The Personal Website of Steve McRoberts
Advocating ethics through empathy
& treading lightly upon the Earth
Correspondence


How can God (if there is such a being) create a being that truely is not himself, and then enter into a loving relationship with that created being. If the created being were compelled to love, it wouldn't be love at all. But if the created being pursued God voluntarily and willingly, around every corner, over every mountain, under every rock. . . the scent of God smelling sweeter than (and within) roses or incense, the faintest echo of God being more lovely than (and within) the most brilliant music or poetry, the touch of God being softer and more reassuring than (and within) a mother's caress. . . searching high and low because God and only God can answer to the yearning for love that burns in the created one's heart. Nature is beautiful, but cold and cruel. Religion asks you to quit chasing and start pretending you have caught Him (but after a while it's impossible). Science is nothing different than dark magic, ignoring God and casting spells and conquering the physical universe to get one's own way. We pour ourselves into relationships with people which is so much less than satisfactory because they only hold the tiniest fraction of what God is. But we are enthralled with people because in all the world that tinest fraction is the closest we get.

I expect we will find that this life was an opportunity to demonstrate our love for God by not being sidetracked from the pursuit of Him. I believe Jesus is the demonstration of God's relentless pursuit of us.

I am my beloved's and He is mine, His banner over me is love.

R. S. - servant of Jesus





Hi R.,

Thanks for writing.

I'm not sure why you wrote, but I'm assuming it was to express your thoughts and feelings about God and Jesus.

I don't know if you wanted me to respond to your expression, but I will. I don't mean to pick apart your ideas or "prove" them wrong: just tell you why I don't buy them myself. When it comes to things that are beyond the 5 senses, no one knows more than anyone else. So, the best we can do is to use our brains to ensure that what we imagine is at least consistent with itself and with the reality that we do know.

First of all, it isn't at all clear to me what you're saying, because there is a major contradiction in what you said. You asked:

"How can God (if there is such a being) create a being that truely is not himself, and then enter into a loving relationship with that created being."

But later you imply that God is "under every rock... within roses," and that "people... hold the tiniest fraction of what God is."

So, then, are you saying that God's creation is "truly not himself" or that there are parts of "him" in every created thing? If the former, then it would seem futile to "pursue God" underneath rocks. If the latter, then your question is off the mark: God would not be separate from creation, and in loving creation would simply be loving himself.

You said: "only God can answer to the yearning for love that burns in the created one's heart." That tells me that you have never been loved by another human being. I hope that's not the case, but if it is: how sad for you. God and Jesus are like "imaginary friends" which some lonely people find comfort in. If that's the height of the joy in their lives, then I wouldn't want to take that away from them. But I would like to point out to them that there are real friends to be had amongst the living, and real love to be shared here on planet earth. Real love can only come from real people, not imaginary friends.

You said: " Nature is beautiful, but cold and cruel." Nature is not cruel, anymore than a truck is cruel. Both are mindless, powerful forces. Because they are mindless, they are neither cruel nor benign. It is only when you put a conscious entity into the picture (a truck driver) that the truck can be used in a cruel way (driving other motorists off the road, running over pedestrians, etc.) So too, nature cannot be said to be cruel unless we imagine a conscious driving force behind it ("God"). Even then, it's still not nature that is cruel: it is the driving force behind it: God.

You said: " Science is nothing different than dark magic". I couldn't disagree more! Science is the exact opposite of magic. Magic assumes a cause-and-effect relationship where none exists. It does this by ignoring the facts and refusing to test its hypotheses. Science is the procedure of pursing truth by testing every hypothesis against reality. Magic has given us the example of Jacob using spotted sticks (phallic symbols) to induce cattle to give birth to spotted calves. Science has given us penicillin.

Science works, as is proven every day of our modern lives (for instance, when you turn the ignition key in your car, or when you clicked a button to send me your email). Magic is hit-and-miss (at best) because it is only coincidental when the desired cause follows (for instance, when you pray to get a raise, and you get one).

You said: " I believe Jesus is the demonstration of God's relentless pursuit of us." Hardly "relentless" since Jesus was supposedly on earth a mere 33 years or so, nearly 2,000 years ago! What great, loving thing did Jesus do for humankind? Did he impart the true causes of disease in order to prevent the needless suffering of millions through the plagues of the "dark ages" (so-called because Christianity was in full-force and kept the human mind in darkness, unable to see reality)? Did he tell us about crop rotation, or how to detect the coming of tornadoes and earthquakes (so as to really "save" us from his own "cruel nature")? No, he didn't tell us anything like that. All he allegedly did was repeat some sayings that had been around for centuries, and then he died (like so many "saviors" before him).

Has the earth been a better place because of that? Hardly. He purportedly claimed to "bring a sword" and to set family members against each other. Looking throughout history since the advent of Christianity we see a bloody, hate-filled mess left in its wake.

Pretty words can be used to dress up falsehoods, but it does not make them true. While it may make lies more attractive to the gullible, such eloquence is better saved for the truth, since it only makes the lies look even more ridiculous to those who can see clearly. It's sort of like putting a beautiful dress on a pig.

--Steve







As to God creating something apart from Himself with the intention of having a relationship with the created being, I would say a useful (but not perfect) analogy would be like a human creating a robot with the intent of having a perfect lover. The robot would certainly be the product of the choices of it's human creator, and as such reflect or reveal much information about the person who created it. The problem would be that the best robot a human would be capable of creating would not have anything like real, free choice. I suppose as artificial intelligence improves one might be able to come up with a robot that was so complex that it could seem to have free will. But in the end it is a machine. Some think ultimately humans are but complex machines. I disagree.

Your saying that I have never been loved by another human is, I suppose intended to make a point and not an insult. I've been married nineteen years and have four children all whom I would willingly die for. I agree that "real love" can only come from "real persons". But you are quite wrong in relegating God to the status of an imaginary person. I gather you take some comfort in placing yourself among the more intelligent or careful thinkers, but you should know that many people past and present with intellects and eductions that would dwarf yours (and certainly mine) believe that God is very real, and very knowable. It is debatable which of us could boast the majority of intelligent people who agree with us, but it is also irrelevant to any truth how many or few accept it.

Of course Nature is not really cruel, but there is more to dismissing that language than meets the eye. Nature seems impersonal or "mindless" as you put it. One could say nature is absolutely just. Causes lead to effects, and no amount of wishing or hoping makes the slightest difference, if indeed there is no mind behind the forces of nature. The lion eats the slow Gazelle, the tick feeds on the lion, the virus feeds on the tick. Kind of amazing how the ideas of love, mercy and forgiveness ever came to be.

