Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted

[Justin]

4. If there is no life beyond this one and no ultimate judgment, what do you say to the victims of a mass murderer who simply got away with his or her crime?

 

This reminds me of a church sign i read in my town a few weeks back. It read, "The End; Pay Back". Also, my former best friend, some time after i told him i left the faith, wrote on his blog, "Payday Someday". It's obvious what that sign and what my friend means. Either at the end of time or the end of one's life, we will get our punishment, our fitting judgment. Thats how it is with christians. You all are so preoccupied with revenge and the bad guys getting it in the end. I believe that is at least a small part of the hold that religion holds on a person, the prospect that all who ever done them wrong will get whats coming to them one day.

 

Upon converting over to atheisim, i have dropped this mind set. I too used to think in much the same way. Now i know that death is the ultimate end, the finale. I need no "justice" or revenge on my wrong doers. Once they are dead, it is over with for them at least. I actually take comfort in the fact that there is no hell that awaits some people. Nobody, not even Hitler deserves the fires of hell. Anyone who is subjected to that sort of punishment, paying infinately for finate sins, is not being punished. They are being tortured for ever and that FAR outweights the crime they committed. I don't care if the person murdered my entire family, if i thought it was ok that they be subjected to the infinate fires of hell for all eternity, then i am no better than them. The same can be said for the God who would put them through that too.

 

In short, we do not need a "Got Ya In The End Just When You Thought You'd Get Away' mentality. Death, it's the end of it all. To be honest, i never saw this vengence aspect of christianity until i left it.

[chefranden]

 

1. Did the universe come into existence or has it always existed? If it came into existence, then what was the mechanism that made that occur?

2. What is the basis of morality? Is morality objective or subjective? If it is objective, on what is it based? If it is subjective, then how can you call anything that anyone else does wrong?

3. Does life have ultimate meaning? If so, on what basis? If not, what would you say to a loved one who is struggling with suicidal thoughts to prevent them from acting on those thoughts? (this is a real question and not just a throw away as people really struggle with this issue)

4. If there is no life beyond this one and no ultimate judgment, what do you say to the victims of a mass murderer who simply got away with his or her crime? What do you say to the person who has suffered injustice in this life and is looking for hope and justice in the next life?

 

Maybe you could help me to establish that your worldview is not built on fantasy by starting with these questions.

 

 

I don't know why I don't get to have a fantasy based world view, since you do.

 

1. It appears the big bang has the goods, though I'm still rooting for steady state. As to what the mechanism was I don't know. Maybe it was a firecracker in some other universe's 4th of July. I suppose you'd say ChristianGod, but I doubt your guess is any better than mine. Point is nobody knows yet. I don't know: repeat this 10 times and see if any body parts fall off.

 

2. The basis for morality is the behavioral instincts of individuals of a social species that are trained through experience and cultural norms. There is nothing magic about it. There is just a environmental niche for animals that cooperate to a certain degree.

 

3. I don't know what you mean by "ultimate meaning" but I think I should say no. I was one that struggled with suicidal thoughts. I told my self, "Self, you dumb fucker, you've got children to feed. You get those boys raised and taught your trade before you get to go. When they are 18, then you can be done." My meaning is my family and my friends. When they are gone I can check out too.

 

4. "Hey man, you've been royally fucked. Do you want to do the forgiveness thing or would you like to string some of the bastards up and practice the death of 1000 cuts? Just don't listen to the fucking priest* going on about God's will and all that shit. That will drive you nuts. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth my man.

 

*Long-haired preachers come out every night,

Try to tell you what's wrong and what's right;

But when asked how 'bout something to eat

They will answer with voices so sweet:

Chorus:

You will eat, bye and bye,

In that glorious land above the sky;

Work and pray live on hay,

You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

 

2. And the starvation army they play,

And they sing and they clap and they pray.

Till they get all your coin on the drum,

Then they'll tell you when you're on the bum:

Chorus:

You will eat, bye and bye,

In that glorious land above the sky;

Work and pray live on hay,

You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

 

3. Holy Rollers and jumpers come out,

And they holler, they jump and they shout.

"Give your money to Jesus," they say,

"He will cure all diseases today."

Chorus:

You will eat, bye and bye,

In that glorious land above the sky;

Work and pray live on hay,

You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

 

4. If you fight hard for children and wife--

Try to get something good in this life-

You're a sinner and bad man, they tell,

When you die you will sure go to hell.

Chorus:

You will eat, bye and bye,

In that glorious land above the sky;

Work and pray live on hay,

You'll get pie in the sky when you die.

 

5. Workingmen of all countries, unite,

Side by side we for freedom will fight:

When the world and its wealth we have gained

To the grafters we'll sing this refrain:

You will eat, bye and bye,

When you've learned how to cook and to fry

Chop some wood, 'twill do you good,

And you'll eat in the sweet bye and bye.

[agnosticator]

Chefranden,

 

I think LNC is so steeped in his fantasy that he'll never find his way out. Maybe if I knew him personally I would be abit hopeful...

 

I'm with 'ya in the "eye for an eye" thang. Many things can be forgiven, but cold and calculated murder and rich people bilking the have-nots,for example, shouldn't be treated lightly. It seems that a marajuana user gets more prison time than some murderers. The American justice system is lacking an "eye for an eye" in these situations. Maybe the problem partially stems from christian forgiveness trumping rational thinking and fairness?

 

I didn't appreciate that Pie in the Sky song until I deconverted. Joe Hill told it like it is!

