have to give back the money, it isn’t with interest.  But let one of us owe them some ten bucks and you can believe they will charge every percent of interest they can.  

    • Christopher Patrick Aro

      That’s a pretty good illustration there nobrains (I DO hope you’ll consider changing your sig name. :-) ), using the parent and kids analogy. 

      I believe that anger and hate have their time and place in human existence. If we didn’t hate what is wrong, then what would be the use of civilization? Isn’t the premise of “civilized” behavior grounded in the belief that we hate “uncivilized” behavior?

      If there were no clear delineations between right and wrong behavior, then ANYONE can claim to be right how he/she behaves, and say that others are wrong for behaving otherwise. (This is the difficulty I have in accepting moral relativism.) So there must be standards to be set (like the standards Bruce set in one of his latest posts) for chaotic behavior not to reign. Otherwise, its everyone for him/herself (i.e. dog-eat-dog world.).

      So, in gist, hating per se is NOT bad in my book. What is bad is when it completely misses its intended purpose in life. :-)

      • Discordia

        Moral relativism isn’t that hard to understand.  It is why bashing the noggin of some enemy’s baby against stones was a good thing in Bible times.  It’s why torturing and burning people was a good thing during the Dark Ages.  Its why slavery was a good thing 300 years ago and is evil now.  Its why women were arrested for daring to claim the right to vote 100ish years ago and now we hold office.  And, as disgusting as it sounds, it is why the Holocaust was OK in Nazi Germany… because it was right within their moral framework, just like strapping on a bomb and blowing yourself and 50 innocent bystanders to smithereens is a good thing within the moral framework of radical Islam.

        Do some acts go against what we, as Americans, see as right moral action? Yes.
        Do some things Americans do go against what OTHER people see as right moral action? Count on it. 
        So who is wrong?

        If all people have the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then why is marijuana illegal?  Why isn’t gay marriage legal?  Why can’t I allow my 16 year old to drink beer and wine in America when it is legal for Germans let their kids drink beer and wine at 16?  Why can’t an 18 year old in America have a drink even though they are apparently old enough to take a bullet and die for their country?

        Moral relativism is doing whatever you think is right within your culture’s worldview… or opinion, if you please.

        • Christopher Patrick Aro

          I appreciate the point you’re trying to make here Discordia. (sorry for the late response, I didn’t activate email notifications for responses to my posts.)

          I understand the value of moral relativism as a means for explaining cultural differences. But to use moral relativism as a means to actually live out one’s life? That’s downright dangerous.

          To say that “my morality is relative”, is to say that I really don’t have morality, and thus cannot be trusted.

          Morality serves as the ontic reference for actual behavior, and without it, one is being given a license to behave however he/she likes. I don’t see how I can trust a person who cannot see the moral difference between murder and killing out of self-defense.

          And to answer your question, “who is wrong?”, I think the best measure is to look at the consequences of one’s behavior, both in the short and long term. I’m a firm believer in causality, (i.e. one reaping what one sows.) :-)

          • Discordia

            But that is exactly what people do.  I don’t like it either but it is what it is.  In many fundament religious cultures, women have absolutely no rights whatsoever.  Being based in my OWN culture, I find their stance completely outrageous and a crime against humanity.  They do not see it at all like that.  It is their culture and they are acting in a perfectly moral way.  The behaviour of the males in such a culture brings the males no harm.  They are generally allowed to treat their women however they wish, including denying them any education whatsoever right on up to killing them in the street without a trial.

            Who are you to say that their behaviour is wrong when THEY know it is right and proper?

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Well, we could ask that same question of Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan. :-)

            I certainly wouldn’t want to live in a world where women and children were treated as property, and where I and my family can be captured and sold as slaves anytime. I seriously doubt if we have managed to limit such cultures into small pockets around the world if missionaries like Columbus and Magellan had not taken the initiative to introduce the finer points of civilization to the rest of the world.

            The fact that many of us here at Bruce’s site can engage in this kind of a discussion without killing each other is the cumulative result of the pioneering work of individuals who have fought for what they believe is right and proper. The world is certainly a better place because of it.

            If we all were guided by “who are we to impose our morals on others”, then Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito would have already turned the world into an axis playground where the only morality in play would be the rule of the strong over the weak.

            I understand that Adolph Hitler wanted to raise a generation “devoid of a conscience, imperious, relentless and cruel,” and that those words were written in the halls of Auschwitz as Joseph Mengele performed his experiments on humans, both young and old alike.

            Are you really going to let someone tell you that their behavior was justified simply because it was legitimate in their own culture?

            Do you really think you can look into the eyes of a soldier from an invading army, while he kills off your family one by one, raping and mutilating them in the process, and say with all conviction that “he is just doing what he believes is right?”

            That’s where post-modernism and moral relativism is going to take us if we’re not careful.

    • Discordia

      Well, and that part about God flooding the world to kill every living thing. That seems like hating the sinner (and everything around the sinner) than just hating the sin.

      • Anonymous

        We simply disagree here.  I see “the flood” as one of the most loving acts in the Bible.

        • Discordia

          I can do without that sort of “love.”

          • Anonymous

            Really?  Have you read the story you are talking about?

          • Discordia

            There are 12 million squares miles of arable land on Earth and you believe that Noah WALKED all over all of it preaching to everyone while he was also building an impossible to believe boat at the same time?  How did he get to the Americas and Australia to preach to everyone there?

            The idea that you think that drowning every living thing on the surface of Earth to be a loving act makes me think you would have been in your element if you were a prominent church menber of Europe in the 1200′s. 

          • Anonymous

            Why would I believe Noah walked all over the earth, perhaps I am missing something (honestly, I could be) but I have not read that Noah went over all the earth preaching…?  Can you point me to it.  I have only been a Christian for three years so I may not have learned this yet.

          • Discordia

            You are correct.  I had been taught for years in sunday school that Noah had walked among the people to warn them about the coming flood but that no one believed him and they mocked him.  I’ve checked in chapters 5, 6 and 7 of Genesis and there is no mention of that.

            My apologies to you and shame on me.  Thank you for calling me on that.

          • Anonymous

            No problem.  I was being serious – being someone who is still learning I could have easily have missed it.  But sometimes it is just people (dangerously) adding their own spice to the story.

          • Jim Jones

            “Christianity: 2,000 years of everyone making it up as they go”.

          • Anonymous

            Yep.  Many many many have.  I pray that I will not be one of them!

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            Don’t be too hard on yourself. :) I have heard that many times. Of course the “thinking” behind this is to present God in a better light. SURELY God warned everyone before he killed all of them? Surely, God sent a preacher to their house to warn them off impending doom? Nope. God just killed them all.

            Of course……..Noah and the Flood, contrary to what the NT spin doctors says, has little to do with grace. God was displeased with their WORKS and the only way to keep from getting drowned by God would have been to repent and do what God wanted them to do. Of course we don’t know what God wanted them to do because the Law had not yet been given. Shall I go on? :)

          • Anonymous

            I would agree Bruce.  I don’t know why people made up the “God warned them” stories?