Science was the next topic, and again I am reminded how I should probably wait and reread what I write before hitting the send button. I'll have to explain my equating science to magic another time. However, your claim that Christianity had left a bloody, hate-filled mess in it's wake is certainly an arguable point. It seems there is a double standard that magnifies Christianity's offenses while overlooking the sins of all other religions and cultures.
For instance, pre-Columbian America is often portrayed as a paradise. Along come the conquistadors, but what did they find? Bloody altars and thousands of human skulls. It turns out human sacrifice was quite commonplace, and they're finding more evidence of human sacrifice in ancient America with every dig. As for the Inquisition (the favorite example of evil in the Christian God's name), the truth is the crusaders (though unarguably cruel and often misguided) probably put to death fewer people during the crusades than the Aztecs sacrificed in an average year. And they were recapturing territory that was previously captured by Muslims.

An honest comparison between Christian cultures and others would reveal that you wouldn't ever have wanted to be an average woman in any country or culture other that those predominantly influenced by Christianity, even today. If it is really truth your are interested in, then investigate the truth about how Christians and Christianity have influenced the world for good. In terms of charitable organizations, hospitals, and educational institutions, Christianity dwarfs every competing belief system, period. Emphasizing the bad and ignoring the good isn't really an honest approach.

What great, loving thing did Jesus do for humankind? Well, when I was nineteen years old he revealed the truth of His existence to me. As I had been an atheist who made fun of all religion and even liked to throw "taunts" at God in the presence of the devout, the realization that God exists was at first rather disconcerting. But I came to realize that what I had thought and did in ignorance wasn't nearly the problem, it was what I would now choose to believe after knowing the truth of God's reality. I could keep God out of my field of vision, but only by a willful choice to ignore the truth while proudly proclaiming I was only interested in what was "true." And as I struggled to "follow" and "know" God, I was hit with the problem of those who claim to speak for God but don't actually have a clue about Him. Why was it that when I pursued God the greatest obstacles weren't my old faithless buddies, but those who used my new found faith to try and herd me into their little corral and keep me there? I'm not sure. Well, rest assured I'm not trying to herd you into my corral. All I'm asking is for you to take a harder look at what you choose to believe as true.

When we wake each day we begin the process of thinking. It is a chemical/physical process that burns calories and determines where we go and what we do. But thinking at it's core is essentially choosing. For a thought to mean anything there is an object of that thought, and we ourselves are the object of our own thoughts. We decide among the almost limitless possibilities, and each choice leads us straight to the next choice. Stay in bed or get up. Wait till lunch or eat breakfast. Wheaties or oatmeal. Jeans or slacks. And between each of these almost insignificant choices are hundreds of other virtually unconscious choices. Sit up or slouch. Blow my nose or pick it. Scratch. Take a deep breath. All day every day; choice after choice after choice, and I am the object of every choice.

When two children sit in class one learns to do algebra and the other daydreams. Both are choosing based on what they want. Thus each one of us is, for all practical purposes, the center of our universe-the object of every choice. Sure we learn we are not alone. We share our connection to time and matter with other like beings. We come to see that in the physical universe we are an almost insignificant speck, but we are still the center of OUR universe. And how do we choose to handle the matter we have some degree of control over (including our own bodies) in the brief time we exist? By serving our own interests to the best of our abilities. We listened to our parents until we determined other voices had more useful information. We listened to our peer group until the results caused us to reevaluate some of the stuff our parents taught us. We accept or reject the testimony of the many voices that we encounter in life through a process of choices refined by experiences. As we get "wiser" we make "better" choices. But the definition of "better" choices simply means we serve our own interests more effectively. Like little kings we overrun, or ally with, or avoid others to accomplish our own objectives. (I work in the entertainment industry and it is funny to watch how an ambitious, young, pretty girl can walk on a film set and know in minutes who the "power" belongs to. She won't waste her efforts or time with those who have nothing to offer her).


The problem we humans have with knowing objective truth is that we are finite. We are really very limited in our ability to "see" the whole picture. While our five senses can tell us about many things, we essentially have to count on or trust certain voices for the vast majority of what we come to believe is true. Our experience helps us refine our choices of who to trust. Some of us have a better start in life than others (honest parents -- good influences). Some have better brains. We discover car salesmen, lawyers and politicians aren't the best source of accurate information. But time marches on and we are powerless to slow it down. We have to choose, choose, choose and choose. And refusing to choose or allowing others to choose for us is in itself a choice.

While the vast amount of what we claim to "know" is totally dependent on what we hear or read and take on trust to be accurate, it is interesting that by and large humans aren't exactly humble by nature. The combination of arrogance and ignorance forms an almost impenetrable barrier to the truth, but sadly this is my own experience of the most common situation among the people I've met, including friends and relatives I've known my whole life. The alcoholic who doesn't have a drinking problem. The pervert who imagines he is surrounded by the hopelessly sexually repressed. The greedy businessman who brags of his generosity when every carefully calculated "gift" flows right back into his own pocket. The intelligencia (proudest of all) who disdain and humiliate all who dare disagree with them while standing on a house of cards.

It seems pretty clear that the typical human condition is that we choose to believe things based on our own desire for them to be true. As a self-proclaimed follower of Jesus, I know that I am certainly a big target for my own gun here, but I can't deny that my life's experience has taught me that people are susceptible to believing what they want to be true. It is almost miraculous for people to drop any long held belief that they think works in their own favor. I suppose this explains the variety of different religions, philosophies, beliefs, and ideas floating around. But a simple self-evident idea creates a bit of a problem. Two contradicting ideas cannot be both true. And when we are faced with two differing ideas, we choose to accept the one that we perceive to best support what we have already invested ourselves in. If we later come to perceive that the other choice is the truth, well, experience has taught us to ignore the truth at our own peril so we change our course, perhaps even gain a measure of humility, but never really waver from serving our own interests.

But what if there is a real God as some who in every other aspect have proven to be trustworthy have claimed. And what if this God is the real center of the entire Universe. And what if it turns out that our thoughts, to function correctly, or in harmony with the truth, should have this God as the object of every choice, and not ourselves. Then every choice that did not have God as the object would not just be self-serving, but actually denying the right of God to His place as the center of OUR universe.

I hope you can follow my lame attempt to explain this concept. But I'm going to cut to the chase and state what I think is the case.

