Blog Archives
Inherited Religion?
John W. Loftus is all about error. It’s sad and funny at the same time. This time, he’s on about a typical atheist talking point: the fact that religion is inherited from the culture.
Of course, this does nothing to impugn the credibility of a particular religion. Truth is still truth. The argument isn’t an attack on the truth claims of Christianity. Instead, it seeks to use human nature against religion. It is not in dispute that we inherit beliefs unquestioningly from our parents and culture. Likewise, there is no dispute that we like to feel special and good. But how does this argue against any particular religion?
Loftus has this to say:
Why do they [Christians] think they are privileged to be born in the right time and place when others are not? If there is a God why would he privilege them like this? Why? It’s the natural tendency we humans have for thinking we’re special, that’s why. All ancient societies built temples to their gods which they thought were located directly on the center of the world. This thinking is still being embraced by Christians in many ways for they claim their geographical religion is where God has revealed himself and can be known. (source)
People tend to inherit the religion of their parents. Big whop. Does that mean we are privileged? Let’s see what the Bible has to say about it:
- All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. But there are some of you who do not believe. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father. (Jn 6:37, 44, 64-65)
- And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed. (Acts 13:48)
- And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. (Rom 8:28-29, the so-called Golden Chain of Redemption)
- So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. (Rom 9:16)
- Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. (Eph 1:3-6)
- In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. (Eph 1:11-12)
- Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5)
So, since God can determine everything about us (he foreknows us, Rom 8:29, see also Ps 139), it stands to reason that the place and time of our birth is under his control as well. That would mean geographically inherited religion is nothing less than a mechanism by which God can predestine his elect.
God: Self-Serving or Narcissistic for Judgment?
The author of this post, who goes by Skinny Sushi, identifies herself as an agnostic. She and her husband were both raised Mormon, but for various reasons have walked away from the church. It seems that her primary reasons have to do with God’s judgment:
And any God who might be out there… wouldn’t he/she/it be rather pleased I’ve lived a good life and been kind to others? There’s just something about the notion of an all powerful being who will punish me for not believing despite the quality of my life that seems a little… self serving? Narcissistic?
In regard to the first point, Paul addressed this in the second chapter of Romans:
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16)
So Sushi is right. People who do the Law without the Law are their own Law. No need for any divine intervention there. And, many people are good for goodness sake–without the Law. Read the rest of this entry
This is just . . . WOW! (part II)
In a previous post, I criticized Mark of Proud Atheists for this post. Mark listed 14 things that he simply does not adhere to, given his naturalistic worldview. In all cases, I’ve been finding that Mark misunderstands or mischaracterizes Christianity. Today, we continue exposing his errors on points eight through 14, and offer some concluding thoughts. Read the rest of this entry
This is Just . . . WOW! (part I)
Mark from Proud Atheists does it again! He manages to prove his general and willful ignorance of religion even while attempting to mock it. His latest diatribe is a thoughtful post titled “Dear Christians, ‘I Simply Do Not . . . .‘” It’s a fascinating line of crap from start to finish. Let’s see what we can make of it: Read the rest of this entry
Why Former Christians Annoy Me
Sometimes, atheists annoy me. I don’t normally read Godless Girl, but her post on getting past anger cuts both ways. It’s about relationships:
The more I grow close and friendly with people of other ideas, the better I tend to act and feel towards others who hold those ideas–even if they are delusions or born from ignorance. . . . My point comes down to this: Love people as individuals. See them as more than just “those believers” or “those superstitious weaklings.” Who are they? Why do they have worth and dignity? It’s hard to be angry at people when you understand why they are who they are. Motivations matter, and they come from somewhere. Is it a need for love? A thirst for activity an community? Conformity and social expectation? Depression and fear?
That said, there is one class of atheist that, no matter how close I would grow to one, how I much I could empathize with their position, how much understanding or insight I get into their psyche–I will always be annoyed by. Always.
That class is the former believer.
Why?
