Saturday, August 16, 2008

The Goodness of God and the Redemption of Man

Man cannot be good without God for God is the source of all goodness. One can follow every law God ever gave and still not be good. Jesus said there is none good, but God alone. God gave the law to Moses to show men a standard of measurement and when the Hebrews broke the law they had to present a sacrifice to the Lord to cover their sin. This was a foreshadowing in time of the real Sacrifice of God that would not cover sins, but wipe them away making the sinner justified and sinless in the eyes of God.


Romans 3:20 says, “Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.” So the law was given to show humanity we are sinful. This way no one could be in denial of our condition and need for a Savior. C.S. Lewis once wrote, “the ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock.” Lewis is saying that it used to be a forgone conclusion that man was guilty and God was the Judge. However in modernity, man got the idea that he was the judge and God is the one on trial. Yet the modern man takes for granted that he has no standard by which to judge God for God is the bearer of the standard of goodness, not man. How can man judge God without God? And if God’s proper place as Judge is realized there is no place for man to judge Him.


Romans 3:21-26 “But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Him as a sacrifice of atonement through faith in His blood. He did this to demonstrate His justice, because in His forbearance He had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished --- He did it to demonstrate His justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”


Therefore, the law and the prophets testified of the coming Savior who would bring about the redemption of man apart from observance of law. Romans 4:4, “Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However to the man who does not work, but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited to him as righteousness.” When man works to achieve goodness by following a moral standard instead of by accepting God’s free gift of righteousness, he places his goodness in his own hands instead of in God’s. And apart from God, his good acts will not lead to goodness. Scripture says that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness, his works did not justify Him. Only God can justify a person and when we try to be “good” on our own we are living in defiance of God’s righteousness. When we think goodness can be attained apart from God and then we can take that standard of goodness we think is our own evolved trait and judge God by it we have sunk into a quagmire of foolish thinking.


Romans 2:14 “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.” Thus, when humans who have not been told about the law of God do by nature the things of the law they show that they do know good and evil and their own actions bear witness to this knowledge. Hence, to say it is possible to be good apart from God is to testify that they know there is a standard of good that they need to live by. Obeying ones knowledge of good does not bring righteousness it only produces the need for the real good: God.


Romans 5:7 “Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrated His own love for us in this: while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”


Romans 5:18 – 19 “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life to all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”


John 3:16-17 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.”


It all comes down to knowing we are sinners in need of a Savior and accepting Jesus sacrifice as the only redemption for our sins, thus becoming reconciled back to God. This new life with God is not one that consist of intellectual assent to the Truth, but one that is about knowing He who is the Truth, Jesus, experientially and tangibly. We invite Him to dwell with us when we accept Him as Lord and Savior and He changes our nature helping us to live the way we were created fully of life and the power of God.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm going to try and keep this short:

"Man cannot be good without God for God is the source of all goodness."

So you continue to assert even though you've utterly failed to back it up.

"God gave the law to Moses to show men a standard of measurement and when the Hebrews broke the law they had to present a sacrifice to the Lord to cover their sin."

Why can't god follow his own laws, and what does a sacrifice do? Years ago in more barbaric times, they thought that sacrificing animals to their gods would please their gods, which is why they did it. It held no redemptive qualities then and it still doesn't today.

“Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.”

How very Orwellian. We can only be moral by recognizing that we can't be moral? This makes no sense and is an exercise in blaming the victim and is hateful theology.

"There is no difference, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"

If god is holding us to an impossible standard - one that we can not meet due to our inherent nature of being human, which is well beyond our control - then god is not acting justly.

"This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

Your own arguments are subverted by this passage. You claimed that it was more than faith in Jesus that one needed, but the Bible disagrees with you. So, what is it about faith in Jesus that makes one more moral. We've already agreed that it doesn't. god, however seems to think that it does, so god doesn't seem to be a good judge of morality, since he can't see what you and I have already agreed upon, that Xianity doesn't necessarily make one more moral than any other religion or non-religion. Hence, your argument is refuted.

“Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life to all men."

You've never even attempted to explain why it is just or right to condemn all humans for the "sins" of Adam and Eve, or how they were in the wrong in the first place - especially considering they had no concept of good and evil.

"It all comes down to knowing we are sinners in need of a Savior and accepting Jesus sacrifice as the only redemption for our sins, thus becoming reconciled back to God."

If god demands that we demean ourselves in order to win back his graces, then he does not love us. Period.

Karla said...

I'm sorry. You seem very frustrated and I do not wish for this conversation to cause you to be irritated. I'm sharing the truth as best I know how at present. I'm searching for the words to show God's existence and love for you more clearly. I'm not sure why you feel the God I describe is not good or just or loving.

I've tried to explain that being a Christian isn't about following rules to gain brownie points with God and ultimately heaven. It's about living a life supernaturally merged with God's eternal life dwelling within you and transforming you to be more like Him in nature. It's not about following laws, it's about following Him. He makes us righteous by His grace and not by our working to become good.

I'm not sure what else to say on this discussion with reference to morality. You are welcome to comment on future blogs and even to ask more questions or continue this discussion whatever you feel comfortable with. I just don't want to cause any further frustration to you. I am praying for you. I don't know your name or anything about you really accept your philosophy of life. But I pray just the same. I hope you find truth.

JayBird said...

"You've never even attempted to explain why it is just or right to condemn all humans for the "sins" of Adam and Eve, or how they were in the wrong in the first place - especially considering they had no concept of good and evil."

God is a Holy and Infinite God. Sin offends God infinitely. We inherit the sin of Adam (original sin). The were wrong because the disobeyed God's command to not eat of the fruit of the tree in the center of the Garden of Eden. They knew what God's command was and disobeyed it. They knew disobeying God was wrong, yet they didn't experience it until they carried out the act. I can know what murder is without experiencing the act of murder.

Anonymous said...

Karla,
I am frustrated.

"I'm sharing the truth as best I know how at present."

And, that's part of the problem. You are sharing what you believe is truth, without regard it seems for the difficulties that come with that view. When faced with tough questions or logical conundrums, you can't simply retreat to, "I know this is truth," because you don't know that. So, instead of dealing with those though questions, you simply repeat yourself and proselytize.

"I'm not sure why you feel the God I describe is not good or just or loving."

Considering all the various arguments that I've presented to you for why god is not good or just, as well as you not being able to present an argument for why god is good or just beyond simply asserting it, I don't know how you can possible not know why I feel god is not good or just.

"I've tried to explain that being a Christian isn't about following rules to gain brownie points with God and ultimately heaven."

You've asserted it, not explained how it is or must be that way. When god is saying, in effect, "Love me or go to hell," then the inescapable conclusion is that it is about appeasing god and gaining brownie points to stay out of hell, even if you think you have a friendly relationship with god.

"I hope you find truth."

I hope you realize that you could be wrong about what "truth" is.

Anonymous said...

Jaybird,
"God is a Holy and Infinite God. Sin offends God infinitely."

We are finite beings, so our sins can not be infinite. How a finite being can cause harm to god is beyond me anyway. Even so, if our sins are infinite, then this implies that god has been harmed by our sins from before the time of the creation of the universe. This means that our sins were determined even before creation of the universe, therefore our sins are not our fault, because we don't actually have free will. So, your own argument is self-defeating and actually makes hell even MORE unjust.

"We inherit the sin of Adam (original sin)."

I understand that is what you believe, but the question was: why is it just for us to inherit their sins? Karla, please take note that this is what I was talking about. I ask why it is just and I get an "explanation" that simply reasserts that which I questioned.

"The were wrong because the disobeyed God's command to not eat of the fruit of the tree in the center of the Garden of Eden. They knew what God's command was and disobeyed it. They knew disobeying God was wrong, yet they didn't experience it until they carried out the act. I can know what murder is without experiencing the act of murder."