I think we're born thinking ourselves the center of the universe as we know it. We learn, grow make up our mind, change our mind, and occasionally suspend judgment, but never relinquish the right to be the object of every thought's choice. Then God shows up and makes the claim that He is the rightful King over our very self, and this means denying Him His place is willfully continuing in an inherited rebellion.

And I believe while it is practically impossible to make every choice serve God-making Him the center of our will; it has been made possible to move in that direction by agreeing that it is His right and not our own, and making a contract to that effect. A contract, I submit, probably impossible to make until one has fallen in love (I'm sorry I don't know better words to describe this) with God. And falling in love with God is what happened when I began to understand what it meant for Jesus to be born a human, live a life as a human, suffer and die as a human, and in some sense remain forever human. I understand why His disciples obeyed his request in the face of persecutions and death. I don't think it was just about gaining eternal life through acts of righteousness.

You choose (I believe based on what you wrote) to see Jesus as a failed and long dead religious guru whose duped followers over the ages are to blame for what is called "Christianity" and all it's ill effects. There are certainly plenty of "experts," and "historians" and even theologians to bolster such an opinion.

I choose to believe that Jesus is the ultimate expression of love, integrity, honesty, humility, and truth-God made man. I have, as sincerely as I was capable of mustering, asked Jesus to forgive me for the choices I made while occupying a throne I had no right to occupy, and I relinquish (continually) that throne to Him. He has, as promised, led me to a quite different life than I would have chosen on my own, but the results are so much better for me and everyone I have any power to influence. While you might claim that my admission to choosing to believe is evidence of bias, I submit you and everyone else makes the same choice, but most aren't willing to admit that what they consider truth is a product of choice at all. And I'm in no way saying truth is relative. I believe in absolute, solid, rock bottom unshakable truth that will stand up to any honest investigation.

When Jesus said the "Kingdom of God is at hand," he was talking about himself and his total submission to "The Father's will." We become "members" of the kingdom of God when we enter into the covenant by choosing to surrender our will. We are actually revealing the Kingdom of God when we (rare but possible) are submitting to His will. When we know Him and love Him we find these rare moments of faith and submission a thrilling unspeakable joy, sometimes even in the midst of what might appear to others an unbearable trial. And it seems there is the added confusion of those who perceive that the best way to serve themselves in life would be to act as though God were the object of their choices. In other words, those who might acknowledge God would certainly do a better job guiding their choices if He were at the center of their will, but rather than giving up their selfishness, they try diligently to figure out what God would have them do so they might benefit (yet always keep the right of veto). I liken this to the popular idea of living by biblical principles championed by most television evangelists. About them Jesus said, " You diligently study the Scriptures because you think by them you posses eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about me, you refuse to come to me to have life."

Pretty words can be used to dress up falsehoods, but it does not make them true. While it may make lies more attractive to the gullible, such eloquence is better saved for the truth, since it only makes the lies look even more ridiculous to those who can see clearly. It's sort of like putting a beautiful dress on a pig.

Do you really imagine after all you've learned and experienced you are no longer among the gullible. I make no such claim for myself. I'm a gullible fool and prove it almost every day. You seem to claim you can see clearly. I make no such claim for myself. I strain to see the truth and eagerly desire to express only the truth, but hey, let's face it, none of us sees clearly. But I know of one who can heal the blind. Oddly enough here at Christmas time I often think about how Jesus' birth story is often taken for a ridiculous impossible lie. Believing in a virgin birth, or better yet God incarnate! How silly a basis for a belief system. But the stone the builders rejected, has become the cornerstone. The Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes.

Before you respond as though we are in a contest or delete this e-mail and decide to blow it off, just take a minute to address God (whoever and however he is in truth), and ask if He want's you to reevaluate your thoughts about Him. If you get no response, well, you'll perhaps have a fairer claim to your opinions of my beliefs. I thank you for taking the time to read this and apologize for not being a more concise writer.

R. S. - servant of Jesus





Hi R.,

You wrote:

"Before you respond as though we are in a contest or delete this e-mail and decide to blow it off, just take a minute to address God (whoever and however he is in truth), and ask if He want's you to reevaluate your thoughts about Him. If you get no response, well, you'll perhaps have a fairer claim to your opinions of my beliefs."


Well, I did that. I got no response. Case closed.

I'm glad you had me try that little experiment, though. Religious beliefs seldom are put to such reality checks. It seems to me that it would be a very simple matter to prove or disprove the existence of the Christian God as long as you accept the part in the Bible where Jesus purportedly said, "Whatever you ask the Father in my name will be granted" (Jn 15:16). One could easily setup a test of this. Take two quarters and hermetically seal each one in a separate jar. Then have as many Christians as you like pray over one of the jars for the coin to flip over. If it flips, then you've got yourself a whole army of new believers. If it doesn't flip, then pastors will be putting in some overtime "reinterpreting" such plain passages as Jn 15:16.

I never just "blow off" what sincere people write to me. Nor do I think we're in a contest (or that there is much chance of us "converting" each other). But I think we both recognize the value of testing our beliefs (or lack thereof) by rubbing them up against an opposite point of view. As long as we can continue to do that civilly (and I try to curb my bad tendency towards sarcasm), I think such discussions are beneficial (and perhaps set a good example for others).

In addition, in my own case, I feel a need to warn others about what I'm reasonably sure is a hoax. I preached the Gospel when I was young, and am trying to atone for the damage I did. (No, that's not sarcasm.)

You wrote:

"The lion eats the slow Gazelle, the tick feeds on the lion, the virus feeds on the tick. Kind of amazing how the ideas of love, mercy and forgiveness ever came to be."

Amazing indeed! This says to me that such concepts were not part of "creation," so if there was a "creator," then "he" had no concept of love, mercy, or forgiveness (as is evinced by "his" "creation"). Therefore it would be incorrect to believe in a "God of love" who is the creator.

You wrote:

"It seems there is a double standard that magnifies Christianity's offenses while overlooking the sins of all other religions and cultures.
For instance, pre-Columbian America is often portrayed as a paradise. Along come the conquistadors, but what did they find? Bloody altars and thousands of human skulls. It turns out human sacrifice was quite commonplace, and they're finding more evidence of human sacrifice in ancient America with every dig. As for the Inquisition (the favorite example of evil in the Christian God's name), the truth is the crusaders (though unarguably cruel and often misguided) probably put to death fewer people during the crusades than the Aztecs sacrificed in an average year.
An honest comparison between Christian cultures and others would reveal that you wouldn't ever have wanted to be an average woman in any country or culture other that those predominantly influenced by Christianity, even today."