            This is not how I read the Noah story at all.  I would be happy to discuss it with you some time on the phone or in person but I do not think we could have a sound discussion here.  But the trust is Bruce, you and I have agreed that there is no reason to discuss the Bible/God directly with each other.  When we talked about lunch you made it clear you didn’t want to get together and have Biblical debates – I respect that and agree with it.  You say there is no point – I believe what I believe now and it will not change.  So, if I were to offer you a Noah story consistant with the Bible and that clearly demonstrates a loving God would it make any difference to you.  No; you’ve said it yourself.  So all it would be is me trying to prove my position correct for my arrogance sake.

            SALESMAN: “I have watches to sell you!”

            GUY: “Under no circumstances am I going to buy a watch.  None, zip, ziltch…  I don’t even want to talk about watches.”

            SALESMAN: “Ok.  Let me tell you about the watches I’m offering…”

            Why is the salesman continuing?  If you WANT to talk about Noah with me I would be happy to.  I would much enjoy hearing what you have learned from/about it.  And I would joyfully share what the story speaks to me.  But, as you are aware, here on a blog in this place it would only turn into a mess.  Give me a call some time 707-469-3884 (it is my Google Voice number so I can publish it freely without concerns about “weirdos”).  Thanks Bruce.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            I don’t know if it would turn into a mess but I do know you would, in my mind, face insurmountable challenges trying to convince me that God drowning millions of people was an act of love. Maybe God was afraid the Human/Angel children of Genesis 6 would overtake the earth and the only way to fix that was to kill everyone? Though, again it seems, a God who supposedly knows the number of hairs on our head would be able to cull the bad seed from the good seed.

            Chris, before we can say “this is what it means to me” we must say “this is what the text says.” I have been in too many churches/bible studies where everyone went around the room and said, “this is what it means to me.” Never mind what the text says. All that matters is my personal feelings and interpretation.

          • Anonymous

            “Though, again it seems, a God who supposedly knows the number of hairs
            on our head would be able to cull the bad seed from the good seed.”

            He did.  He culled millions! :-)

            I do look at what the text says (Gen 5-7) and (I have a feeling you are about to smoke me here) from what I read in the text God was:
            Regretful
            Heavy Hearted
            Repentful

            I do not read that God was hateful?  So I am looking at what the text says and also at what I felt lead to learn after praying on and reading over the text.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            Is God’s actions consistent with love or hate? If God hates sin and those who do it then his drowning of millions of people was an act of hatred for sin. (flowing from his holiness)

            If God is Sovereign, if God knows the end from the beginning, if God is omni whatever, why would God be regretful or heavy hearted? Why would God repent (change his mind)? God repenting suggests God made a mistake.

            I am unable to enter into your led to learn learn after praying. As an atheist, all I have is the text.

          • Anonymous

            If you want to talk about this some time I would MUCH ENJOY hearing your perspecitve on this Bruce.  If I am wasting my life on a myth (I have given up TONS thus far to serve God) I would sure appreciate someone who cared enough to help me even through my stobborness and arrogance.  I know you barely know me, but as someone who seems to have regret for cheating on your family with the mistress of the church I am sincere in my hope that you will help me, even beyond this blog, not to do the same.  I know it is not your responsibility, but this is why I believe perhaps if we meet you will get to know a guy you feel is sincere and who truely loves others and then, perhaps, you will want to share with him (me) and help him see things more clearly.

            I don’t want to get into “debates” about the validity of God or the Christian God here really.  Not that I do not feel I can’t hold my own – I can be an arrogant, prideful pig-head.  But I think to go back-and-forth on a blog will become messy.  I have seen it so many times and I am sure you have too.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            I have thought about writing a post, If I were a Young preacher again…a what would I do different post. Your comment here makes me think I should do this. Stay tuned. :)

            You have to decide what to waste your life on. I was a pastor because I loved helping people. I would be a social worker if I wasn’t a pastor.

          • Chris

            I know I have to decide…  But I rely on others to help my decisions be wise ones…  So I am asking your help.

          • Discordia

            About culling good seeds from bad… didn’t he do that and thus begin the annual Passover observance?

          • Discordia

            LOL
            I’m not afraid to admit to being wrong.  I do not LIKE it worth a cuss, but I will admit to it. 

            Plus as much as I am on about people actually reading the bible and I say that?  Blast those petards! :D

          • Anonymous

            I do want to add something.  We’re all wrong now and again.  But, I think you’re an honest person, it seems like that was one (I am sure SMALL) think in your head that helped you be convinced that the Bible and God make no sense.  And, you were simply taught wrong.  Is it possible that there are other things that fuel your disbelief that stem from things that WERE in fact made up (like Noah preaching across the earth)?

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            Chris, since a lot of the Bible is made up………we have a lot to choose from. :)

          • Anonymous

            “Chris, since a lot of the Bible is made up………we have a lot to choose from. :) ”

            A wise man once said:
            “…however littering the comments with constant attacks on the Bible and
            historicity of Jesus is not helpful, and I want these kind of comments
            to stop…”

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            This is not an attack. I have misinformed you if you think my position is that everything in the Bible is true. The literalist has a big problem on their hands. They are forced to defend talking, walking snakes, talking asses, and the like. Now, if they are just metaphors or stories meant to teach a greater lesson, then fine. However as long as literalists say these things are actually true, as written, I am going to continue to say there is a lot of made up stuff in the Bible.

          • Anonymous

            But if they say Jesus is made up (historically)?

            Bruce, I have tons of respect for you.  Seriously.  But I am not convinced you are being genuine here (in this small thing).  It comes across (to me) as you will not allow any attacks on the Bible that you do not agree with but you will allow the ones you do…  That is fine, it is your blog!  But I don’t get the feeling that is your intention.

            Is your seperation “things that are plausable should not be discounted as non-historical” but “things that are not plasuable must be discounted”?

            Because I read into it that you didn’t want people “throwing out” the Bible as a historical text – since you feel it may in fact contain some truth (historically).

            But if the only argument for histroical accuracy is plausibilty then??

            No worries here though.  I do not think much of the Bible is simply made up but I do think much of what is taught in churches IS.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            I think people grossly misunderstood me (maybe my fault) when I said the Bible was a historical document.(actually a collection of documents) It is, in the sense that every written work of antiquity is a historical document. Even if it is all mythical it is still a historical document.

            I would never say the Bible is true. I would say that the Bible has some events/people/ places that a historical case case be made for. At the end of the day every person has to look at the evidence and come to a conclusion. Personally, I am agnostic when it comes to the historicity of many of the people/place/events in the Bible. We are talking about people, events, and places that are thousands of years old.

            I think it is crucial that Christians face reality about the Bible. Pastors need to quit lying and they need to admit that there are problems with the text. Informed consent! If a person then decides, by faith to embrace the Bible and its message, regardless of problems with the text, then I am satisfied they have embraced Christianity fully informed.

            Why do pastors and denominations think that Bart Ehrman is a huge threat to Christianity? Simple. He dares to tell the people in the pew what their pastors know (or should know) about the text but aren’t telling them.

            You mention plausible, not plausible. Certainly there are things in the Bible that are plausible BUT the major themes of Christianity are not plausible from a purely humanistic viewpoint, because they require a belief in the supernatural. Since the supernatural can not be proved, all that we are left with is the evidence at hand and the best we can do is rationally come to conclusions based on the evidence.