Yes, you can know murder is wrong without doing it because you have knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve did not have that knowledge, therefore they could not know that disobeying god was evil! They could not know the difference between what was good or evil until after they had done it. It's like if you punished a newborn for an act you considered immoral. The newborn is not consciously developed enough to understand the difference between good and evil, so it would be unjust to punish the child. In the story of Adam and Eve, they were no more morally developed than a newborn because they had no knowledge of good and evil, so it is immoral and unjust for god to punish them and that is only compounded by punishing all of us.

Karla said...

Anonymous, our worldviews are very different. You are one of a few atheist who have taken the time to share the details of their worldview and their problems and questions regarding Christianity. So I am in a learning process at the same time as I am trying to answer some questions that I have never been asked before in a meaningful way to you who are of a very different worldview. I don't intend to give up seeking these answers and the words to share them clearly. I am continually thinking about your questions. Like I have said before. I want to know the answers for myself as well as to be able to share them.

Maybe part of the problem is I have responded to your comments too quickly without mulling it over longer. My time on the computer is often in short intervals and I try and write out my thoughts too fast sometimes.

Your questions are good ones and deserve good answers. I haven't given up. I hope you can be patient a while longer if you are still interested in this conversation. If not I will still think on the questions and seek to explain the answers just the same.

Karla said...

"When god is saying, in effect, "Love me or go to hell," then the inescapable conclusion is that it is about appeasing god and gaining brownie points to stay out of hell, even if you think you have a friendly relationship with god."

No God is saying we need Him to be righteous. We need His life to live the redeemed life. Without Him we self-destruct.

If a personal creator God exists would it not make sense that He who designed us would know best what is beneficial and life giving to us? If living in His love and in communion with Him is the way He designed us than to live otherwise is to be outside of our created nature and that would be destructive to us. Because of His love He has provided every means of us living life with Him instead of apart from Him, but also because of His love He lets us have the option of living outside His created order and the consequences of doing so actually serve as a warning of the destructive path of that life to return us to Him who gives real life. Even the sorrows and troubles of a life lived outside of His created order and righteousness are still for our good to turn us back to His Kingdom. If we ignore all those signs on our path to destruction we do ultimately live eternally separated from Him in a place created for Satan and his legions because we reject our Creator.

You continually maintain that such a plan could not be good. And ask me to explain how it is good. I think we see "good" in different ways. What is "good" does not mean what is "happy" or "pleasant" but what is "right".

A natural father will punish a child for rebellion for the child's good. A natural father will take a child's toys away when he was playing selfishly with them and the child will think this unfair and cry and all, but we know such a child is truly loved by his father. However, if the father let the child throw tantrums and be selfish and spoiled that would not be a good and loving father.

I think the issue is the nature of what "good" means and what it does not mean.

"If god is holding us to an impossible standard - one that we can not meet due to our inherent nature of being human, which is well beyond our control - then god is not acting justly."

He doesn't ask us to meet the standard. He asks us to allow Him to make us holy by His sacrifice and not by our works. If He didn't provide a way for redemption apart from the law that would be unjust. But He doesn't do this. He provided a way so that the we could live apart from the law and not be condemned by the law. We are only judged by our standard of morality or the law if we live by it instead of by His grace. He gives us His grace and mercy through Jesus. That's the whole point, is that we cannot get to Him through rules and man-made religion, but only through Jesus who does all the work for us making a clear path. God is reaching out to man to come to Him freely by accepting Jesus' gift for our sins.

Anonymous said...

Karla,
"No God is saying we need Him to be righteous. We need His life to live the redeemed life. Without Him we self-destruct."

No, he's saying love me or go to hell. If it's simply a case of him wanting us to be righteous and us needing him, then he would make us righteous, but he doesn't do that. He sends people to hell instead. If he really wanted the system you claim he wants, there would be no such thing as hell.

"If a personal creator God exists would it not make sense that He who designed us would know best what is beneficial and life giving to us?"