I don't think I ever claimed that Christianity was the "worst" or "most immoral" of religions. The double-standard is applied most often in excusing the atrocities committed in the name of one's own religion while pointing an accusing finger at others. Yes, the Aztec religion engaged in human sacrifice (as did the Jewish religion, according to the Bible). But the Aztecs were a small percentage of the 100 million people the Christians killed in the New World. The vast majority of whom did not engage in human sacrifice and who were at least as civilized as the Europeans. There is no need to "magnify" the extent of the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. One need only cite the often-overlooked facts.

The fact that the Aztecs engaged in human sacrifice in no way excuses the Christian's genocide of them. Nor does it even address the issue of the other nations of the New World who were butchered in the name of "Manifest Destiny."

In the Crusades, probably more Jews were killed than Muslims (in raids along the route to the "holy land" by the "Christian soldiers"). It was a stupid waste of life, battling for the tomb of a man who never lived. I think you have underestimated the number killed.

In any case, two wrongs don't make a right. I'm surprised that you even attempted to justify such things. Most Christians will simply use the excuse: "Oh, the people who committed those atrocities weren't the REAL Christians."

It's a sad commentary on the moral quality of Christianity when it only looks good compared to religions which practiced human sacrifice.

Women have been denigrated by Christianity. Are there worse religions? Probably. Does that make Christianity's treatment of women "good"? No. Again, you are pointing at the worst examples and claiming that Christianity is good in comparison. It's not a very impressive argument.

Ever since God changed gender (i.e. when the patriarchal societies usurped the reins from the ancient matriarchal societies, and the Goddesses were changed to Gods), women have been suppressed. That has happened to some degree in all patriarchal religions, including Christianity. Paul does "not allow" a woman to speak in church. She is to be submissive to her husband...

Women in this country have the right to vote only because they fought for it. While they were fighting for it, male pastors were denouncing them and quoting the Christian Bible's admonition that they just shut up and obey their husbands. The rights women have gained have been in spite of Christianity, not because of it. In many churches to this day women must wear signs of subjection. To this day, in the Jehovah's Witnesses the women are not allowed to address the congregation directly. This is because they take the Bible literally. Certain right-wing conservative Christians have publicly stated their desire to annihilate many of the rights women have fought and won.

You wrote:

"We become "members" of the kingdom of God when we enter into the covenant by choosing to surrender our will."


I have no intention of ever surrendering my will, thank you very much! If there were a God, then wouldn't it have been the one that endowed us with free will? Why would it want us to give up what it gave us? It sounds like you're asking me to join a "kingdom" of zombies or puppets. Why would anyone (from the king on down) want to live in a kingdom like that?

You wrote:

"Do you really imagine after all you've learned and experienced you are no longer among the gullible. I make no such claim for myself. I'm a gullible fool and prove it almost every day. You seem to claim you can see clearly. I make no such claim for myself. I strain to see the truth and eagerly desire to express only the truth, but hey, let's face it, none of us sees clearly. But I know of one who can heal the blind."

No, I don't think I'm gullible. That doesn't mean that I think I'm always right, or that I don't probably still inadvertently accept some falsehoods as true. But I practice critical thinking. I exercise skepticism. In the case of Christianity, I have seen enough to be reasonably sure that it is a fraud and a hoax.

You said that you were an atheist until the age of 19 when you accepted Jesus. Of course, one can't argue with a personal revelation, but do you think that if you had been born in a Hindu country that it would have been Krishna who revealed himself? Or Buddha in another culture? Or the Virgin Mary in a Catholic country? Isn't is strange that "God" always appears to people in the guise of their surrounding religion when there is "only one name under heaven by which men must be saved"?

At 19, I was a Christian. I was very "on fire for the Lord". It was years later that I saw the light and became an atheist. So, we have both made radical changes in our belief systems. Maybe what you said about people stubbornly clinging to the belief they've invested in (something I've run across many times and agree with you on) doesn't apply so much to us. I see myself, in any case, as ready willing and able to follow the truth wherever it may lead. I feel I have done that in my life. Leaving Christianity was not an easy decision, but one that I had to make as a follower of truth. If God had answered me in our little experiment, I would be busy "re-evaluating" right now.

I frequently get the argument about (to paraphrase): "smarter people than you believe in God, so why should I listen to you?" It's pretty pointless to debate about who is smarter, or who has the smartest people on their "side". Many people pay lip-service to religion in order to avoid problems, while they really don't buy it. Socrates was a good example. Also, the brain is a strange thing. Someone can be a genius in certain areas, and an idiot in others. Bobby Fischer, for instance. In his prime, he was the greatest chessplayer who ever lived. A true genius. Today he is a white supremacist.

R., there is much that is deliberately kept hidden about Christianity and its origins. I strongly recommend you read something about that. There are several good books on the subject now, showing how the ideas of the ancient mystery religions were adapted by Rome to form a religion to unify the empire. This "religion" freely incorporated the festivals, rites, symbols, stories, and sayings of the peoples that Rome conquered. Then they fabricated history to combine the various dying and reviving gods of vegetation into the biography of one "real-life" god-man. This religion became known as Christianity. It was rejected at first by many because they claimed "You Christians have mistaken the analogies of the ancient mysteries for historical fact." But Rome squashed such knowledge through anathema, and the burning of "pagan" libraries which revealed the true sources of the Gospels.

Later, in the inquisitions, they used torture to keep people afraid and "believing" in their nonsense.

Along the way there have been plenty of good people who have been Christians, and yes, they have done charitable deeds. But how much better might the world be by now, if it hadn't gotten sidetracked for all of this time with carrying around all of this mythological baggage? Ethics is far too important to be tied to fairy tales. When people grow up and recognize the Bible for what it is, there is a real danger of them throwing out the baby with the bath water.

--Steve





First let me say I underestimated you. This isn't flattery, but my life experience with atheists usually reveals a barely restrained, seething resentment of Christians and a great deal of arrogant intellectual pride in ideas and thoughts they (the atheists I've encountered) would have never come to on their own in a million years. They imagine as their own the things they heard, read and eagerly chose to believe because of how these "facts" bolster what they, for personal reasons, most desire the truth to be, and "disprove" those ideas or beliefs they hold in contempt. (I know, very much just like Christians)

I think I have been trying to be too "fluffy" and nice in order not to hit any hot buttons. My day-to-day conversations are not with people who think very critically, so I am soft around the edges. And I have to say it was kind of fun to watch my quickly patched together and borrowed arguments shredded. I'll try to do better.

Well, I did that. I got no response. Case closed.