            You mention “what if they say that Jesus is made up?” Well……there is an argument that can be made that Jesus never existed. I don’t buy it, but the argument can be made. Should this not be talked about? I just don’t want the answer to every comment by a Christian to be “Jesus never existed” or “the bible is nothing more than a book of myths.” Arguments can be made for these things BUT the comment section on a blog is not the place for it.

          • Discordia

            Every time I read “historical documents” I can’t help but think of the movie “Galaxy Quest.”

          • Discordia

            There are plenty of things to fuel my disbelief and they are contained in the Bible between the title page and the index.  If you wish, I can give you links to sites that have lists of contradictions and hateful stuff in the bible.

          • Anonymous

            I have seen many and frequented them when I was an atheist.

          • Jim Jones

            I just finished reading “The Good Book” (David Plotz). Well worth a read as he summarizes the OT. Today, people like horror/slasher movies. It seems nothing is new under the sun.

          • Discordia

            Despite that, how did the animals from Australia and North and South America get to the Ark?  How did the polar bears endure the heat of the Middle East?  How did tropical animals endure the arid air of that region?  How did birds and other animals that need to be in large flocks (2,000+) to breed manage to repopulate their species?  Once the Ark was unloaded, how did species dependent upon old growth forests survive?  How is it that carnivores NOT destroy entire populations of herbivores by catching and eating just one of a pair of prey animals? 

            An average white-tailed deer has one pregnancy a year.  While she generally conceived two fawns, she is only able to raise one to adulthood unless there is an exceptional amount of food in her area, something unlikely after a worldwide flood killed everything.  So she would be able to raise only one fawn.  These deer only live, at the most, 8 years so at best, she could only have produced 7 other deer unless she had lots of food.  The two deer from the Ark were also carrying any and every parasite and disease that deer are susceptible to so that those diseases and parasites would continue their species as well.  And don’t forget the dangers of inbreeding which is how everything on Noah’s Ark was supposedly able to repopulate the plant.

            Speaking of diseases, I must assume that members Noah’s family were infected with syphilis, jock itch, herpes, gonorrhea, crabs, head lice, mumps, German measles, chicken pox, smallpox, hepatitis, worms and a host of other nasty creepy crawly ooziness.

            The story of the Flood is just that– a story, a myth told around the campfires at night to entertain people.  It has absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up but plenty of science to debunk it.

          • Anonymous

            I thought this discussion was about God hating sin not the sinner and you then used Noah’s Ark as an example of God hating people.  We started discussing the act — was it love or hate.

            Then, suddenly, a discussion about God’s love turned into “there is no scientific evidence to back a flood”…?  HUH!?  Pardon me for being confused (seriously, it is easy to confuse me – I am a HS dropout) but it seems to be a WEIRD place to take this discussion.

            TOM: “I like green life savers, they are the best!”

            JIM: “No, I think the red ones are the best.”

            TOM: “Let’s discuss this a bit.  I think the green ones are the best because…”

            JIM: “Isn’t it true the life-savers are made by PepsiCo?”

            TOM: “Not sure, don’t think so…”

            JIM: “You’re right, I am sorry.  They are not made by PepsiCo.”

            TOM: “No problem…”

            JIM: “Dispite that, I don’t even think life-savers exist!”

            TOM: “huh!?  Then why were you discussing your opinion on their flavor!?”

          • Discordia

            Well, I got the impression that you believe the flood story is true.  Many Christians believe the Flood was real also.  I do not believe it at all.  It is scientifically impossible for those events to have happened, from the structurally impossible boat to the 30 feet per hour of rain that fell.

            Plus the idea that a loving, merciful God would feel it necessary to flood the entire planet because people were acting like the people he made them to be?  That includes kittens and cooing infants and puppies and little birds and wobbly-kneed foals.  Nothing like drowning babies to show the real love.

          • Anonymous

            You got the correct feeling; I do believe the story is true.  But we were not discussing if the story was true, we were discussing if the act was loving or hateful.  And, actually, we weren’t even discussing that.  You pointed it out as hateful, I said I felt it was loving.

            You said you weren’t interested in that kind of love.  And I asked if you had read the story and you discovered perhaps you hadn’t (recently enough)…  Then it morphed into “the story isn’t true”.  I just wondered – if that is where you were headed why even talk about love/hate?

          • Discordia

            Yes I have read the story which is why I find it both unbelievable AND an act of supreme malice and hatred.

            I am amazed that what people claim is a supreme, loving, all-powerful being can’t find any other method of correcting erroneous acts of people than by committing wholesale slaughter in a most horrid fashion.  Drowning is a perfectly awful way to die.  I wonder why God couldn’t just strike the bad ones dead like he did that dude who touched the Ark of the Covenant?  You would think that a being who could create the entire universe in less than a day could find something more clever than genocide.

          • Anonymous

            I cannot comment on how drowning is as a form of death since I have never talked to anyone who drowned to death about how the experience was.

            This is not the end of my arguement so I don’t want you to just feel – ok, easy out – but I want to know if you do believe this or not…  Do you believe that a supreme being who created all of us would have the exact same viewpoint and act in the exact same ways we do?

            Again, this is not my only point.  But if you do NOT believe that (if we had a creator) that he may be beyond our comprehension to some degree then any talk might be futile.

          • Discordia

            If there is a creator and he is beyond our comprehension then the Bible is useless as God is beyond the comprehension of humans.

            However, I do not believe in any God that any human has ever invented/worshipped.  I seriously doubt there is a god anywhere in the universe as I don’t see where there is a need for the hypothesis of God.  Once again, I am an atheist.  I don’t believe in a god or a creator.  However, if verifiable evidence was presented to me I would reconsider my position.  Like, perhaps, all amputees growing their missing limbs back with a world-wide broadcast from the deity responsible.  In any case, the presence of A god does not automatically mean it is YOUR god.  There are easily 3,000 other gods to consider as well.

            Your first comment struck me as rather smart-assed.  I would assume you know enough about drowning to NOT want to experience it, just like being beaten to death or shot in the gut or being burned at the stake.

          • Anonymous

            My first comment was just a joke.  My humor sometimes does not come across well online.

            I believe there is a creator and that He is beyond full comprehension and that the creator is the God of the Bible.

            What would you consider verifiable evidence of a God?  I have had some people as simple as “I exist therefore I know there is a God” and as impossible as “even if a hand reached down from heaven took me up there and showed me wonders I would still not be convinced it wasn’t a natual occurance”.

            You want evidence; I totally understand that – makes sense.  So what evidence would you find admissable and compelling?

          • Discordia

            PS

            Go smack yourself upside your head for making that comment about being a HS dropout.  A lack of an education does NOT make you stupid!!!!  I’d swat you myself if I was there!!!

            Don’t you ever put yourself down.  Ever!  You write better and ask clearer questions that a lot of HS graduates I am familiar with.  I would have never have guessed you had dropped out if you hadn’t said something. And I’ve seen plenty of educated people that would get lost on a one-way street.  Degrees help, but they don’t make the person.

            xoxo
            Dis

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            I dropped out of High School after my Jr year. (l-o-n-g story) When I went to college they accepted me as a provisional student my first year.