He probably would, yet he doesn't do it. Would it be better for us to be in need of salvation or to be saved at birth? Even if he wanted us to choose something, he would give us all the same chances to choose, the same evidence, the same starting place. He does not do this!

"You continually maintain that such a plan could not be good. And ask me to explain how it is good. I think we see "good" in different ways. What is "good" does not mean what is "happy" or "pleasant" but what is "right"."

Fine, good is what is right. How are god's actions right here? They aren't and I'm at a loss as to how you can think that they are. Would you be willing to send a loved one to hell? Apologist ran screaming from this question. I asked him probably 5 times and he refused to answer it. So, now it is your turn. Would you be willing to send a loved one to hell? Do you think you could send one to hell that you truly loved; to know that person would be tortured for eternity? Do you think that would be right? Can you conceive of any crime that merits torture for even a finite time, let alone eternity? How is a god that is willing to physically torture people for eternity even in the running for the mantle of "good"?

"A natural father will punish a child for rebellion for the child's good."

In order to develop that child's sense of morality! Would a father disown the child, send it out of the house, consider all of its offspring to be tainted, and blame the child for the father's over-reaction? And, if this is all for our good, why? Is it really for our good not to be with god? According to you it isn't. And, would a father leave rat poison out unattended and then yell at the child for ingesting it? That's what happened with god and Adam and Eve.

"He doesn't ask us to meet the standard."

Yes, he most certainly does. All fall short of the glory of god, or so they say. That means that we ALL FAIL, meaning that the standard is impossibly high. What good god sets up the rules whereby we are all failing until we figure out some arcane way of gaining his grace? If you went into a classroom and the professor said, "You will all fail except for the people that I grant some grace to, who will get the grade of A," you would be rightly outraged. Yet, that's your god's system.

Karla said...

"No, he's saying love me or go to hell. If it's simply a case of him wanting us to be righteous and us needing him, then he would make us righteous, but he doesn't do that. He sends people to hell instead. If he really wanted the system you claim he wants, there would be no such thing as hell."

He's saying have life in Me as you were designed to, or go your own way which leads to destruction. He isn't sending anybody. We are pretty good and doing that ourselves when we live without Him.

"Would you be willing to send a loved one to hell? Do you think you could send one to hell that you truly loved; to know that person would be tortured for eternity? Do you think that would be right? Can you conceive of any crime that merits torture for even a finite time, let alone eternity?"

No, I would want to take the pain myself in the place of my loved one. To spare them their self-destruction even if I hadn't done anything to deserve it. Would not a mother prefer to be executed in the place of her son if she could save her son from death? This is what Jesus did! He died so that despite our destructive life we can have life. He paid our debt to death. He rescued us from hell. He rescued us from a life lived in conflict with His goodness. He became sin for us and suffered for us to give us life. Instead we are the child whose mother substituted herself who forsakes the mother's sacrifice and continues to live as if she never gave him anything. All God ask is us to accept His free gift and stop struggling against His love. We bring the consequences of sin on ourselves when we reject the one who made a free way for us to eternal life.

"In order to develop that child's sense of morality!"

And God is developing our sense of His holiness and our need for Him to have life. It is for our good.

Karla said...

"Yes, he most certainly does. All fall short of the glory of god, or so they say. That means that we ALL FAIL, meaning that the standard is impossibly high. What good god sets up the rules whereby we are all failing until we figure out some arcane way of gaining his grace?"

It was never about attaining goodness on our own. It was about realizing that we need God for we cannot live as we were created without Him. When I say "live as were were created to" I don't just mean living a life of love for each other and for God. That is an important part of it. But we are meant to live supernatural lives. When we live a life with God many things that were impossible apart from God become very possible.