Well, I'm not sure what to say except I doubt that the case is closed. I know you have seen your fill of BS that portends to be Christianity. So have I. But I'm telling you the truth about this; I've seen answers to prayer that would astonish the most hardened skeptic. I've experienced encounters with God that if you were there, you would understand why for me the choice not to believe would be to take the path of insanity. So I'm sort of working these "arguments" for God's existence backwards. I know God is real. I know Jesus is essentially who the Christian scriptures testify to, so I assume from this I should easily be able to construct airtight logical arguments to prove what I know to be true. Unfortunately it isn't so easy.

Believe me, there have been many times in my life when I wish I could just dump the whole thing and go my own way. And it might be no surprise to you when I tell you the WORST experiences, the harshest betrayals, the most painful cuts, the greatest letdowns, have come from. . ., yep, Christians. And I might as well admit when I see a television evangelist or even listen to my "Christian" boss or some of the people at the church I attend talking about politics or the end times, I'm ready to drop Christianity like a hot rock just so I won't be associated with them.

But I can't deny what God has done in my life. Most people seek prosperity, peace, comfort, pleasure, approval, power, and fun. God has helped me gain the desire, hunger and thirst for honesty, integrity, humility, generosity, forgiveness, patience and love. These treasures are not easily found or held on to. You might think I could have gotten from where I was to where I am through a number of other methods, but understand the events in my life testify so forcefully to a real cause and effect through the intervention of God that either He is real and He and I share an active joint relationship, or I am a statistical freak on whom the random forces of nature have played multiple tricks upon at the most influential times. Either way you are not likely to move me from my core beliefs, but you certainly can help me be clearer in expressing and defining them.

Tell me of your sources for the discrediting of Christianity and I'll try to check them out (though as a father of four kids under seven time is pretty much at a premium these days). I get a kick out of the JW line, "When you have the truth you don't need to look elsewhere." I ascribe to the idea that "the truth can take on all honest arguments." All truth is God's truth, so to speak. I assume we both have experienced the tricks and deceptions of ideas pretending to be the truth that closer investigation revealed first the bias, then the deception. So I doubt either of us will let go of an idea we hold to be true without some pretty substantial evidence. I might suggest you read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis (HarperSanFransisco), and "Warranted Christian Belief" by Alvin Plantinga (Oxford University Press). Another book you might find interesting is "How the Irish Saved Civilization" by Thomas Cahill (Doubleday). Cahill's book is a rather unique approach to the fall of the Roman Empire and the beginning of Medieval Europe.

Ethics is far too important to be tied to fairy tales.


Again I'm working backwards. That is to say I didn't give ethics too much thought until after I encountered God, and now by naturally presupposing God I'm not that adept at constructing arguments that don't presuppose His existence. But there is one thing never explained to my satisfaction. If there is no God, then really, aren't ethics simply rules made by men? And if one comes to realize that ethics are a product of natural forces with no ultimate judge, can't one just do whatever they can reasonably get away with and laugh at any thought or charge that they are morally "wrong."

Imagine a 50 year old pervert who escapes from a sinking ship in a lifeboat with a pretty eight year old girl. They land on a desert island capable of sustaining them, and are never found. Would it be bad, immoral, wrong or evil if that man used the girl mercilessly to gratify his unchecked and inflamed sexual appetite? There is no society to base the ethical rules. He rules by virtue of his brute strength, intellect, and accumulated experience. She is a helpless victim, but innocent is just a word without meaning. Is the urge to think, "of course it is wrong for him to harm the child!" just a byproduct of my upbringing, perhaps influenced by my DNA? I think not.

Right and wrong existed before you or I were born and would exist if we never came to be. When we appeal to justice, we appeal to an outside thing. Something that is so strongly sensed to be self-evident that most people can't help but feel justifiably angered when they feel victimized, almost every day of their lives. Sure we seldom agree about what is just, and favor ourselves in our arguments, but we argue only because we believe there is such a thing as justice, and expect that other person to accept that there is too. But if there is nothing but nature, then as the lion eats the lamb, the rich can drive on the wrong side of the road or make use of the poor to produce body parts for harvesting if they can pull it off. It isn't "right and wrong" that will prevent the rich and powerful from getting their will done, but miscalculations in the exercise of their power and influence. If there were ever a reason for Roman authorities to create a religion to keep people in check, the realization that ethics without God is the death of ethics would be it, for when the broad population begins to believe nothing is really wrong, chaos doesn't seem far away.

"Imagine no religion. . .," croons John Lennon. I can imagine unrestrained sexual appetites, greed, the pursuit of pleasure and unchecked ambition being the driving force of the strong-willed and privileged. Revenge unchecked. Might makes right. The wealthy and powerful inherit the earth. Imagine.

Funny, but I kind of suspect that the TV evangelists are already there. You know, if there is no God, there's nothing to keep you from trying to convince as many people that think there is a God that you are the one with the secret to unlocking his power for our own personal use. That's a religion I can imagine doing without. God doing our will.

Finally (this is really eating into my sleep time), I get the impression Jesus has communicated to me that the way to fight false Christianity is not to give up, but to make every effort to be a source of true Christianity.


One could easily setup a test of this. Take two quarters and hermetically seal each one in a separate jar. Then have as many Christians as you like pray over one of the jars for the coin to flip over. If it flips, then you've got yourself a whole army of new believers. If it doesn't flip, then pastors will be putting in some overtime "reinterpreting" such plain passages as Jn 15:16.


I think the idea God is trying to convey is for our will to align with His. The logical ramifications of being able to manipulate God are not that attractive. And you have a second problem. If God flips the coin you might have an army of believers, but not an army of people who've sought out God and desire to belong to Him. Rather an army of opportunists who, realizing God is real, want to be on His side. I don't think that is what He is interested in. An itelligent, well-bred, beautiful girl with every good attribute wouldn't just drop her dress at the first advance of a suiter. Why should we expect the God of the Universe to respond to our lame advances? "Come on God, show yourself! Flip a coin, then I'll believe!" The one who see's the maiden's beauty and guesses her worth will not easily be deterred. The closer he gets, the more he realises his hopes for her character are real. And when he does get the girl his love has been improved by the efforts to overcome the obstacles. And she is pleased at his sacrifices to pursue her, and his recognition of her virtue and worth.
(Song of songs) "All night long on my bed I looked for the one my heart loves; I looked for him but I could not find him. . .
When I found the one my heart loves, I held him and would not let him go. . ."

If there was a "creator," then "he" had no concept of love, mercy, or forgiveness (as is evinced by "his" "creation"). Therefore it would be incorrect to believe in a "God of love" who is the creator.