            About 8 years ago I decided to get my GED. No reason other than a loose end in my life. I remember the test proctor was worried about me because I didn’t take the GED classes. He was even more worried when I finished each section well before everyone else taking the test. Of course, he didn’t know I was a pastor. :)

            My scores were every good. I was quite pleased. I was weakest in math and science and that pretty well reflected my past training. I tested the highest in language skills, again no surprise since I made my living reading, studying, speaking, and writing.

            A lack of education can always be corrected if a person is willing to read.

          • Discordia

            If there is a Heaven, I want my part of it to include a ginormous library with everything ever printed sitting on the shelves!!!

          • Anonymous

            “I dropped out of High School after my Jr year. (l-o-n-g story) When I
            went to college they accepted me as a provisional student my first year.”

            We seem to have a LOT in common!  :-)

          • Jim Jones

            “And I’ve seen plenty of educated people that would get lost on a one-way street. Degrees help, but they don’t make the person.”

            According to US government surveys, only 31% of college graduates can think logically and that number is dropping about 1% per year.

            Be afraid. Be very afraid.Doctors and engineers cheating to get through college? Be very afraid indeed.

          • Discordia

            That is positively unnerving.

            I was just watching a video by Neil deGrasse Tyson about how he has failed more students majoring in medicine in his classes than any other field of study.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            The standard Evangelical answer is………it is a miracle. God’s ways are not our ways. God doesn’t have to work according to the same rules he established for the universe.

            I taught people for years that God caused all the animals to fall into a deep sleep while on the ark. I had NO proof of this but it sure fixed a lot of problems, like the ones you mention here. :)

          • Anonymous

            Bruce,
              I admire your honesty.  I sure hope I have the strength to keep from inventing things to passify people.  But it will be tough – some times I feel like “would you just shut up already!”.

            Speculation is ok, but if treated as truth?

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            The problem is, when pastors speculate from the pulpit people tend to translate that into fact. It’s the nature of the beast. Speculation helps fill in the blanks, helps answer the glaring questions but somewhere down the line people stop seeing it as speculation and embrace it as fact/truth.

          • Jim Jones

            Have you seen “The Invention of Lying” with Ricky Gervais? He invents religion to comfort his dying mother and immediately runs into all of the contradictions inherent in the assumption. It’s very entertaining.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            Yes. Great movie.

          • Discordia

            Have you seen this?

            http://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

            I think someone recommended the link to me several years ago.

          • Jim Jones

            “The story of the Flood is just that– a story, a myth told around the campfires at night to entertain people.  It has absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up but plenty of science to debunk it.”

            Actually, a case can be made for the flooding of the Black Sea as the source of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Some of the details do seem to match.

          • Discordia

            Plus given that every major population center back then (and mostly even now) is within 50 miles of some sort of water, it should not be a surprise that flood stories are so popular.  Rivers, lakes and seas were all used for transport, food sources and drinking.. well, maybe not the seas for drinking but you get what I mean.

            And the Epic of Gilgamesh is the root of the Noah story, or so I am given to understand.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            Well, I have :) and there is nothing in the Story of Noah and the flood that says to me love. Here’s my take on it: http://fallenfromgrace.net/2011/05/09/god-shows-his-love-by-killing-almost-everyone-in-the-world/

          • AramMcLean

            There are so many amusing comments conversations on this blog, it’s fantastic! :)  

            And just to offer my two cents to nobrains, I think it’s important to realize that just as no person’s inner self is made up of simply good or bad, neither is any conversation simply one point and hold on to it until the end. Other factors always come into play. In the case of this particular conversation, regarding the question of whether the flood was loving or hateful, I do, however, believe you missed a valid point when Discordia pointed out that there is no evidence to show Noah walked all about the earth spreading the good news and giving every living person on it an equal chance of survival. Which, for the unlucky folks who didn’t know it was about to rain hard, wouldn’t have felt so loving on the day it came and they were busy playing out with their kids, maybe watering the tomatoes in their garden, and then, Wham, a wall of water comes charging over them without remorse. 

            Now I suppose you could reply with something like, ‘Well, um, Noah didn’t have to go all over the earth because every living person lived within 100 square miles of each other back then. And they were ALL bad’, and fair enough, that’s your right to make this retort in reply, but you didn’t. Hence, you failed to respond to the main thread you were so interested in, regarding the ‘was it loving or not’ debate. 

            Having said all that, please enlighten me, as I would love to know how flooding the entire earth was ‘one of the most loving acts in the Bible.’

          • nobrains

            @AramMcLean:disqus – I am not sure this is what happened.  I believe I said there is no evidence that Noah went out spreading the news; he (Discordia) thought the Bible taught that Noah preached a warning, I believe the Bible does not say that.  Noah built an ark.

            The debate was not about if it [the flood] was loving or not, the debate was about God hating sinners or sin.

            Do you believe in the Christian God of the Bible?  If not, which I suspect, then there is little point in sharing my perspective on the story of the flood – you cannot see this as a loving act of God because you see no God.  When looking at it from a “fairy tale” context you will not accept it as loving.  Basically, since you believe it not to be true it cannot come across as the loving act it was – but if you believed it all to be true then the act of love is obvious.

          • AramMcLean

            Um, okay then, my mistake. The point I took from Discordia’s comment was that it can’t have been very loving for God to not warn everyone and give them an equal chance. But since you say it was about hating the sinners, not about love, then I guess God just hated those who didn’t know, so forget them anyways.

            Anyways, you do realize that you can basically copy and paste your reply anytime someone asks you why you believe something you believe. 

            And to set the record straight, I don’t necessarily believe it was a fairy tale, but rather more likely that a local flood had happened at some point (perhaps the Mediterranean busting through past Gibraltar, as one theory suggests) and this flood story was then passed into the Jewish tale which they repeated to each other over the years, until finally they wrote all their stories down during their exile in Babylon. They wrote their stories and legends down in the hopes to create and keep an identity as a separate people during the many years they remained in exile. 

            And then finally, God be praised, they returned to the Promised Land with Ezra, at which point they knew for certain that they had been punished for worshipping many gods, as they had been previously (or so archaeological evidence suggests), and the One True God was now giving them a second chance. They were convinced that their polytheism had led to their capture in the first place. As such, they became the first tribe in the history of the world to worship One God above all others. Then the Israelites’ written pining of memories of old tales and legends gradually became established as an actual fact of infallible history, which in turn, as you well know, led on into the creation of two other massive religions of the present day, Islam and Christianity, who both demand equally as strongly that they are the one true legend, usurping the very one they borrowed the idea from. 

            Which in turn has lead us to have otherwise intelligent people adamantly arguing that an act of genocide is in fact a loving act.

            Though I wager your argument likely goes something along the lines of – ‘Sin is bad. God hates sin. He killed everyone because of everyone was a sinner, BUT, out of sheer LOVE, He saved eight of us undeserving souls!’

            So, yeah, you’re right. I absolutely don’t believe what you believe. But that’s okay. That’s the joy of the colourful world we live. Just you don’t go drowning any one now, y’hear ;)

            Cheers

        • Jim Jones

          nobrains: “We simply disagree here.  I see “the flood” as one of the most loving acts in the Bible.”

          Right. God as Oprah: “You get a bath and you get a bath and you get a bath and everyone gets a bath. And free laundry. And swimming lessons!”