He gave us the law to show us we need Him and He gave us Jesus as the way to Him. Jesus fulfills the demands of the law and cancels out our debt to the law. The Spirit of God is drawing all men unto Himself. Sometimes we can drown out His gentle nudge on our hearts because we harden our hearts against Him. We keep Him at a distance and refuse Him. Sometimes we resist because we have been hurt and we don't want to let down our defenses and risk being disappointed again. We would rather steel ourselves against desire for God. God can meet us in those places too. We can ask Him to help us open our heart again. To help us want Him. To let us experience Him because if He is real we want Him. He's not offended by that sort of prayer. You can even tell him you are angry at him and don't understand why things are this way and how it feels like He just couldn't be a good God. Ask Him to make Himself real to you and to let you experience His goodness and love. Many Christians try and lead people into this "salvation prayer" and then they say these "magic" words and poof they are a Christian and their live is supposed to be better and all that. People quickly get disillusioned because people have told them they now know Jesus and they don't feel any different than when they didn't know Jesus. And soon they walk away from the church and think it all absurd for they experienced nothing life changing. God's not looking for some magic wrote words. He's looking for your heart. He's looking to be real to you in a most amazing way.

I don't know your story. But I think most ex-Christians/atheists have been cheated. The church they were in did them a great disservice. They gave them religion and told them this is what Christianity is about. And rightly they rejected it and went in search of something real and bought into Dawkins popularized atheism because it spoke of all their frustrations about Christianity and it seems like just what they need. They won't settle for fairy tale stories anymore, they want the cold reality if that's truth rather than the fantasy of religion. They think they are exchanging fiction for non-fiction when in reality they are exchanging religion for a life with no God instead of exchanging religion for a bona fide relationship with the God of the universe.

Religion is a counterfeit to Christianity. It makes it all about the law instead of about Jesus who frees us from the law. Religion is like band aide we put on to cover up the problem and Jesus is the one who heals the wound completely at its source.

Anonymous said...

Karla,
"He isn't sending anybody."

Do you honestly think that anyone chooses hell? That some people wake up and say, "You know what? I feel like being tortured for eternity today?" Your argument is nonsensical and full of the holes that I've already pointed out, like the necessity of factual belief.

"No, I would want to take the pain myself in the place of my loved one."

Then, you are infinitely more moral than god and by your own actions you condemn god and throw away your whole entire argument.

"This is what Jesus did!"

Wrong on many counts. People still go to hell, so Jesus obviously didn't save them. Also, this was god convincing himself not to brutalize us, yet he's still not convinced. This is evil.

"He died so that despite our destructive life we can have life."

Despite our destructive lives that GOD CREATED US TO HAVE! It's like god has a puppy and he says to the puppy, "Thou shalt not sit on the couch." Then, god goes over and places the puppy on the couch. Now god says, "Since you are on the couch, I get to torture you for eternity."

"All God ask is us to accept His free gift and stop struggling against His love."

In order for this to be true, he kinda has to show that he exists.

"And God is developing our sense of His holiness and our need for Him to have life. It is for our good."

Why couldn't he do that without all the rigmarole? That's a key problem in all of your arguments, the fact that you believe god IS omni-max. It's not logically coherent why an omni-max god needs to go through all these processes that are long, drawn-out, and convoluted.

"It was never about attaining goodness on our own."

I see you've decided to proselytize instead of deal with the objection. If we all fail, then the standard is unjust. Period.

Karla said...

Anonymous, you are twisting things up to justify your accusations at God. You say I am refusing to give a reasonable response to your questions, but in reality you are refusing the answers I'm giving. You accuse God with no standard by which to judge Him. There is no goodness and no justice if naturalism is all there is (you have not proven otherwise). Yes, I'm making that statement again, because it is true. The only way you have a standard of truth is because there is Truth. The only way you can judge is because God put that knowledge inside you. Evolution simply does not account for this. You have said yourself that "good and evil" are human constructs and not reality. There is no good and no evil and all murderers and saints are the same if there is no God. One sees killing as beneficial to their survival the other sees service to humanity has beneficial to their survival. To each his own is what you are left with. One cannot judge another society for cannibalism or slavery -- you can only not think it beneficial for humanity. But why should a society do what is beneficial for humanity? I'm told by evolutionist/atheists it's because we know we want to survive so we want others to survive. That does not follow logically. What if my survival depends on another's demise, why should I prefer them over myself? There is no "ought" left if naturalism is true. We are just evolved animals that can do whatever we please just like the animal world.