[dagnarus]

4. If there is no life beyond this one and no ultimate judgment, what do you say to the victims of a mass murderer who simply got away with his or her crime? What do you say to the person who has suffered injustice in this life and is looking for hope and justice in the next life?

 

Actually one of the things which really got me thinking about this whole matter of ultimate judgment was this. I'd just read about the kidnap, rape, murder of a 16 year old by a group of high school boys and the light sentences they received. The event is described here. While on one side it seems that this illustrates the why this world is unfair and we need god's justice blah, blah, blah, blah, on the other hand it always struck me that this high school girl probably wasn't a christian, so she was headed for the lake of fire to. It was just to horrible for me to imagine somebody who had had such a terrible and gruesome end to such a short life here being sentenced to an eternity of pain and suffering in the next.

 

In the end I have to say that the basic problem with this argument is that ultimately, if Christianity is to be believed the person who visited the most pain and suffering on the most people throughout history will get away with it. What's more he will be worshiped and praised for all eternity for it. After all isn't a belief that I am innately better than those whom I torment a common justification for the worst criminals.

 

Dagnarus

[bdp]

4. If there is no life beyond this one and no ultimate judgment, what do you say to the victims of a mass murderer who simply got away with his or her crime?

 

I've thought about this since I first answered, and I think it would be presumptuous for me to try to tell victims of a mass murderer or their families ANYTHING, they could tell me a whole hell of a lot more.

[oddbird1963]

This thread is SO large and it's difficult to keep up because it grows too fast. But, at the risk of seeming redundant or irrelevant to the current direction if this thread, I would like to post this comment.

 

Isn't the kind of Christian apologetic represented by LNC so far based on the faulty assumption that the christian communities and bible writers of the early first century were interested in and capable of the same standard of confirmation and proof as we are capable of and interested in today?

 

I know that much is made of the time lapse differences between the date of the earliest available manuscripts of Julius Casar and Homer and the original time of their writing or storytelling. But there is one big difference: nobody is claiming these documents are from a (perfect and unchanging, all-powerful, all-loving) god and the source of saving knowledge. So, I am willing to accept "good enough" proof of authenticity and historicity.

 

What do I care? If I find out better historical information later, I won't feel like it's a Satanic conspiracy to dethrone god in all of our hearts. I'll just adjust my understanding of Roman or Greek history and mentally process the ramifications on my own time.

 

But with many religions, the truth claims involve unquestioning obedience, total commitment and the punishment of an eternity of hell for non-compliance in some way. This is much more than the issue of who really invented the wheel? Or "who reached the north pole first?" It's much more important than whether the vikings or the Spanish discovered America.

 

So with the truth claims of christianity, the standard of proof would have to be something extraordinary. All the faiths of the world, past and future, in fact, make demands of us. The one that wins our hearts would have to be the one that provides the most extraordinary level of confirmation and certainty, with just a little wiggle room left over for faith, I suppose. Let's says the available data for normal historical issues from the 1st century A.D. lends itself to an average certainty of 80%. The events of the bible and the claims of Christianity would have to present at 98-99% at least before receiving consideration for faith and conversion.

 

The stakes are just too high. And the level of proof offered is simply too low. In fact, despite all LNC's talk about these mysterious people who "checked things out" or investigated the resurrection in the early first century, ancient Greco-Roman citizens, surfs and slaves were not interested in and not capable of the kind of historic vetting in which we try to engage today.

 

When we look back into history we hit a dense, foggy cloud of uncertainty and unknowability concerning any historic facts behind the gospels and the epistles .

 

I'm not even considering any predisposition to accept miracle claims and claims of supernatural intervention. That would up the requirements any higher. But leaving out the supernatural dimension, christianity still cannot provide sufficient historical credibility and support for the claims of the bible to match the incredible, radical claim the religion makes on our lives.

 

"Good enough" is not a good enough standard for religions that make extraordinary claims.

[agnosticator]

I think I understand what LNC is saying. Here is a series of parallel analogies:

 

LNC testing and evaluating ideas about truth is to God judging the hearts and minds of people

 

as

 

LNC identifying a lie is to God identifying a liar

 

as

 

Testing an idea is to holistic judgement of aperson

 

So, LNC sees the testing of ideas or beliefs as largely impersonal exploration.

 

Phanta

 

The only thing I see that doesn't ring true Phanta, is his TESTING ideas or beliefs. He is convinced his ideas are god's unchangable Truths before any discussion has commenced. He ignores anything rational that would truly test his beliefs. Even though his ideas are stated impersonally, he explores nothing by sticking to his predetermined beliefs and conclusions.

[agnosticator]

Isn't the kind of Christian apologetic represented by LNC so far based on the faulty assumption that the christian communities and bible writers of the early first century were interested in and capable of the same standard of confirmation and proof as we are capable of and interested in today?

 

...with many religions, the truth claims involve unquestioning obedience, total commitment and the punishment of an eternity of hell for non-compliance in some way. This is much more than the issue of who really invented the wheel? Or "who reached the north pole first?" It's much more important than whether the vikings or the Spanish discovered America.

 

So with the truth claims of christianity, the standard of proof would have to be something extraordinary.

 

Yes, the original christians weren't much interested in historical relevance or testable proofs, but the survival of faith and doctrines, while maintaining group cohesion and evangelism. Good points!

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

So, LNC sees the testing of ideas or beliefs as largely impersonal exploration.

 

Whereas you, Neon, see the testing of your ideas--and especially your beliefs--as a very personal attack.

 

Is that an accurate reflection on where you are each coming from?