          • Anonymous

            What relevance is this to our discussion Jim?

          • Jim Jones

            IMO it nails it dead on.

  • Texas Born & Bred

    God loves the sinner???

    For God so loved the world that he gave his only son …..

    Well I guess he didn’t love the native americans very much because there’s no way they could have heard about Jesus until the year 1500 or later.

    I just can’t connect the dots between “God is love” of the new testatement and the god of the old testament who regularly hated and killed people (like the first born of Egypt, Sodomites, Edomites, etc).

  • http://www.lostblogger.com/ Lost Blogger

    Christ’s sacrifice was a demonstration of his love for man, not his love of the sin of man, which could be mistakken by saying he ‘loves the sinner’. I am a sinner and he died for me and loves me, but he hates my sin, as do I.

    Great blog by the way! I found you on Google Blog Search. While I am not a Pastor, I post on biblical studies and topics almost every day and would love it if you visited! http://www.lostblogger.com

    • Jim Jones

      “Christ’s sacrifice was a demonstration of his love for man …”

      It wasn’t much of a sacrifice.

      • Chris

        Jim – keep integrity.  You do not even believe Christ existed so why engage in this comment?  You’re beginning to come across as an arrogant bully.

        You have plainly stated you do not think even a historical Jesus existed.  So they only reason for you to pipe in your $0.02 here is to  belittle the commenter.  I suspect that if you were a Christian you would not be allowed to comment any more on this blog since it is obvious you are here to antagonize not discuss.

        • Jim Jones

          Well, the ‘comment’ seems more like a troll for his own blog.

          And it WASN’T much of a sacrifice, – a few hours of suffering and then resurrection and off to heaven in a very Hollywood ending. I bet Troy Davis wished he could get that deal.

          But thanks for telling me to STFU.

          • Anonymous

            Since you don’t believe he existed it wasn’t even an event; much less a sacrifice.  And no problem on telling you to pipe-down.

          • Jim Jones

            Back at you.

        • Discordia

          I have to support Jim on his comment about Jesus’ death being a “sacrifice”.  Jesus came back three days later to join God in Heaven to judge everyone else while all the OTHER living things ever sacrificed to God never came back.  It seems that Jesus’ brief time in limbo before being rebooted was just a mild inconvenience to him, not a sacrifice.

          • Anonymous

            But, according to Jim (TV show pun intended) Jesus never existed even in a historical context.  So he is just trying to cause trouble.

            Not a sacrifice?  Would you say the same to a believer’s parents who died defending your country?

            YOU: “Your son died in battle…”
            MOM: “Yes, he sacrificed his life for our country…”
            YOU: “But he is now in heaven, his tears wiped away…  Right?”
            MOM: “Yes.  Praise the Lord!”
            YOU: “It seems your son hasn’t sacrificed anything.  In fact he is now in *paradise* while the rest of us suffer down here.  So, its more of an inconvience really…”

            True, right?  I mean you have to be honest — if anyone DIES for someone else but just moves-on to heaven they haven’t really sacrificed anything right?  In fact it could have been that other person that died and got to go to heaven.  It isn’t a sacrifice at all it is just plain selfish – “you get to go to heaven now, I have to wait…  Thanks jerk!”

          • Discordia

            You said “Not a sacrifice?  Would you say the same to a believer’s parents who died defending your country?”

            Anyone who dies for their country does indeed offer a sacrifice and it doesn’t make a bit difference if the parents are believers or not because their child is dead and is NOT coming home THREE DAYS LATER.  However, Jesus was whining to God to take “this cup from him” while he already knew he would be resurrected and would be hanging with God in the hereafter.

            So it was NOT a true sacrifice on the part of Jesus because he got back up three days later.

            And as a matter of fact, I find a non-believer being willing to sacrifice themselves to be an act of greater courage than that of a believer because the non-believer does not even have the hope of an afterlife or eternal reward to ease the task.  They are willing to give their one, single life for something they believe in while the believer thinks they have a Jesus or 70 virgins waiting for them or any of the other myriads of beliefs about an afterlife.

          • Anonymous

            I think I am missing your point…  So Jesus’ sacrifice was not a sacrifice because he returned to EARTH three days later?  Because it seemed you were saying it was because he would be in heaven…  So your problem with the sacrifice is that in only three days he would be seen again on the earth?  So it is only a sacrifice if you are never seen again on the earth?  I am not challenging you…  I am trying to understand your point because I am missing it?

            And I assume you think the believer who is willing to sacrifice themselves even with thoughts that they may be headed to an eternity of nashing of teeth offers the most courage.  They are willing to suffer for eternity for something they believe in while the non-believer thinks they simply took maybe 50-60 years off their life, right?

          • Jim Jones

            Almost all people who were crucified suffered for many hours, sometimes days on the cross until they died (and a rare few survived). Then their bodies were left to rot. This crucifixion seems more like a magic trick – David Copperfield or   David Blaine pulling one of their stunts. And yet we’re told that somehow it helped us all – but not so much, since we still can go to hell.
            It makes no sense, any more than Scientology does.

          • Anonymous

            Your comments make no sense to me Jim.  I am just being honest here.  Are you suggesting that if something doesn’t make sense to you then it cannot be true?  Or are you suggesting that if one thing that doesn’t make sense isn’t true then anything that doesn’t make sense isn’t true?

          • Discordia

            No.  I am saying (and I will try to make this clear) that the believer who sacrifices their life BELIEVES that they are going to another life that lasts forever.  Even though they are cutting short this life on Earth, they have another perfectly good, shiny new life waiting for them in Heaven.  So, yes, it’s bad they aren’t going home to momma, at least they are going to be hanging out will all their loved ones and Jesus and God and everyone! YAY!!

            However, non-believers are surrendering the ONLY life they will EVER have for something they think is greater than they are. They die with no belief at all they will someday see their friends or family or anything ever again.  They die knowing that the game is over.  Forever.  No Jesus.  No Krishna.  No anything.

            For believers, death is only temporary.  Believers think they will have another life after this one.  A believer believes that they are giving away a physical life to gain a spiritual life (or to gain a body that is glorified and perfected).  

            Non-believers think this is the ONLY life they will ever have.  For us, dead is dead and forever and that’s it.  It’s permanent.

          • Anonymous

            So it is less of a sacrifice for a believer to give up their life than a non-believer?  So we’re back to your original statement – for believers who die it is an inconvience, not a sacrifice?  Or does that only apply to Jesus…?

            And so, a believer, faced with hell…  Is this more or less of a sacrifice?  Let’s just say that this believer is going to hell for arguments sake…  So did he sacrifice MORE?

            It seems to me you are saying you do not believe in heaven or hell…  But since some people do, it takes less for them to give up their lives?

            Maybe the right term to use is stupid.  If we’re honest – someone who is willing to give up their life because they’re committed to our country is courageous.  But someone who is willing to give up their lives because they believe that a genie is going to give them 1000 wishes isn’t really BRAVE or CORAGEOUS.  They are stupid, right?

            ME: “I’m am willing to die for my country because even though this is my only life I am ready to lay it down for you.”
            YOU: “man, you are corageous!”