You say I haven't given good answers to your questions or that I am ignoring logical debate. You haven't given me any good reason why what I said above is not true. You have not painted a picture with your worldview addressing the real issues.

I was not digressing when I shared from my heart about coming to God. I care about you and your journey away from God concerns me. So I share because of that and not to avoid the debate. I gave those answers in abundance. Your only refutation has been that God can't be good because of the pain and suffering in the world, but you haven't posited another viable explanation for life and morality.

Anonymous said...

"You accuse God with no standard by which to judge Him."

I have a standard, wherever it came from! Whether it came from me and my culture or whether it was handed down from on high, I have a standard, and god is not measuring up to it, nor should he measure up to yours! Your argument is breaking down here.

"There is no goodness and no justice if naturalism is all there is (you have not proven otherwise)."

It's not up to me to prove that goodness and justice are externalities that only exist in the presence of a god. You are the one asserting that only god can bring these things about. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of that not being the case. And, for you to deny that evidence is beyond mind-boggling. Do you seriously deny that humans have their own justice systems for example? If you deny this, then you are simply unreasonable.

"Yes, I'm making that statement again, because it is true."

And, no it is not true, as I'VE ALREADY POINTED OUT. You simply ignore what I say and then act as if I've said nothing. This is typical apologetic tactics at its worst.

"You have said yourself that "good and evil" are human constructs and not reality."

Nice strawman...do you want to actually deal with what I said?

"One sees killing as beneficial to their survival the other sees service to humanity has beneficial to their survival. To each his own is what you are left with."

Ah, the old 'without god you have to be a nihilist' argument, which isn't borne out by actually looking at the real world. Do other animals act that way? How can you possibly not see that? How can you possibly deny that?

"But why should a society do what is beneficial for humanity? I'm told by evolutionist/atheists it's because we know we want to survive so we want others to survive. That does not follow logically."

Really? Do you really not know what empathy means? Do you really think that you wouldn't think doing unto others as you would have them do unto you would be a good idea if there weren't a god to tell you so? Remember, Jesus didn't invent that philosophy.

"What if my survival depends on another's demise, why should I prefer them over myself?"

It does...or don't you eat?

"We are just evolved animals that can do whatever we please just like the animal world."

I've already explained to you (multiple times) how this is false. You are either not reading my comments or you are intellectually dishonest. Which is it? You keep saying that you want an honest discussion, but you don't seem to be willing to actually follow through with it. What you seem to want is for me to listen to your proselytizing and agree with you that your way is great. You want me to want to be a Xian so badly and simply be unable to because of some defect in me. You don't want to actually look at the problems in your worldview. You've already made up your mind that there aren't any, and that all others are flawed, yet when your objections are answered you hide your head in the sand and when the flaws in your worldview are pointed out, you disregard them. This is not honest discussion, this is you trying to win converts and using used-car salesman tactics to do it.

At least that's how it looks from here.

"You haven't given me any good reason why what I said above is not true."

It's obvious that you arne't going to listen. I've pointed out the logical contradiction between omni-max gods and free will. I've pointed you to the evidence of evolution and morality as well as concepts of good and evil. I've pointed out the logical contradictions between all-good gods and the concepts of hell. I've pointed out the problems of your god and whether he is actually just or not. And, that's just for starters. For you to cavalierly reject all of my arguments, with no counter arguments and then claim that I've done nothing is dishonest and disgusting.

"You have not painted a picture with your worldview addressing the real issues."

Apart from this being false, I don't have to in order to point out the contradictions in your worldview.

"I was not digressing when I shared from my heart about coming to God."

It did not answer the question, so yes, you did.

"I care about you and your journey away from God concerns me."