 

Phanta

It isn't simply that LNC is testing ideas as an impersonal exploration that I see as a personal attack. It's the death threat that goes along with his testing if you fail to meet LNC's standards. It'd be like if you were a member of the mafia and the mafia determined you no longer counted as a true member of their group, so they decided to murder you because you no longer fit their standards. But when the mafia threatens you with violence, they deny that they're judging you; they're just warning you that if you no longer fit their standards, then it's your fault if you got murdered.

[LNC]

What brand of Christianity?

Do you imagine that it's one big happy family of believers?

There are Protestants that call the Roman Catholic Church a cult.

If I remember correctly that happened a few weeks ago on this forum.

Jack Chick is a Christian and he has depicted the Catholics to be very misguided and false.

There are Christians that call the Mormon Christians a cult.

Jehovah's Witnesses are also called misguided.

There have been severe schisms between the sects all along the timeline of Christianity.

They've been calling each other misguided for centuries.

 

Christianity doesn't come in brands it is either properly followed and understood or improperly followed and understood. There are many ways that it is improperly followed and understood, but that is not my concern, mine is to properly follow and understand the Bible and Christ's teachings. I used to be a Roman Catholic and moved away from it because what was taught in RC didn't seem to match up with what I was reading from the Bible. I wouldn't consider the Mormons to be Christian from a Biblical understanding of that term since they deny the deity of Jesus Christ in the sense taught in the NT, the same would hold for the JWs.

 

Whether or not there have been schisms within Christianity is irrelevant to the truth claims made within the Bible, in fact, they just confirm the sinfulness and fallenness of humanity.

 

So that's the way it works.

A cult leader isn't a cult leader if he deserves to be the Lord over every aspect of one's life.

You do realize that your rationalization has been used to justify totalitarian dictators right?

 

Correct. Totalitarians who have claimed such worship are ontologically unfit to receive such worship as they are just like us, but with more power. Jesus is ontologically different from us as he is God. Therefore, the comparison of the two is a category mistake.

 

Perhaps you would like to show where Judaism(or the New Testament) advocates celebrating Dec 25th as the birthday of an expected king messiah.

Wouldn't this qualify as a fad, being popular and fashionable among Christians.

The great Christian mind, Bill O'Reilly, has been a staunch defender of this fad.

Where is this holiday derived from?

 

The Bible doesn't advocate celebrating the Lord's birth on December 25th, I have mentioned that that was a construct of the church in the past. However, nowhere in the Bible does in say that celebrating the Lord's birth on December 25th or any other day of the year is wrong or not to be done. Is there a particular reason that you find this problematic? If that is a fad, again, it is a 2,000 year old fad, which I would think technically would disqualify it from being considered a fad. I don't consider Bill O'Reilly a spokesman for Christianity as much as a political commentator who calls himself Christian(ish). I don't consider the celebration of Christ's birth to be a core doctrine of Christianity, it could go away and not affect the core teaching of the Christian faith. Since it has become so commercialized and paganized, I wouldn't mind if it did fade away from popular culture.

 

It's a common attribute of cults to be steeped in supernatural beliefs.

What's anti-supernatural bias?

Do you have an anti-supernatural bias if you don't believe in Native American creation stories or in the revelation of Joseph Smith?

Did Paul have an anti-supernatural bias?

What Jewish fables did he regard as unsubstantiated?

Are any of them in the Bible?

Titus 1:14

Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

 

OK, so cults are steeped in supernatural beliefs, so what? That doesn't mean that all belief systems that claim a supernatural basis are cults. That is simply a composition error to claim such. Anti-supernatural bias begins by concluding that the supernatural could not or does not exist without justification and then interpreting a text (the Bible) or an event (say, the resurrection) as false simply based upon your unproven bias, not based upon the evidence.

 

I never said that I don't believe the Native American creation stories since I am not familiar with them; however, I am happy to consider them and compare them to what we know from philosophy and science to see whether they could be accurate. I don't, however, simply write them off due to a presupposition that I carry. The same would hold for Joseph Smith.

 

Paul did not have an anti-supernatural bias. His reference to Jewish myths was not a statement against the supernatural but rather against false teachers. He uses the term "myth" or as you put it, "fable" in the euphemistic sense to refer to false teachings. Just as we might say of someone spreading lies, "don't listen to their stories." We aren't literally saying that they are telling stories, but are indicating euphemistically that they are spreading lies. That is what Paul is doing here as well as the context indicates.

 

It's another attribute that cults can demonstrate.

Christianity demonstrates this rather clearly, where believers insist that their truth is the only truth.

They channel their "truth" through a supernatural god-man, which gives it an extra air of authority.

 

I would say the same for Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Sam Harris and others. They channel their truth through man, the human animal and claim their own air of expert authority. OK, so we all are cult members, now what? You see, when you paint with a broad brush, it covers all of us.

[LNC]

And LNC, I do have answers for those questions (answer that satisfy my mind), but I don't readily share them. I have tried in the past (not only with you), but realized through experience that the only way to really get understanding between two people is that they both share a fundamental knowledge and view on the things they talk about, and you and I are miles apart. What you're asking for is like trying to teach someone to become skilled in a game or sport. It takes time. It takes practice. It takes serious discussion and sharing of thoughts. And it definitely requires a mutual will to get there. My feeling is, we're far from the point of really discussing any of these subjects, and I don't think you and I ever will get there. (Very nice of you, by derailing this thread too, btw.) Seriously, you really don't want to know my answers. I haven't seen that in you one single time. Your attitude is that you don't want to learn here. You behave like you only want to tell us what the "truth" is. What comes out from you is that you think you're always right, never wrong, and you can never admit an error. Sorry, but I'm done discussing those topics with you.