            -OR-

            ME: “I am willing to die for my country because I am ready to lay down my life for you – seeing as I am going to have 1000 wishes!”
            YOU: “You are deluded!”

            I am not trying to be a jerk here…  I know the argument has taken a turn for the senseless.  But I find the thought that Jesus’ sacrfice as not being a “serious” one as a weird statement.  If you don’t believe in Jesus it is all moot.  There was no sacrifice anyhow.  If you do, if you believe it happened, then it is a serious sacrifice…

            So it just seems really strange for me for someone to come from the point – I don’t believe Jesus was crucified and ressurected.  But I will tell you why, even if he was, it is meaningless…  See the if he WAS makes all the difference.

            To say Jesus wasn’t resurrected…  Ok, I get that.  To say he was, yep — you know I’m with ya there.  But to say that he WAS but it was no big deal??!  WEIRD.

          • Discordia

            Drat.
            No.
            Jesus is immortal and his “death” wasn’t a real death.  The three days he was dead were spent preaching to the lost in….freaking purgatory or wherever they were.  Then he gets resurrected and goes and hangs out with his homies for a bit THEN he goes to Heaven to sit beside God.  Jesus was sinless so he never had to worry about judgment or hell or anything.

            If you or I do something to save someone else and it ends up killing us, neither you nor I will be hopping out of the casket at our funeral THREE DAYS LATER and giving our loved ones lots of hugs and high-5′s.  In that case, our sacrifice is a sacrifice because we don’t get our lives back three days later.  A sacrifice is the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirablefor the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.  If you sacrifice something you do not expect to get it back.  It isn’t like loaning a buddy $20 until next payday.  A sacrifice is what Will Smith’s character did in the movie Seven Pounds.  He killed himself so that 7 other strangers could have good lives and he didn’t do it expecting to get back up in three days and live happily ever after.

            Jesus wasn’t risking anything with his “sacrifice,” while the honest believer knows they are ALWAYS at risk of hell (more ‘love’ from god) and the honest un-believer knows they have NOTHING to look forward to.

            So THAT is why I say that Jesus’ so-called sacrifice isn’t a sacrifice at all.  He got everything back three days later with no risk at all to himself.

            I hope I have clarified my view for you this time.  Words can be tricky.

          • Anonymous

            “So THAT is why I say that Jesus’ so-called sacrifice isn’t a sacrifice
            at all.  He got everything back three days later with no risk at all to
            himself.”

            So you believe that Jesus died and was ressurected three days later?

          • Discordia

            Oh goodness no.

            I am an atheist.  I do not believe Bible-Jesus was real.  I can see where there could have been a dude named Jesus back then who got fish-storied into what he is now, but I certainly do not believe in the God-Man Jesus no more than I believe in the God-Man Gilgamesh or the God-Man Hercules.  They are all hero-tales, something to inspire people.

            Jesus is a main character in the Bible, so I argue from that perspective, just like I can argue about the actions and plots of stories involving Lady MacBeth or Ender Wiggins or Jack Reacher or Agent Pendergast or Sherlock Holmes.  Please do not confuse my acceptance of the premise of a story with belief.  To me, the stories in the Bible are just historical fiction with some liberties taken with history.

          • Anonymous

            I did not think you believed it, that was my point.  Yes you can argue actions, plots, and stories of books that are fiction and fact.

            But since you are arguing the story of Jesus as a work of fiction all your argument is reduced to is an opinion of something that could have been written any which way.

            “It wasn’t much of a sacrifice because this happened…. when if this other thing happened it would have been a real sacrifice”

            But in a factual story it is the author that lets us know of the importance of the sacrifice.  We can say “this wouldn’t be a big sacrifice to me” but it comes across as you saying “this isn’t a big sacrifice, period”

            That is the problem – were discussing it from two different perspectives.

          • Discordia

            You are being deliberately thick.

            THERE WAS NO RISK FOR JESUS!  How hard is it for you to wrap your head around that fact?

            Even after Jesus “died” on the cross, the bible states that he spent three days preaching to those who had passed on so he wasn’t even dead THEN.  And three days later, he is off the bench and back on the court, hanging out with his friends for a bit and is then ascending to Heaven to be with God.  Jesus was sinless or so the bible says, so he was never, EVER at risk for condemnation into eternal hell, quite unlike every f**king human that ever was and ever will be, according to YOUR bible.

            Therefore Jesus was NEVER at risk and his ‘sacrifice’ was not a sacrifice at all because anything he could have possibly given up he got back in next to no time. 

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            There is the peccability/impeccability debate. Was Jesus’ temptation to sin real. The peccability side says yes and the Arians would certainly agree. The impeccability side says no people could not have sinned. Jesus was God and God can’t sin. This is the view of most Christian sects today. However, the Bible says Jesus suffered just like humans do. How can that be if there was no possibility to sin? Like the issue you raise here, there never was a real possibility for a alternate outcome.

          • Anonymous

            “THERE WAS NO RISK FOR JESUS!  How hard is it for you to wrap your head around that fact?”

            Of course (to you) it is a fact there was no risk for Jesus since to you
            the Bible-Jesus isn’t real.  A fictional character cannot face real
            risk – I will concede if Jesus is NOT REAL then he faced NO REAL RISK and there was NO REAL SACRIFICE,

             I think what you actually need to do to make the honest statement is remove “RISK FOR” so it reads “THERE WAS NO JESUS!”.

            I am not being deliberately thick.  I think in honesty you are being
            deliberately dishonest…  You do not believe there was a Jesus who died
            on the cross and was resurrected…  Period.

            The only point you can be trying to make other than to just be saying
            “THERE WAS NO JESUS” in a strange way is “even if the Bible is true,
            Jesus’ sacrifice was not a sacrifice”.  But the problems is that
            statement requires the “even if the Bible is true” clause and, if the
            Bible is true, then we learn that it was a sacrifice – because the Bible
            is true.

            We actually agree!  If Jesus is NOT REAL then he faced no REAL RISK and provided NO REAL SACRIFICE.

          • Discordia

            Don’t flatter yourself.  We do not agree. 

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            What risk could there be for Jesus? His death was ordained from the foundation of the world. He was always God. When he died HE gave up his life and when he resurrected again it was by his own power.

            You raise a good point about Jesus and his grave. If Jesus went to preach to the souls that were captive in Hades/Paradise that means he wasn’t dead. He couldn’t have spiritually went to Hades/Paradise because Luke 16 makes it clear the Lazarus and Abraham had living, physical bodies while they resided in Hades/Paradise.

          • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

            Sadly, I think the payoff angle is prominent in many churches and denominations. They try to say its not the case but a pain free, perfect life, complete with Dottie Rambo in her “just build my log cabin next door to Jesus” reward is quite a powerful motivator. I am not against material reward or motivation. All of us have been motivated by these things. Unfortunately, many Christians know how “worldly” such motivations are so they try to make people think they and their religion is above such motivations. Take away the threat of hell and the promise of heaven and most churches would be empty tomorrow.

          • Anonymous

            There is no doubt that people are “in it for the good stuff”…  I agree.

          • Discordia

            All of us do things for a reward, I think, though not necessarily a blatant one.  It could be money or things or just that warm, fuzzy feeling we get.  While I like doing good for other people and I don’t expect a payback, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t enjoy it.  Being able to help someone with something makes me feel GOOD, even if it is nothing more than suggesting a book that they like.