No, you don't. You care about proselytizing to me and converting me, because I've found that most Xians have this urge to get everyone else to agree with them that their beliefs are good/carry weight, etc. Personally, I think it comes from a severe issue with self-esteem and a deep-down knowledge about just how ridiculous some of their religion's claims are. I mean c'mon - talking snakes? The world created in one day? A 6000 year old universe?

"So I share because of that and not to avoid the debate."

Then share to share, but don't present it as the answer to an issue.

"I gave those answers in abundance."

You most certainly did not. All fall short of the standard by which we are judged, therefore god can not be just. You have avoided this problem. That's not the only one. You've avoided most of the issues I've brought up. I know you say you are answering it, but it generally goes like this:

You: X
Me: There's an issue with X, how do you deal with that?
You: X
Me: That doesn't deal with it, you've simply repeated your original assetion. How do you justify your assertion?
You: X
Me: That's not justifying, that's simply repeating.
You: I'm answering your questions.

For example: YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED HOW GOD IS GOOD OR JUST. YOU'VE SIMPLY STATED THAT HE IS.

"Your only refutation has been that God can't be good because of the pain and suffering in the world, but you haven't posited another viable explanation for life and morality."

That's BS and you know it. That's only one argument I've made. There's also the argument about hell, about his standards for us, etc. etc. etc. SOME OF THESE ARGUMENTS ARE IN THE COMMENT YOU ARE TALKING TO! I can only guess that you are simply lying here because it's beyond the ability of my skepticism to think that perhaps you simply missed those arguments, multiple times, and in the comment just above yours that you are replying to. If you have to lie in order to prop up your worldview, then you've lost. If you can't be honest in defending it, then it's probably because it can't be defended. You should seriously consider that. I had hoped that you would actually consider the evidence and actually be honest unlike just about every other apologist that I've ever run into (I'm tempted to say all, but I have met at least one honest apologist...who is now an agnostic because he couldn't honestly hold to his contradictory Xian views in light of the same issues that you are shoving under the rug...and no, it wasn't just me that convinced him...other than that, all apologists are dishonest in my experience).

Karla said...

Look, I'm really sorry. I really don't wish to upset you or even to argue. I honestly want to learn how other people think who aren't of the Christian worldview--about all kinds of things not just morality or the existence of God. I want to learn not just from reading books by differing perspectives, but from real everyday people.

It's a part of who I am to share Christ with people. He is everything to me and I believe that people coming closer to God will change this world in an amazing wonderful way. I'm sorry if I was over zealous in my conversation. I'm sorry I wasn't answering your questions fully and adequately. I'm still learning. I have a lot to learn. You are helping me learn. The reason I ask questions is to learn.

I do want to foster exchange between different worldviews, but I aim for it to be always respectful and honest. I haven't ever lied to you.

Maybe we can take a break from this line of dialog and I'll keep learning and thinking and writing. I love to write so I am always going to be writing out my thoughts on things. I welcome you to keep reading and I'm not offended if you aren't interested in visiting my blog anymore. The last thing I want to do is offend you or irrate you or anyone else. I thank you for sticking it out with me this time through your frustration. I have gained valuable information from you that helps me learn about atheism and naturalism.

Lastly, I am also sorry on behalf of Christians who have been problematic in your life and who have misrepresented the love of God to you.

Anonymous said...

"Lastly, I am also sorry on behalf of Christians who have been problematic in your life and who have misrepresented the love of God to you."

Um, I was a Xian and I believed in god, so you should feel sorry for the god that you claim wants a relationship with all of us that - if he exists - obviously couldn't be bothered to actually extend that olive branch to someone who was already willing and already believed. This fact alone and the fact that others have this same experience is enough to demonstrably invalidate many of your arguments.

Karla said...

I'm sorry you haven't found Him yet. He is there to be found. I understand you have no reason to believe me and every reason to disbelieve me. What you seek it seems is authenticity more so than logic. I have no problems with that. I pray you find and experience Truth and I bless you in your journey.

Anonymous said...

"What you seek it seems is authenticity more so than logic."

I don't understand this comment. I've been asking for logical arguments from you, and yet you say that I'm not seeking logic?