 

I don't think you fully understand how arrogant you seem to most people here. It's okay though, I have no problem with arrogance, but it comes with a price, people will not like you and will not listen to you either. If your purpose is to come here to learn and to share your view, then I'd say you have failed miserably. Very few, or if any, are taking you serious anymore. And you might consider that problem in the light of the reasons of why you're here.

 

I am sorry if you find me arrogant, that is not my intention. I think that many on this site have strong ideas that what they believe is true and that is why many call me names rather than necessarily engaging my arguments. I am not afraid to test my assumptions and beliefs, which is one of the reasons I come to this site. If I thought that I was right and not interested in testing my ideas, there are plenty of sites where I could just get a bunch of "amens" and affirmations rather than being called names like "arrogant."

 

We may be miles apart on some of these issues, and I don't think we are on all of them, however, I hope you won't give up the exploration of truth. I think that I have demonstrated that I can admit when I am wrong as I have now done so on both the evolution and this thread. I am willing to admit when the evidence proves me wrong; however, I am not quick to admit it when someone merely asserts that I am wrong without giving a valid reason.

 

Han, I hope you will hang in with the discussion and forgive me if at times I come across as being arrogant. I certainly have no basis for being such as I am a fellow sinner.

[Mriana]

Christianity doesn't come in brands it is either properly followed and understood or improperly followed and understood. There are many ways that it is improperly followed and understood, but that is not my concern, mine is to properly follow and understand the Bible and Christ's teachings. I used to be a Roman Catholic and moved away from it because what was taught in RC didn't seem to match up with what I was reading from the Bible. I wouldn't consider the Mormons to be Christian from a Biblical understanding of that term since they deny the deity of Jesus Christ in the sense taught in the NT, the same would hold for the JWs.

 

Right. (sarcasm) Are you saying that Episcopalians, Catholics, Lutherans, and other mainstream branches don't follow "the Bible or Christ's teachings properly"? I think they would beg to differ with you and BTW, isn't the NT suppose to be Christ's teachings? Seems a bit redundant to say "the Bible and Christ's teachings". Not only that, to say various groups aren't following Christ's teachings seems judgmental and if that is the case, who's not following Christ's teachings? So, who is calling the kettle black?

 

Whether or not there have been schisms within Christianity is irrelevant to the truth claims made within the Bible, in fact, they just confirm the sinfulness and fallenness of humanity.

 

Fallenness? Not sure if that is a word, but we'll go with it. I suggest you read Spong without judgment.

 

The Bible doesn't advocate celebrating the Lord's birth on December 25th, I have mentioned that that was a construct of the church in the past. However, nowhere in the Bible does in say that celebrating the Lord's birth on December 25th or any other day of the year is wrong or not to be done. Is there a particular reason that you find this problematic? If that is a fad, again, it is a 2,000 year old fad, which I would think technically would disqualify it from being considered a fad. I don't consider Bill O'Reilly a spokesman for Christianity as much as a political commentator who calls himself Christian(ish). I don't consider the celebration of Christ's birth to be a core doctrine of Christianity, it could go away and not affect the core teaching of the Christian faith. Since it has become so commercialized and paganized, I wouldn't mind if it did fade away from popular culture.

 

No, it's not a 2000 y.o. fad. Xians have not been celebrating Xmas for that long. That particular holiday was originally pagan- pagan sun worship to be exact. It seems you are very confused about your history concerning Xmas and Easter. You love to believe others took from Xianity, when in reality, it was the other way around.

[Mriana]

I am sorry if you find me arrogant, that is not my intention. I think that many on this site have strong ideas that what they believe is true and that is why many call me names rather than necessarily engaging my arguments. I am not afraid to test my assumptions and beliefs, which is one of the reasons I come to this site. If I thought that I was right and not interested in testing my ideas, there are plenty of sites where I could just get a bunch of "amens" and affirmations rather than being called names like "arrogant."

 

Oh no, you aren't arrogant. You are judgmental, hypocritical, ignorant, haughty, and arrogant. Let's call a spade a spade. Did I miss any?

[LNC]

Language is taught, not conjured up. Prove otherwise. My example is not explained by saying it came from oneself.

 

I don't have to prove otherwise as language may just be the thought of the person who is thinking us. We may be the expression of some higher form, ala Plato. So, your example doesn't in fact prove your conclusion.

 

People are shot in the head every day without their knowledge and awareness. Does that mean the other persons and the bullet they shot don't exist? The funeral is a figment of their imagination?

 

If Plato was right, then they don't exist as you would say. And yes, again if Plato was right (and I am not a Platonist) then the funeral is a shadow of the form as well.

 

Certain mammals besides us are self-conscious and social. The more scientists learn, the more dualistic beliefs will be exposed as the fantasy they are. Without neurons firing, there can be no thoughts. Just because we don't know all the "hows" of the way thoughts arise from the brain via neurons firing, doesn't mean we could decide to assign thoughts to be from a separate ghostly entity. A non-physical "self" is pure fantasy.

 

I agree that certain animals besides humans have consciousness and are social; however, that doesn't mean that they are conscious in the same way that we are. Animals may have a degree of self-awareness, but it has not been shown that they are aware of their self-awareness. In other words, animals have thoughts, but not thoughts about their thoughts as do humans.

 

Scientists will not prove dualism to be false since that question falls outside the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy. You can't make that conclusion that without neurons firing there can be no thoughts as that is not scientifically provable. All you can conclude scientifically is that there are no neurons firing, but that is where the science stops. Your conclusion is actually a religious conclusion, not a scientific one.