          • http://www.ronamundson.com/twitter/ Ron Amundson

            Thats a fascinating pov, as many Christian’s in my peer groups agree Jesus rose, but there is significant doubt as to whether we will, same with whether an eternal hell like place exists. Granted, my peer group is millions of miles away from fundamentalism.

        • Discordia

          I wasn’t going to post a reply to this but obviously I’ve changed my mind.

          Don’t comment about Jim’s lack of belief in Jesus when YOU are posting pro-religious comments on a site hosted by an atheist.

      • http://www.ronamundson.com/twitter/ Ron Amundson

        An innocent man dieing via crucifixtion was probably a somewhat routine occurance in that era. Doing so in a matter of hours, rather than days in agony seems to diminish it as a sacrifice compared to what others went through. What about the martyrs… did they die in a few hours, or a few days? I’m thinking days being such was the more common scenario.

        One of the problems I see with this shedding of blood focus, is that it misses the bigger deal and that was Jesus as 100% man and 100% God, taking on all the sins of the world in one shot, past, present, and future. That would be a massively huge sacrifice… The blood shedding needed to be there to deal with prophecy and mens blood lust, but I see such as much less of a suffering than his humanity getting whacked full bore with a seemingly near infinite load of sin. 

        Likewise, if it were the divine aspect only… and then coming back up in 3 days. Sacrifice would not seem to be very great… as others have stated, what risk is really there? Rather the risk of the 100%man/100%God concept taking on all sin would seemingly pose a great deal of risk and unknowns to the 100% human bit, even if one knows in 3 days, the 100% divine will be good to go.

        Just my beliefs… one of many reasons folks call me an irrational Christian.

  • April

    I heard a lot of hate preached in the calvinist group I escaped.  Deep down in my psyche I thought I didn’t like this “god”, it’s evil deeds were justified with the “might makes right”…”who art thou that repliest against god??”   That’s where the fear factor immobilizes a believer because if god is that way…who would want to anger it?  You better believe what you are told to believe & do what you are told to do.

    The calvinist god is hateful, cruel & capricious…wheras the arminian god throws folks in hell that he “loves” & is impotent to “save” them, not much better.
    It dawned on me there was no unity in Christendom.   So many sects arguing amongst themselves… & the dogmas lacked anything redeeming in them.
    I do feel for the people tangled in it, so many were raised that way, they don’t know any better.  All I can hope is that those trapped in it can somehow find freedom through logic & thinking outside of the box they are in.
     
    It is perplexing that so many christians do ignore those unpleasant verses.

  • http://carpescriptura.wordpress.com/ MrPopularSentiment

    I’ve always disliked the “hate the sin, love the sinner” cliche, in large part because it’s so insincere. If you have to say it so much it probably isn’t true, and this is never more obvious than when we see Christians supporting highly punitive “tough on crime” legislation. Someone who really loved the sinner would want a justice system that focused on rehabilitation, not punishment. 

    Speaking as an atheist, my advise to Christians who want to make an impression on the “faith-less” is this: Stop talking and start doing. Don’t keep telling me that you love sinners and start showing me with your actions.

    • Chris

      Amen!  I am a Christian (was and atheist) and agree – the “proof” is in the works.  Don’t just say you love even your enimies, SHOW it.

      • Discordia

        hmmm… you are saying that Faith without works is dead?

        • Anonymous

          Yes, I’ve gone all James 2 on everybody.

  • http://infidel753.blogspot.com/ Infidel753

    I always assumed the “love the sinner” part was linked to Jesus’s “love thine enemies” spiel.  Of course that contradicts the Old Testament, but the whole book is full of contradictions.

    If they think non-Christians and gays (for example) find it appealing to be told that they personally are loved but their lives are hated, well, most people don’t react that way.

    I do have to admit to a somewhat comparable form of thinking, though.  I’ve long said that in the struggle against religion, most religious people are not the enemy, they’re the battlefield.  I view most religious people as victims of an unexamined deception, “possessed”, so to speak, by crazy ideas which are damaging to them as much as to the people around them.  I want to see religious people freed from those ideas, not destroyed (except for the people guilty of real crimes, like molesting priests).  So, in that sense, I’m making a distinction between the religious belief (the “sin”) and the believer (the “sinner”).  I’d never feel taken aback if religious people refuse to be impressed by this, though.

  • Obiron

    I often wish Marcionism had been the Christian interpretation to have won out over proto-orthodoxy!  We would have dispensed with much of the hate-filled OT God. We would still have a mythic story, but a lot nicer overall religion for Christians to follow.

    • Christopher Patrick Aro

      Hello Obiron!

      For the sake of discussion, I hope you’ll consider my two cents worth.

      From my understanding of the canon of Scripture, the OT is a necessary inclusion to put the NT into context. The NT is meant to show the fulfillment of God’s covenants with His people, and to combat the rampant hypocrisy among them. The OT, as part of the Christian Bible, is meant to be a historical document to show Christians how and where their faith comes from.

      Christianity after all, is the logical evolution of the Jewish faith.

      I agree that the OT can be very graphic about certain things. But then, what historical document isn’t?

      On that last note, please don’t think that I’m arguing for the acceptance of the OT, and the BIble in general as a historical document. I’m merely saying that whoever wrote the OT MEANT for it to be read as a historical document. Whether it actually is, I believe, is still a matter of ongoing debate which I currently see no need not be made manifest here. :-)

      Shalom!

      • Anonymous

        “Christianity after all, is the logical evolution of the Jewish faith.”

        I can understand a believer wanting to see it that way. Of course the Jews don’t – I guess they’re not too bright about the Jewish faith?

        Or maybe they noticed that the prophesied Messiah was supposed to free them from Babylon, or that God’s OT law was eternal as opposed to a stepping stone to a new covenant, or that the consumption of blood (think Eucharist) was an abomination forever, or that the wages of sin was death, not eternal torture. Must look to them like a perversion rather than an evolution.

        So many of Paul’s changes seem so – I don’t know – Greek like. An abrupt discontinuity grafted on, rather than a seamless evolution.

        • Christopher Patrick Aro

          Hello exrelayman!

          Without Judaism, Christianity would not have come about. Or Islam. Or any Abrahamic faith for that matter. I think that’s pretty self evident. Not that I’m saying that it is not possible, as you say, to come to the conclusion that Christianity is the progression of the Jewish faith from a purely Christian perspective. I’m sure a lot of Christians think that theirs is the better religion. Much the same way that Muslims claim that their version is the legitimate version of the Abrahamic covenant.

          Maybe its more correct for me to say that Christianity logically progressed from Judaism.

          As for Paul’s theology being greek-like, I think that would have been obvious, since he was preaching to peoples who were influenced by Greek culture and philosophy. Certainly, the apostle John’s use of the “logos” is Greek in origin.

          And it also makes sense that it sounds a bit grafted on, because, as Paul explained in Romans 11, the Greeks and gentiles were NOT the original recipients of the covenant. The Jews were. So for the gentiles to become co-heirs, they MUST be grafted on. And to do that, Paul (and the other Apostles) had to use their metaphors to explain the Jewish faith.