Did he not create humans? Would not the universal human qualities of love, mercy, forgiveness, beauty, etc., represent evidence of something god-like in humans?

In any case, two wrongs don't make a right. I'm surprised that you even attempted to justify such things. Most Christians will simply use the excuse: "Oh, the people who committed those atrocities weren't the REAL Christians."


I don't think I intended to justify any atrocities purported to have been committed by Christians. It is perhaps lamely that I've tried to hint at the idea that in history there is this element of Christianity that has worked to bring profound changes for the good of all mankind, and hint at what I think, which is that Christianity suffers a public relations problem being pretty much the enemy forces on this earth. And though it may be overused and abused, that doesn't make it false. If There is a God, and Jesus is the way and all that, then does it not stand to reason there would be both real sincere Christians in all ages and opportunists who use Christianity as yet another means of achieving their own desires? Not that I go around trying to decide who is and isn't a real Christian, but I can pretty confidently assert that I am a real Christian and some who attend my church are not really all that interested in God. We have a vastly different approaches as to what is permissible and what is not. Since the general public lumps us all together I'm sure History is not likely to make any distinction between us.

Why would it want us to give up what it gave us? It sounds like you're asking me to join a "kingdom" of zombies or puppets.


What do you possibly think you could give God? Love, worship and obedience are real gifts, with meaningful value. Maybe "giving up" our will is incorrect and I should say "aligning our will to God's," which made for the likes of Moses, Noah, Abraham, Daniel, and John the Baptist. Hardly Zombies or puppets. You want zombies and puppets? Look around you at the vast majority of people who, myopically striving to have their own way have been sucked in and are led by their noses with hardly any ability to choose anything for themselves. Easiest example would be a drug addict, but I work with those who can't bring themselves to tell their boss anything but silly lies they think will gain them favor. Their economic situation has turned them into puppets and zombies. I personally know film industry luminaries who live in constant fear of "falling" out of favor and it colors every thought. And dude, you should see the JW's that come a calling at my house. I know you'd argue that they are just trying to do God's will like I claim for myself, but whatever they're doing, I never saw a group more likely to be described as puppets and zombies. I once asked Tessie ( a 20+ year witness) if she ever wanted to be free and I thought for just a fraction of a second. . ., before the eyes clouded over and she went back to, "Why look for the truth when I already have it?"


R. S. - servant of Jesus (I would not let him go)





R.,

My experience with Christians in forums on the web has been similar to yours with atheists. When they run out of arguments (which doesn't take long) they resort to insults. When they run out of insults they resort to threats of eternal punishment for unbelievers.

But such lack of civility, of course, can't be used in deciding where the truth lies. (Especially since it occurs - in different guises -- on both "sides"). It just clouds the real issues.

That's why I think it's valuable (and a welcome relief) for you and I to have this extended discussion in a non-threatening way. Obviously we have "agreed to disagree," but that doesn't mean we can't learn from each other and maybe get a little deeper insight into each other's and our own views. I don't claim to have the absolute last word on the truth. I am still open to new ideas, and honest criticisms of the ones that I have tentatively decided seem to be true.

I enjoy "talking" with you because when you make your points it doesn't feel like you are wringing your hands with diabolical laughter, boasting, "Now have I squashed the infidel!"

With your kind permission, I would like to put our correspondence on my website (under "Interesting mail from visitors"). I will only use your initials. Let me know if you have a problem with this.

"Well, I did that. I got no response. Case closed."

Okay, that was meant to be a bit of humor. I knew you wouldn't consider the case closed. I was surprised that you asked me to try the experiment, but it said to me that you sincerely believed that something would come of it. Which tells me that you aren't hypocritical in your belief.

"Coin Flips"

Yes, the standard Christian reply to this is that such experiments would be "testing God" and would be "walking by sight rather than by faith". But until such tests are performed, all the talk about religion being compatible with science won't hold much weight with me. Science is all about proving hypotheses by testing them. Without it, any statement could be accepted, and gullibility runs rife.

For instance, I can claim that I believe in Widget, and I want you to believe in Widget too. But in order to believe in Widget you need to ask me what it is. I tell you that it is an invisible wish-granter (the spirit of an ancient Scottish Highlander) who gives me whatever I wish for. Do you believe me yet? Hopefully not. Now you ask me to PROVE that Widget exists: "Wish for something," you say, "and let's see if you get it." But I tell you: "No, I can't do that. That violates the rules. But I know he exists because he has answered my wishes in the past." Do you believe me yet? If you do, let me present you with a new quandary: my brother walks into the room and says, "Has he been giving you that bull about Widget again? Don't listen to him. Widget is false and those who follow him are doomed. The real wish-granter is Boozla, to whom all must submit their will. All glory to Him!"

Without some way of testing the claims people make, we are at their mercy. Excluded from this quandary are direct revelations (since they don't filter in through other humans). But direct revelations are really only valid for those who experience them, since there are contradictory direct revelations and no criteria for choosing between them (other than: "whom do you trust?")

When "direct revelations" take on the flavor of the culture in which they occur, it leaves me suspecting that it was a product of the culture, rather than of divine origin. Now, if a person in India, born and bred in Hinduism, who had never even heard of Christianity, suddenly had a vision of Jesus: THAT would attract my attention.

You dread the thought of imagining that there's no heaven, no hell below us, above us only sky... You think people will pursue pleasure and abandon their morals. But, as you say: "Right and wrong existed before you or I were born and would exist if we never came to be." They also existed long before Christianity was born, and would exist if it never came to be.

Imagine a world without religion: no September 11th tragedy; no more car bombings between Irish Catholics and Protestants; a much better chance of compromise resolving the Mid-East conflicts as the players give up the notion that "God gave them the land"; Hindu women go on to lead productive lives after their husbands die instead of having to jump onto the funeral pyre; overpopulation comes under control as Catholics start practicing birth-control; no more abortion-clinic bombings; former Christians stop abusing animals (in veal crates, factory farms, etc.) as they realize that God did not "give them the animals to use"; guilt, depression, and suicide drop dramatically as people stop beating their breasts endlessly repeating what "worthless sinners" they are; and best of all: no more Jehovah's Witnesses knocking at your door, and no televangelists appearing on your TV!

Religion has been behind most of the wars throughout history. When it hasn't been the cause of a particular war, it has been used in support of it. Just as Muslims are told that they will go instantly to heaven if they die while killing non-believers. That is why John Lennon, as a peace activist, could clearly see that only without religion, jingoism, and greed, would peace ever come to earth. I like what he had to say so much better than the one who said, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword".