 

Again, your are conflating science and philosophy with your discussion of the mind. Science will not disprove the existence of a non-physical mind since that is outside of the realm of science and in the realm of philosophy. However, it seems that you are pushing for a form of determinism in reducing the mind to brain states, are you not?

[LNC]

I actually agree with the last sentence of the above. However, you must examine what criteria you use for determining what basis and evidence exist for your "beliefs". For example, your idea of "historical fact" seems to be quite different from mine.

 

Addressing your questions by the corresponding numbers:

 

1. The universe probably always existed or it comes in and out of existence. I think further discoveries in quantum mechanics may eventually answer this question as to how it occurs. The cop-out answer is to simply say "God did it."

 

This is simply a metaphysical assumption with no empirical data to back it up. In fact, there are two reasons that this does not make sense, one philosophically and the other from scientific data. Philosophically, a past infinite universe would require an instantiated infinite to exist, a concept fraught with logical problems. For more on that check out the work of German mathematician, David Hilbert. Second, the better evidence tells us that the universe past finite according to Borde, Vilenkin, Guth in their work entitled, Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete. They would argue that even given the model you state above, there is a past boundary of finite space indicating a beginning; the past cannot extend back infinitely. So, there is the requirement of an agent to bring the universe into existence, lest you want to argue that the universe is self-caused (which is logically contradictory) or uncaused (which is logically untenable).

 

2. Morality arose from early humans realizing the survival value of hanging together in groups. It varies widely from one culture to another although certain basics like don't kill your neighbor of your own tribe and don't steal his stuff are pretty widespread.

 

What you are describing in subjective morality and your explanation commits the genetic fallacy. It doesn't really explain morality. Would you argue that morality is ultimately subjective?

 

3. No, there is no "ultimate meaning" to life. The idea that there must be is purely a human phenomenon. Even though there is no ultimate meaning, a person can maintain an individual meaning to their life. Why can't life be intrinsically valuable? The ability to be conscious to see the sun rise, birds sing, beautiful scenes in nature and the ability of humans to create beautify things seems to me to have value. Suicidal thoughts? Purely depends on the person and the individual situation as to what I might say to them. Unlike what Christians think there is no cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all, true- for -all- time formula. I know uncertainty in these matters is a real bitch for Christians, though.

 

Wait a minute, you cannot have it both ways, either life has meaning or it doesn't. You are special pleading to say that we can somehow create meaning, when none ultimately exists. That is fantasy, not reality. If life is meaningless, you have answered your own question about intrinsic value, I am not sure why you come back to ask the question. It is like asking if we can make sense of a senseless murder - the answer is no, it is senseless. If life is meaningless, we cannot come back and say that yes, there is meaning and we create it, that is to make the same mistake.

 

Now, you are also arguing against your first point that life is meaningless when you say that you find meaning in consciousness, the singing of birds, the rising of the sun, beauty, etc. That, to me, would indicate that you think that life does have meaning after all. So, I am confused by your answer and wonder what your really believe and why.

 

If life is meaningless, as you say, why would it be wrong for you to tell the suicidal person to just go ahead as life and death are basically the same, meaningless? I don't see why you would think twice on that one if life truly was meaningless. Why would you tell the person to hold onto something without value and without meaning? I don't think twice about throwing away a used candy wrapper since it is meaningless and purposeless (it no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended and has no value to me). If life is purposeless, then to hold onto it seems more meaningless than to toss it away.

 

Now, I don't believe these things myself as I believe that we were designed for a purpose and have intrinsic value as image bearers of God and ones created for a purpose by God. That is the only way that I think we can find true intrinsic value and purpose.

 

4. To the victims of a mass murderer I would probably say nothing. In the initial shock, nothing would help. Unlike Christians, I have no pithy answers. Later on, possibly I would say that there were literally millions of circumstances that led to that particular outcome. The whole of the universe acts when an action takes place. In the universe there is no such thing as justice. This concept does not exist outside of human language. Death erases all actions. It is then over. Possibly there is something like karma - actions do have consequences and produce effects, but it is not a cosmic justice system.

 

I really don't care if you ignore me, LNC, since many others are reading this thread.

 

Believe me, I have no pithy answers either, but I do believe that I have meaningful ones that are worth pursuing and finding and understanding. The rest of your answer, although consistent to your worldview, I don't believe would bring comfort to a grieving family, I fear that it would only lead to greater despair. It seems to boil down to a statement of "life sucks, so accept it and move on." Not very comforting...

[LNC]

The problem with the Christian view is that if a mass murderer become Christian (get saved, or whatever) they will *not* get punished for eternity for their crimes.

 

Meanwhile, the nice neighbor atheist, who never hurt a fly or committed any crime of any kind, he will go to eternal punishment.

 

So, I'm not even sure arguments for afterlife justice makes any sense, since there's a "get out of jail" card which circumvents the whole justice part. Somehow Christians manage to maintain that disassociation between the ideas without flinching. One idea is ruined by the other.

 

It's enough for the Christian mother who drowned her kids to save them from demons, to say, "sorry Jesus," and she'll be singing with the angels and drink nectar from the heavenly cups. Yeah... that's justice my ass...

 

Isn't it great that God could even forgive a mass murderer? It tells us that there is hope for all of us. When Jesus was put on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, it was complete enough to pay the penalty for even a repentant murder. Now, it doesn't mean that the murderer is not going to pay a penalty in this life for the crime. But then, when you think about it, from your perspective, the murderer has the same fate as the person who lived a saintly life, so I am not sure why you have a problem with the Christian answer to this situation. In your worldview, Hitler has the same end as Mother Teresa, both end up as worm food. In my worldview, Hitler is in hell. So, at least my view has justice where justice is due.