Because when they criticize their former faith, they often fall into the exact errors perpetrated by people who wouldn’t know any better. The difference is that they do know better. Especially if they own 3 master-level degrees in philosophy and theology, and repeatedly claim to have studied under the world’s foremost authority on philosophy of religion.
When a person like that makes a fundamental error in theology, it annoys me more than words can say. Because this person knows better. At least, he should.
John W. Loftus, our friend over at Debunking Christianity, posted a (admittedly awesome) video of an octopus killing a shark in self-defense. Loftus muses, “God could not have made all creatures as vegans/vegetarians, could he? Nope. Not a chance. It was impossible for him. Right?”
Yep. Completely impossible:
Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food. (Gen 1:29-30)
So impossible that everything being a vegetarian was the original plan. Then, that pesky Fall happened, and the plan was altered. After the Flood, we read this:
The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. (Gen 9:2-3)
Okay, so it was after the Flood that God made meat eaters. Got it. Looks like Mr. Loftus was wrong. Again.
Explaining God to a Two Year Old
Until I attempted to explain the concept of God to my two-year old daughter, Ashleigh, it never occurred to me how complex some of this really is.
I was strapping her in to her car seat to go to church, and she said that we were going to see Mimi and Papa (that is, her grandparents). I said, “No, we’re going to church to see God!” I realized my blunder (Jn 1:18), and hoped that Ashleigh wouldn’t notice.
Of course, she seized the opportunity right away and as we were driving kept saying, “We go to church. See God.”
I finally said, “We can’t actually see God, sweetie. But we can see Jesus! Of course, he isn’t going to be at church. But we will learn about him.”
After considering that statement for a moment, Ashleigh asked, “The bad man get Jesus?”
“Nope,” I said. “Jesus defeated the bad man. For good!”
After a few more minutes, Ashleigh said, “We no see God. God no at church.” Laugh now, and laugh hard, my atheist readers. She’s only two and doesn’t get concepts like “immaterial,” “spirit,” or “omnipresent.” Don’t read too much into her statement.
I said, “No, honey, God is everywhere. We just can’t see him.” She seemed to consider this, but didn’t ask any more questions or make any additional statements related to church or God. Sometime, I need to have a more detailed conversation with her about God and Jesus, but not while I’m trying to concentrate on the road.
Wow!
Steve Hays (I’ve disagreed with him in the past) of Triablogue has posted twice about this comment from Ben of Arminian Perspectives:
Wrong. J.C. has never said that God is dependent on our choices. What he has said is that God’s knowledge of our choices is dependent on those choices. How could it be otherwise? If God never created us, would he know anything about us? Of course not. So God’s knowledge of us is dependent on their being an “us” to know something about.
Fascinating. And dead wrong.
The key here is the sentence “If God never created us, would he know anything about us? Of course not.” As a Reformed thinker, I don’t agree with Molinism, but there is something to Molinism’s levels of knowledge that is important here.
The first level of knowledge is God’s natural knowledge. This includes all that ever could be created, without restrictions. Without this knowledge, God would simply not be God.
The second level of knowledge is middle knowledge, that which God knows will come to pass given the right circumstances. This represents how humans will exercise their free will, but middle knowledge is not dependent on God’s action or inaction. It grows out of the act of creation itself.
The third level of knowledge is God’s free knowledge, which is God’s ability to intimately know every aspect of the world that he created. And I should mention at this point that this description of Molinism is extremely simplified; and likely inaccurate on at least a few points.
Note that us Reformed philosophers grant God both natural and free knowledge, while denying that middle knowledge is even necessary to explain divine sovereignty versus man’s free will.
God’s divine foreknowledge, even in a system like Molinism that is needlessly complicated, doesn’t depend on human movements subsequent to the act of creation. God knows what is possible before a single act of creation is undertaken (natural knowledge), and he knows what will follow from any act of creation (free knowledge) given the circumstances that a creature finds him or herself in (middle knowledge).
No one denies this–not the Molinist, not the Calvinist, not the Arminian. Except for Ben. So maybe this wasn’t facetious after all?