Morality does not require God anymore than children require Santa Claus in order to behave. There are better reasons to behave, and truer motivations. But telling a child, "If you don't behave, Santa won't bring you anything for Christmas," is so much easier than explaining the truth. So too with the Romans: it was much easier to keep people in line with the promise of a blissful afterlife and the threat of eternal punishment than to man a police state over such a vast empire.

My own personal philosophy is based on empathy. It's simple, and it works.

"The pervert and the young girl on the deserted Island"

Your point here, as I take it, is that right and wrong exist apart from society, and so must've been created by God. I agree with the first part. Societies can stray at times, sometimes for many years, but eventually the human heart tugs society back towards morality. It is empathy that does this. Empathy is what causes me to hurt when I see the hurt of another (and thus keeps me from hurting another, and makes me attempt to help someone who is hurt or unhappy). Empathy is what makes my heart sing when I see someone happy (and thus motivates me to try and make others happy). Is empathy selfish? Well, yes. But no more so than wanting to do good in order to go to heaven, or to please one's maker so as to enjoy a feeling of love with "him".

Where did empathy come from? I think it evolved from maternal instincts. I don't think it is limited to the human species, but I think we may have fine-tuned it and extended it more than most other species until it blossomed into love. But this might just be due to my own ethnocentrism and ignorance of the intimacy that occurs in other species.

So, back to our deserted island. Let's replace the pervert with an average Joe who has a normal sexual drive for a man of 50 (strong, I'm hoping, though I don't know quite yet). How does he handle the situation? Well, let's get real here: let's each take a turn on that island (I could use a break from this Minnesota winter)... You first:

R.: "Okay, God forbids me from touching this girl, and God is watching every move I make. I will show God my self-control and goodness by taking care of this girl, and never touching her, until the day we are rescued. God must've arranged for me to get shipwrecked with her so that she'd have a protector. It's a good thing some atheist didn't get saved with her instead. Thank you, God! I'd better pray first, and ask God's blessing, and then I'll start to build us some shelter."

Okay, my turn:

Steve: "She's afraid. I must console her. I will have to be like a father to her and protect her. That will be my first priority, and getting us off this island will be my second. I will find ways to make her happy and less lonely. She will be my life. (Of course I will never think of her in a sexual way.) No doubt a believer would be thanking God for having saved his life right about now: arrogantly overlooking the many who have died in the shipwreck. What kind of blessing did THEY get from God? I know that prayers aren't going to help our situation: only hard work. I'll start building us some shelter right now."

In the end, the little girl would be safe with either one of us. I think religion would be your first line of defense (against wrongdoing), but I think that if you stripped religion away from you, then you would find empathy (as in my case) as a deeper layer underneath and a fully adequate defense.

Now let's extend the scenario and see where we might differ. We are both married men. But we've been on the island for 10 years now, and we haven't seen a boat or a plane in all that time. The chances of ever getting off the island are slim to none.
The "little girl" is now 18, and her hormones are raging. Of course you have grown to love each other, but it has been as the love of a father towards a daughter. Now she wants to make a baby to keep her company after you're gone. Like Lot's daughters she has concluded that there are no other men in her world.

R.: "God forbids me from touching her. My marriage is sacred. If she will be alone after I die, then that is God's will. We might get rescued tomorrow, and then how would I face my wife, having gotten this girl pregnant? I will not violate God's laws."

Steve: "The situation is different now from when we first landed on this island. She is now old enough to make such decisions. She may never know physical love. She will be alone after I die. How horrible for her! I can make her happy (short-term and long-term) by making love to her. If we ever get rescued, surely my wife would understand. I will not selfishly cling to a personal standard that makes me "righteous" while making her miserable."

Pardon me for putting words in your mouth (I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong). But my point is that empathy and religion can sometimes disagree. That's where I have a problem with religion: it can usurp the role of empathy and lead to the wrong action being considered the right thing to do. In extreme cases, religion is one of the few things that can completely overrule empathy and lead people to do all sorts of horrendous actions in its name. Think of the Inquisitions, witch burnings, and Sept. 11th.

So, no, ethics are not "just rules made by men". They stem from empathy, deep within. The Bible, on the other hand, is "just rules made by men." For that reason it is not as flexible (and thus, not as able to cope with day-to-day reality) as empathy.

You wrote: "


"aligning our will to God's," which made for the likes of Moses, Noah, Abraham, Daniel, and John the Baptist. Hardly Zombies or puppets."


Trust me: you really don't want to get me started on the "heroes of the Bible." But let's take just one of your examples: Abraham. Was he a puppet or zombie? Absolutely! He's a perfect example of religion usurping the role of empathy and leading to a horribly bad choice! If I heard a voice claiming to be God, and telling me to kill my son, I might check into a psychiatric ward, but I definitely would not attempt to murder my son! Remember the "Son of Sam" killer? He heard voices telling him to kill people too. Did we make him a "hero"? No, we locked him up. That would've been a good fate for Abraham as well.

My skin crawls when I hear of Sunday School teachers relating the story of Abraham and Isaac to their charges. What values are they teaching other than to be a puppet of God? And, of course, those in authority (who were "put there by God") will act as "God's voice" in the future. Yes, that's raising a generation of puppets and zombies.

Abraham utterly failed the test. He let religion override empathy. He blindly followed whatever God told him to do, even when it was obviously immoral. He adopted the same attitude as the Nazi's ("I was just following orders") and the terrorists of today ("God has ordered us to kill non-believers").

******

As for a good book on the subject of Jesus being a myth (and the Roman connection), I recommend "
The Christ Conspiracy" by Acharya S. This is available on Amazon.com, or follow the link from my site to hers for more info. There are a few other books on the subject (such as "The Jesus Mysteries").

--Steve




Steve,

You can use my name or initials if you wish, though I'd prefer not to publish my e-mail address. I would also prefer you used entire blocks of text and were careful not to extract something I might write without the context of our discussion or the full explanation. At any rate if you edit try to be fair. I'm sorry I'm not very concise. I'm trying to be, but these are pretty big subjects.