 

Would you be suggesting that the nice atheist would want to spend eternity worshiping Jesus? Because that is what will be going on in heaven. But then, that would seem like hell for an atheist, which is why God doesn't force them to go there. Maybe the actual hell is more preferable than heaven for an atheist, have you considered that?

 

I guess you don't understand the idea of justice in God's economy. God is a God of perfect justice and justice will be applied to every single person's sins. Either the person will take the punishment for their own sins, or they will accept the free gift that God offers to everyone and have Jesus take the punishment for those sins. Every person has the offer of Jesus to take the punishment and should a person refuse that offer, then they have chosen to pay their own way. God cannot be blamed for that and there is no "get out of jail free card," justice is meted out to all, the only question is who will pay the price.

 

As for the scenario that you mention at the end of your post, neither you nor I can truly know what will happen with that mother. Simply saying, "sorry Jesus" is not enough, one must become a renewed person by the act and power of God through the Holy Spirit. Only God sees the heart, we cannot.

[LNC]

And once again, LNC goes back to picking apart the so-called "flaws" of atheism by using the same old debunked cliched apologetics instead of presenting proof of his claims because for some reason he can't prove the existence of God unless he tears into somebody else's arguments and I'm still waiting for LNC to provide non-scriptural evidence that all those bodies were raised from the dead when Jesus died which he seems to keep ignoring for some reason. And is LNC's list of arguments against atheism an indirect way of him saying atheists are evil immoral people who don't deserve to live? At least that's the impression I always get when a Christian asks me what reasons I have to live or be moral without God. But once again, LNC can do whatever LNC doesn't like other people doing.

 

I have given evidence in the past for the existence of God, evidence that has not been addressed on this site. The fact that you can construct a coherent argument in response to my post is evidence enough that an immaterial reality exists and that gives evidence that God exists. No one has addressed that argument as of yet, so maybe you could give it a try.

 

I don't particularly care whether the people were raised from the dead as it says in the Gospel since I don't use that as evidence for the resurrection. I have not argued the evidence based upon the inerrancy of Scripture either, so the point is irrelevant to the case that I have made. I don't know why you keep beating that drum and keep ignoring the actual evidence that I have provided. I am not arguing against atheism either since I think it is also irrelevant. I have made arguments for the resurrection that should be addressed since that is what this thread is about. Maybe we can start a separate thread after this one is through on arguments for the existence of God if that is of interest to you. But for now, let's focus on whether Ehrman's arguments are valid since that is the topic of this thread.

[LNC]

DevaLight, Neon Genesis, and Hans,

 

What all three of you said is fundamentally why I shed my christian beliefs. But people like LNC either blind themselves or reason it all away with convoluted thinking. It's astounding.

 

But you are all OK with the fact that your worldview doesn't have any justice for the murderer either? In fact, your system means that no one gets justice after this life and that the murder victim and the murderer have the same end. I don't see why that is better. At least in the Christian worldview there is justice, in fact, there is perfect justice. So, maybe you could explain why your view is superior in that if someone skates in this life they have beat the system. That would include Hitler and many others who merely put the bullet in their heads to escape earthly justice and, in essence, all justice since there is none after this life. That just doesn't seem right or fair.

[dagnarus]

 

But you are all OK with the fact that your worldview doesn't have any justice for the murderer either? In fact, your system means that no one gets justice after this life and that the murder victim and the murderer have the same end. I don't see why that is better. At least in the Christian worldview there is justice, in fact, there is perfect justice. So, maybe you could explain why your view is superior in that if someone skates in this life they have beat the system. That would include Hitler and many others who merely put the bullet in their heads to escape earthly justice and, in essence, all justice since there is none after this life. That just doesn't seem right or fair.

 

So we should all see the intrinsic problem with our worldview, that in it the murder victim and the murderer have the same end. Upon seeing this we should replace it with your worldview in which the murder victim and the murderer both have the same end.

 

Wow that's dumb.

[bdp]

It seems to boil down to a statement of "life sucks, so accept it and move on." Not very comforting...

 

I'll take reality over any false comfort.

[Deva]

This is simply a metaphysical assumption with no empirical data to back it up. In fact, there are two reasons that this does not make sense, one philosophically and the other from scientific data. Philosophically, a past infinite universe would require an instantiated infinite to exist, a concept fraught with logical problems. For more on that check out the work of German mathematician, David Hilbert. Second, the better evidence tells us that the universe past finite according to Borde, Vilenkin, Guth in their work entitled, Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete. They would argue that even given the model you state above, there is a past boundary of finite space indicating a beginning; the past cannot extend back infinitely. So, there is the requirement of an agent to bring the universe into existence, lest you want to argue that the universe is self-caused (which is logically contradictory) or uncaused (which is logically untenable).

 

I haven't read these works and authors you are referring to, so I really cannot comment.

 

I cannot understand the difficulty of having the past extend back infinitely. I also do not see the problems of self-caused and uncaused. Postulating some outside force of a different substance acting on the universe seems much more problematic to me. I don't see how uncaused is logically untenable. It is to you because you must bring in God or your whole worldview collapses.

 

 

What you are describing in subjective morality and your explanation commits the genetic fallacy. It doesn't really explain morality. Would you argue that morality is ultimately subjective?

 

I am merely stating the fact that morality is subjective. I would not use the word "ultimately". It simply is. You are unable to say exactly what objective morals are - per a prior statement of yours (see "Send in the Clowns" thread), so why should I believe it? What is a genetic fallacy?