          Hope this helps! :-)

          • Jim Jones

            “Without Judaism, Christianity would not have come about.”

            Sure it would have. And essentially it would have been the same Greek, pagan religion it is now. Only the decoration would change. If he and his audience had known about it, ‘Jesus’ could have been a Tibetan mystic. It all still works.

            “As for Paul’s theology being greek-like, I think that would have been obvious”

            Because he was a Greek, selling it to other Greeks.

            “.. the Greeks and gentiles were NOT the original recipients of the covenant. The Jews were.”

            No. It was a religion intended for poor Greeks, even for slaves of Greeks, as far as we can tell. We can’t tell too much because we simply don’t know what Paul’s religion was. All we know is what the Council of Nicea wanted.

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Sorry, but do you have something against Greeks? :-)

            Your first statement is hypothetical. You cannot know if Christianity would have come into being without its obvious pre-cursor which is Judaism.

            That would be like saying apples are possible because they exist, therefore apples would have come into being even without the apple tree. :-D

            “And essentially it would have been the same Greek, pagan religion it is now.”

            Just for ease of reference, can I kindly ask for your definition of “pagan” please?

          • Jim Jones

            “You cannot know if Christianity would have come into being without its obvious pre-cursor which is Judaism.”

            Would Joseph Smith have NOT created Mormonism without the Lamanites?

            “Just for ease of reference, can I kindly ask for your definition of “pagan” please?”

            Standard Greek paganism included:

            Divine birth.
            God-sent dreams.
            Coming down and going up to heaven.
            Hell.
            Miracles.
            Healing the sick, raising the dead.  
            Prophesies made and fulfilled. 

            (Compare with the god Glycon for example).

            And from non-Greek religions we get:

            Sacramental meals
            Baptism
            Resurrection

          • Christopher Patrick Aro

            Sorry, I am not really that knowledgeable about Mormonism, so I cannot get the point that you’re trying to make with your comment. Perhaps you can provide me with another illustration to show your point?

            Definition of “Pagan” from Merriam-Webster:

            pa·gan noun ˈpā-gən
            1: heathen 1; especially: a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome) 2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person from Oxford English:Pronunciation: /ˈpeɪg(ə)n/ noun  1: a person holding religious beliefs other than those of the main world religions: a Muslim majority had to live in close proximity to large communities of Christians and pagans
            2: dated, derogatory a non-Christian.
            3: a member of a modern religious movement which seeks to incorporate beliefs or practices from outside the main world religions, especially nature worship.If I can offer you a bit of friendly advice? If you REALLY want to get a one up over Christians who slap their religion onto your face, try to be less subjective in your comments and hit them back with logical arguments using objective definitions. I guarantee you’ll shut most of them up. :-)

          • Jim Jones

            I don’t actually “want to get a one up over Christians who slap their religion onto your face” but I will point out when they are wrong in a discussion/debate. Otherwise, what’s the point? We might as well discuss the color of carrots on Mars. Without a basis in truth we are back to discussing the space taken up by angels.

            As for dictionary and encyclopedia definitions, they tend to suffer from pro-theistic bias: they take the Christian definition as truth for convenience. AFAIK, ‘pagan’ really means ‘countrified’. Here, I am using it to mean a customary Greek religion of the times as a convenience.

            Did you look up Glycon? Note the similarities AND the differences?

          • Discordia

            Joseph Smith made up the Lamanites and the Nephites and the golden plates he claimed he got all that stuff from.  Being that the Book of Mormon is another testament of Jesus Christ, I can say that, No, Joseph Smith would not have created the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because there would not have been a Jesus Christ and Christianity for him to base the whole new tale off of.

            No longer wearing the Holy Underwear,
            Dis

          • Jim Jones

            I agree. If the dominant religion in the USA wasn’t Christianity then Joseph Smith would have made up something different. But he still would have made up something.

          • Discordia

            LOL
            A scam artist always does…..

        • Jim Jones

          “So many of Paul’s changes seem so – I don’t know – Greek like. An abrupt discontinuity grafted on, rather than a seamless evolution.”

          If you read http://www.pocm.info/ he makes the point that Paul created a standard Greek god but with a Jewish (and slave) flavor. It isn’t Jewish at all, a point Jews will confirm.

      • Obiron

        Christopher,

        I agree, you have to have the OT for context.  That comment was partially ‘tongue in cheek’, but only in part.  There were so many Christian groups (otherwise known as ‘heresies’ today)  in the very early years that it’s hard to understand why we have what we ended up with.  What I’d really like is all the texts from those times (and many are now available) in an effort to fully comprehend what the writers were feeling and meaning.  That would include the Hebrew OT, The Greek translation of the OT, and many of the other writings from the previous 500 years. 

        To be very honest, I barely understand the 1990s from a historical perspective even though I was an adult through those years.  I would bet that if I wrote a history of that decade that I’d be wrong on many points.  I take the same view of the New Testament times, what we have are a lot of fascinating writings that tell us about human nature and of the struggles going on.  Endlessly entertaining points of view, with the sources hidden in the mists of time.

        My caveat:  we should all be very careful in how we derive meaning from these texts and in how we apply that meaning to our own lives.  For me the meaning is “Humans are fragile and I am easily mistaken.  I should double check all my assumptions and live in peace as much as it is dependent on me.”

        Peace to you as well.

        • http://fallenfromgrace.net Bruce Gerencser

          I just read an article on how they are reconstruting the manufacture of first CPU. The original plans, which were mapped out on paper, are lost. Not an easy task and I can only imagine how difficult the task is with ancient documents, dead languages, etc.

          • Jim Jones

            Bill Gates has admitted that Microsoft somehow lost the source code to the BASIC interpreter which started his company.

            I worked for a company which wrote $1 million software – they lost much of their source code somehow.

            I have a memory that the US government had an indexing system for Vietnam era documents that could no longer be operated (I don’t know the details).

            There are many other abandoned technologies which are becoming harder to access with the passage of time. Scanning and OCR help some but not all. Ironically, printed books have lasted longer than anything since then!

            Welcome to the world of tomorrow.

        • Christopher Patrick Aro

          That’s a pretty good conclusion you’ve come to, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

          Meaning is ALWAYS dependent on context. You cannot dissociate one from the other. You really don’t have to go very far than this blog to see that difficulties arise when posts are taken out of context. The intended meaning is lost, or worse, distorted to mean other completely different things.

          When it comes to the study of the Bible (whether it be by Christian scholars or Historical experts), I believe there are safeguards to avoid or otherwise prevent wrong interpretations (exegisis and hermeneutics being some of the most popular).

          I agree with Bruce when he says that the Bible is a very dangerous book. Its dangerous precisely because it is popular and therefore subject to a lot of misinterpretation.

          Consider the words of Jesus in Matthew 10:34 for example. That’s a VERY dangerous verse to misinterpret. And I daresay that a lot of the Christian Crusaders in medieval times lived by that kind of misinterpretation. (They didn’t call that time in our history “The Dark Ages” for nothing.)

          Difficulty in determining meaning however, does not mean we should abandon or dismiss what pieces of history we have at the moment. ANY relic from the past can provide information about the past. And the past is necessary for putting the present (and future) into context.