A (Reluctant) Response to Rey
Normally, I just ignore Rey, but this time he brought up an interesting point. In a comment on my previous post, he said:
If we are really born at enmity to God and He is causing this to happen as his punishment of Adam’s sin, then He is as much at enmity with us by His nature as we are at enmity with Him by our nature. We both are then equally guilty, and shall not the equally guilty just mutually forgive one another if they are rational?
I agree that our natures are equally at enmity, but it doesn’t follow that we are both equally guilty. To be sure, there is a breach between the nature of God and the nature of man. We need to ask ourselves: who caused the breach?
There is a cause, and Scripture clearly reveals it. Therefore, it follows that someone caused it. Causes, and their resultant effects, follow in a logical chain. An agent caused the Fall, and we turn to the pages of Scripture to find out who caused the rift.
Go back to the text in Genesis 3. Read it carefully. As far as I can tell, humanity bears full responsibility for causing the breach between God and man, and therefore putting enmity between the nature of man and the nature of God. God, in all his wisdom, tried to prevent that and protect us by forbidding us to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was by disobeying him that the rift was created, for up to that moment everything in nature had obeyed God’s commands. The first act of disobedience was man’s fault, not God’s. Man transgressed God, not the other way around.
God is not equally guilty with us, I’m afraid. The text won’t allow that conclusion. But it would be evil for God not to offer forgiveness, a way out of this bind.
God does offer forgiveness, Rey. All those who call on his name will be saved (Joel 2:32). Not just some, but all who call on his name. Isn’t that a glorious promise? Repent of your sins, embrace the totality of Scripture, and call on the name of Jesus (Rom 10:9), for there is no other name by which you can be saved (Acts 4:12).
Daniel Florien and I Agree–Sort Of
Mark this day on your calender folks. It appears as though Daniel Florien (proprietor of Unreasonable Faith) and I agree on something. Well, sort of. Our points of view are vastly different, but we both agree that what Leilani Neumann did was reprehensible. Her daughter, Madeline, was sick of a treatable form of diabetes. Ms. Neumann prayed instead of seeking medical attention.
I agree with the court’s conclusion that this is negligent homicide. Though he never says so directly, I think that Mr. Florien also agrees with the court’s conclusion. However, Florien’s point of view is that God is imaginary, or he has somehow failed to answer the prayer. Human intervention could have saved the girl, but divine intervention appears to have done nothing.
What Mr. Florien, as an atheist, of course assumes that divine intervention will do nothing, ever. He assuemes that because he believes taht God isn’t real. So how does someone like myself, who believes that God is very real, arrive at the same conclusion that Florien does?
Simple. I believe that God uses us lowly humans to enact his healing. God works his great plan through intermediaries. Sometimes, he does things himself, and that is where religious experiences come from. Things like burning bushes or bright lights that knock people to the ground on Damascus roads are of God to be sure. But, so is a doctor healing a patient. Again, God uses us humans to enact his healing and his will.
Prayer doesn’t work on its own. Ever. It requires medical intervention. Prayer is only a supplement to competent medical care.
On Omniscience
Rey wonders out loud: “Where in the Bible does God declare that he is omniscient?” He then answers his own question: Nowhere. God never declares himself to be omniscient, or all-knowing. So we have to ask ourselves, must God declare something about himself for it to be true about himself? And, must something directly appear in the Bible for it to be true about God, or is it acceptable to deduce it from related Scriptures and/or natural theology?
Before we dive into these questions, it must be stated that I believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture: that the Bible we possess is inspired and inerrant, and sufficient for all of the activities listed in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The problem in this entry is that Rey, the target of the criticism that I will present, doesn’t believe in inerrancy, nor does he believe in the plenary inspiration of Scripture. Rey cherry-picks verses as inspired and uninspired to fit with what he believes about God. This is idolatry of the highest order.
That means that this criticism will likely fall under heavy fire from Rey in the form of rejecting the verses that I use as inspired.
It is not, mind you, that Rey rejects inspiration. He rejects plenary inspiration. He doesn’t believe that all of what we possess of the Bible is inspired, but he has yet to explain his system for accepting or rejecting verses.
Back Rome Again 