 

Wait a minute, you cannot have it both ways, either life has meaning or it doesn't. You are special pleading to say that we can somehow create meaning, when none ultimately exists. That is fantasy, not reality. If life is meaningless, you have answered your own question about intrinsic value, I am not sure why you come back to ask the question. It is like asking if we can make sense of a senseless murder - the answer is no, it is senseless. If life is meaningless, we cannot come back and say that yes, there is meaning and we create it, that is to make the same mistake.

 

Why can't I have it both ways? You are backing yourself into a box of black and white thinking. Just because there is no sort of ultimate meaning doesn't mean that there isn't meaning at all. After all, fantasy DOES exist. People can and do live in fantastic worlds of their own imagination. Writers, artists and actors do it all the time.

 

If life is meaningless, as you say, why would it be wrong for you to tell the suicidal person to just go ahead as life and death are basically the same, meaningless? I don't see why you would think twice on that one if life truly was meaningless. Why would you tell the person to hold onto something without value and without meaning? I don't think twice about throwing away a used candy wrapper since it is meaningless and purposeless (it no longer serves the purpose for which it was intended and has no value to me). If life is purposeless, then to hold onto it seems more meaningless than to toss it away.

 

I don't believe I ever said I thought there was no life after this one. The suicide would accomplish nothing. I would not recommend it, and would try to talk someone out of it.

 

Believe me, I have no pithy answers either, but I do believe that I have meaningful ones that are worth pursuing and finding and understanding. The rest of your answer, although consistent to your worldview, I don't believe would bring comfort to a grieving family, I fear that it would only lead to greater despair. It seems to boil down to a statement of "life sucks, so accept it and move on." Not very comforting...

 

I stand by my answer. You cannot comfort someone in the initial shock. Please don't have me saying words I did not. I did not say "life sucks, so accept it and move on" although that is actually what most of us in fact really do.

[Deva]

But you are all OK with the fact that your worldview doesn't have any justice for the murderer either? In fact, your system means that no one gets justice after this life and that the murder victim and the murderer have the same end. I don't see why that is better. At least in the Christian worldview there is justice, in fact, there is perfect justice. So, maybe you could explain why your view is superior in that if someone skates in this life they have beat the system. That would include Hitler and many others who merely put the bullet in their heads to escape earthly justice and, in essence, all justice since there is none after this life. That just doesn't seem right or fair.

 

I really don't know where to begin I don't know if I should start with the astounding arrogance that LNC professes to know "our system" or the idea that Christianity is perfect justice.

[mwc]

But you are all OK with the fact that your worldview doesn't have any justice for the murderer either? In fact, your system means that no one gets justice after this life and that the murder victim and the murderer have the same end. I don't see why that is better. At least in the Christian worldview there is justice, in fact, there is perfect justice. So, maybe you could explain why your view is superior in that if someone skates in this life they have beat the system. That would include Hitler and many others who merely put the bullet in their heads to escape earthly justice and, in essence, all justice since there is none after this life. That just doesn't seem right or fair.

I don't know what you're going on about but seeing as you've invoked Hitler that gives me a clue...

 

Anyhow, if I'm reading this correctly, in the human justice system we would have likely caught Hitler, tried him, convicted him and then killed him (probably by hanging or firing squad). This would have happened one time. The penalty phase would have occurred one time. Not millions. Not once for each person we would have held him responsible for. So a single bullet. A single death. So, how many times did Hitler die? Not of natural causes mind you but a lowly premature death? None? Wait. Exactly one. The great Hitler was reduced to putting himself down in a bunker like a coward so he wouldn't get caught and tried. That's justice to me. We saw him for what he was. The whole world saw him reduced to the real man he was. Not someone willing to stand up to trial, sentencing and punishment but someone who sat in a hole because he was afraid of what might happen. From Eagle's Nest to rats hole. Yeah, people wanted to list charges and here him answer but that would have gained nothing. Look at Saddam. If he would have put himself down in the spider hole it would have been a more fitting end for that coward than the stupid trial and hanging he got. Justice? Hitler got his justice.

 

Now let's move on to xian justice shall we? The Jews. Yep. They didn't believe in "jesus." They couldn't keep the law in those camps either. Uh oh. Unclean under the law. So what happens to them? The only logical thing. To the pit with them. That's xian justice. What about all the others in the camps? The Atheists? The Gypsies? The Gays? Same fate. Into the fire. Burn baby burn. That's the xian way.

 

But what about Hitler? Does he burn? Maybe. Or maybe not. What if, he prayed for forgiveness right as he died? The most sincere prayer ever in the history of all mankind? We can't know what happened so this might be what, in fact, did occur? He asked "jesus" into his heart and prayed for forgiveness for all that he had done and his own death too. So what of Hitler? You claim he is in hell, but no, he escaped that fate. He would have to. He's in glory now baby. Sitting at the table with "jesus." Hitler gets the same chance as everyone else and he may have taken it. We can't say he didn't since we don't know what his final though was although you want to say you know and assign him to hell with his victims.

 

The strange thing is that we're assigning anyone anywhere. To do so bypasses all justice. To send someone to heaven or hell upon their death bypasses judgment day. You go to hell and then are brought back to life, put in a body to be "judged" to be sent to the lake of fire? Or you're sent to heaven only to be stuffed back into a meat bag to be "judged" to go back to the "new" earth? Kind of gives away what the "judgment" is going to be doesn't it? "Hmmm??? I'm in hell. I wonder if I've got a shot at the pearly gates?" If there's anything more stupid than that system I can't think of it. The xian "judgment day" is just a formality in light of the doctrine. Everyone goes to the same basic place they were when they died only instead of being a spirit they're stuffed back into a body again. Woohoo! What a deal. What justice.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

Isn't it great that God could even forgive a mass murderer? It tells us that there is hope for all of us. When Jesus was put on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins, it was complete enough to pay the penalty for even a repentant murder. Now, it doesn't mean that the murderer is not going to pay a penalty in this life for the crime. But then, when you think about it, from your perspective, the murderer has the same fate as the person who lived a saintly life, so I am not sure why you have a problem with the Christian answer to this situation. In your worldview, Hitler has the same end as Mother Teresa, both end up as worm food. In my worldview, Hitler is in hell. So, at least my view has justice where justice is due.

 

Then read your question again:

4. If there is no life beyond this one and no ultimate judgment, what do you say to the victims of a mass murderer who simply got away with his or her crime? What do you say to the person who has suffered injustice in this life and is looking for hope and justice in the next life?

What do you mean with judgment, if judgment can be voided? What is justice if justice is superseded? True justice works this way: if you're found guilty, there's not chance at all that you'll escape punishment; however, the punishment is given based on the situation.

 

So, if a massmurderer go to heaven, without any penalty, we don't have justice, but rather injustice. Regardless of the why and what.

 

You have to stick to the gun you pointed at us, and not bait-and-switch like this. You asked what kind of justice would there be if there were no afterlife. Basically, your argument is that afterlife makes sense of things in the view of guilt and punishment. If the criminal isn't punished in the afterlife, then what is the meaning of everything. But then you switch and say that the mass-murderer go FREE!!!

 

Here's the scenario, and you have seen it before, an atheist teenage girl is murdered. The murderer go to jail, and turn to Christ. She ends up in Hell. He in heaven. You call that justice. I call it injustice. Simple as that.

 

 

Would you be suggesting that the nice atheist would want to spend eternity worshiping Jesus? Because that is what will be going on in heaven. But then, that would seem like hell for an atheist, which is why God doesn't force them to go there. Maybe the actual hell is more preferable than heaven for an atheist, have you considered that?

Are you saying that you don't believe in an eternal soul? Can you make decisions with your soul? What is it that is saved? Your soul or the pancakes you ate a week ago?

 

If the soul continues to exist after death, then the question is: What stops a person (soul) from changing his mind and/or making a decision after he is dead? Why must the decision be made before death?

 

Lets say you're right. Lets say we live after death. I die. I discover you were right. I change my mind, and call Jesus to save me. Why can't I do this, and why wouldn't he save me? What in the mechanics of cosmos and fundamentals of the spiritual worlds demands the humans decide this before they die? Can you find a Bible verse to explain that?

 

 

I guess you don't understand the idea of justice in God's economy. God is a God of perfect justice and justice will be applied to every single person's sins. Either the person will take the punishment for their own sins, or they will accept the free gift that God offers to everyone and have Jesus take the punishment for those sins. Every person has the offer of Jesus to take the punishment and should a person refuse that offer, then they have chosen to pay their own way. God cannot be blamed for that and there is no "get out of jail free card," justice is meted out to all, the only question is who will pay the price.

I think "justice" in your mind is very different from mine. Justice is when penalty is meted, but not necessarily the same kind for everyone, or the same length, it depends on the crime and the state of mind of the criminal, both at the time of the crime, but also if they regret their doings, etc.

 

Christian justice is: Christians are good and get rewarded, non-Christians are evil and will be punished for eternity. Simple, but stupid.

 

As for the scenario that you mention at the end of your post, neither you nor I can truly know what will happen with that mother. Simply saying, "sorry Jesus" is not enough, one must become a renewed person by the act and power of God through the Holy Spirit. Only God sees the heart, we cannot.

Oh, so now suddenly you can't? You judged Hitler to Hell, but how can you know? How can you know that I won't go to Heaven? How can you know if God have a completely different view on these things than you do? You don't, because you CAN NOT KNOW!!!

 

You make assertions and claims about afterlife and who goes there or not, based on your beliefs, and that's all to it. Nothing you can do or say to prove them, or give a reasonable arguments for them. Afterlife, God, salvation, are all just ideas and beliefs. Nothing more.

 

But if we are going to talk about a rhetorical situation, like the one I gave, it's a cop-out to say: "we can't know." You're running from the question, because deep down, you know it is wrong. You know that an atheist mother and an atheist daughter, killed by a Christian murderer, should get real justice, and that real justice isn't that the murderer go to Heaven and the atheist go to Hell. You know it, but you can't make yourself admit it.

[Ouroboros]

Believe me, I have no pithy answers either, but I do believe that I have meaningful ones that are worth pursuing and finding and understanding. The rest of your answer, although consistent to your worldview, I don't believe would bring comfort to a grieving family, I fear that it would only lead to greater despair. It seems to boil down to a statement of "life sucks, so accept it and move on." Not very comforting...

 

I stand by my answer. You cannot comfort someone in the initial shock. Please don't have me saying words I did not. I did not say "life sucks, so accept it and move on" although that is actually what most of us in fact really do.

Right. We find new meaning in life, and as a non-believer, I put more value in life than before. As Christian, life was only worth as much to take me to Heaven. But now, I have only one life, I better damn sure make the best out of it. This is a concept Christians can't wrap their heads around. It's very tough for them.

 

And I find it rather strange to tell a grieving family that the murderer will go to Heaven because he turned to Jesus somehow would comfort in any way. Basically, Christians lie to people in distress about the possibilities, because they know it would hurt to know the truth. So they conveniently cover up the "Gospel" at their choosing.