It is hard to argue the point about the problems of religion. I know how you feel about old "but they're not really Christians" claim, but. . . (they're not really Christians)

I know you think Jesus was misguided and perhaps really a messed up guy because twice you've quoted his comment, "I didn't come to bring peace, but a sword. . . " I suspect it is a quote you first learned to hate because the JW's use it to justify their defenseless shunning and disfellowshipping practices, and it also becomes one of the hooks that separates the new JW recruits from their family members who are aghast at their involvement with a "cult" and try and talk them out of it. And this may surprise you, but I do think you have a better idea about the things Jesus said (or as you might say, purportedly said) than a lot of casual Christians and people of other faiths who claim some affinity with Jesus' teachings. Unlike so many who think Jesus was a really nice guy and wise religious leader, a clear understanding of the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels and preached by Paul and the disciples reveals a figure with the biggest ego ever recorded in human history. If Jesus is not "One with the Father," then he is making a claim that ruins all of his credibility. Let's look at a few of the claims of Jesus that are outrageous: "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away." "Go, sell everything you have and give it to the poor and then you will have treasure in heaven, then come and follow me." "If anyone would come after me he must take up his cross and follow me, for whoever loses his life for me and the gospel will save it." While I could go on, this one pretty much seals it: "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. . ."

Excuse me?

No matter what silly ideas are floating around in the minds of most people, at least you've figured out that Jesus does not (or the writers of the New testament do not) leave any neutral ground for people to stand on. He either is who he claims to be, or he is the biggest ego and/or greatest fraud ever. Period.

C. S Lewis points out that there is something very uncharacteristic about Jesus if he is a fraud with an oversized ego. Rather than mess it up, I'll just quote Lewis:

On one side clear, definite moral teaching. On the other, claims which, if not true, are those of a megalomanic, compared with whom Hitler was the most sane and humble of men. There is no halfway house and there is no parallel in other religions. If you had gone to Buddha and asked him, "Are you the son of Bramah?" he would have said, "My son, you are still in the vale of illusion." If you had gone to Socrates and asked, "Are you Zeus?" he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohammed and asked, "Are you Allah?" he would have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucious, are you heaven?" I think he probably would have replied, "Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste." The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic suffering from that sort of delusion which undermines the whole mind of man. If you think you are a poached egg, when you are looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you. We may note in passing he was never regarded as a mere moral teacher. He did not produce that effect on any of the people who actually met him. He produced mainly three effects-Hatred-Terror-Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval. (end Lewis quote)

Either Jesus is the Son of God who has been given all authority in heaven and earth, or the whole Christian thing is poo.

Now I have seen religion used to justify some pretty horrible things, and not just in history books. I think I already mentioned that the worst betrayals and back stabbing in my own life has been done by "Christians." I have seen people whose desire for power, influence, wealth, prosperity, personal peace, and comfort have used Christianity very cleverly to obtain their goals. I suspect the same happens in almost every culture with every religious system. But if Christianity is defined as those actually doing the will of Jesus, and it turns out renouncing greed, seeking humility, living for others, valuing justice, showing mercy, having forgiveness, and loving your neighbor are placed over personal ambitions- if these are the things which are clearly defined as what Jesus taught, did, and expected of his disciples, then we can well say there are obviously "sheep" and "goats" in the fold. And from what I've seen of the ones I know to be using Christianity to achieve their own personal ambitions, the history of evil done in the name of religion is not really surprising. What I do find a little confusing is the idea that if everybody dropped all their religious beliefs it would create a better world. Do you mean to claim that the people who drop the idea of final judgment and afterlife and all that religion stuff are therefore going to be less greedy, less selfish, less ambitious, and less power hungry? It's sort of like saying that in the whole history of our city the police have been corrupt and evil and used their power and authority for their own evil purposes, if we could just get rid of all policemen, everything would be okay. I'm thinking if more people who claim obedience to the will of God actually did obey the will of God, the world would benefit. In fact I'd like to see more doing and less claiming.

If everyone decided there was no such thing as the will of God, then it logically follows that it is our own will that is primary, and we each set our own standards for right and wrong. I think anyone who imagines everyone doing what is right in their own eyes would be an improvement is in a serious state of denial.

My own personal philosophy is based on empathy. It's simple, and it works.


What if I say, "so what if your own personal philosophy is empathy. It might work for you, but I prefer the philosophy of looking out for myself, number one. If you have what I want and you can't stop me from getting it, Hasta la vista, baby!! " The problem with everyone having their "own, personal philosophy" is there is noting you can say to Hitler or anyone else except that they are wrong according to your system. And just who are you to tell anyone else what their personal philosophy ought to be? As I understand your position you ascribe to a relative system of morality. And as much as I try to follow you, your term "empathy" is so broad and general I'm not sure how it would apply in most moral choices.

Where did empathy come from? I think it evolved from maternal instincts.

Allright. I don't doubt your general character could be described and one who has empathy. I fits with the tone of your arguments which is about all I have to go on. But please tell me how a feeling evolved from maternal instincts has any real authority to make one choice right and another choice wrong. It can't. It doesn't. Wrong is reduced ultimately to something like "counter to the instinct of human survival". Now that may be the ultimate truth, but as more people come to see that right and wrong are relative and ultimately up to them, I doubt general empathy will be the predominant result.

The Bible, on the other hand, is "just rules made by men." For that reason it is not as flexible (and thus, not as able to cope with day-to-day reality) as empathy.


Well, empathy is certainly flexible. I caught how you came to redefine your marriage vows on the desert island, and it wasn't wrong to do so, in fact it was right in the name of empathy. Practically speaking, I've seen over and over again how people's resolve to do right dissolves under temptation, and usually before giving over to doing what is wrong, they redefine what they want to do as-well, not wrong, and perhaps even the best thing. "After all," claims the man who has abandons his family, "better to be away than to keep them all in misery. I'm doing it for them."

I don't think the bible is just "rules by men." I think it is the stories of men who had a close relationship with God. I hold that a relationship with God is what the bible and all of life is intended to accomplish. "Walking" with Him so to speak, means that in every situation, in every hard choice, in every temptation, I have the ability to go to Him, inquire of Him, and seek His help before choosing, knowing He certainly knows what is right. And reading about the boneheaded choices of the people in the bible there is the greatest freedom of knowing I don't have to get it right every time, as long as I don't give up. And in trying to draw near to God I learn about myself and I learn about Him. You could say it is sort of a dance. At first it's awkward and ugly with a lot of stepping on toes, but eventually I learn the basic steps. And after knowing the basics, we progress on to creatively and beautifully moving through the choices of life, God leading and me following, though occasionally I'm "free" only to come back together right in step and on time.

Those religious types that bother you so much are the ones that want a rule book, and they LOVE the bible for that very reason. They have a belief in God, but have no real interest in doing God's will. They hope to discover the "rules" in order to do what they want and get what they want and not be guilty of breaking the rules. Because they claim to know God, obey the "rules" in public, and smugly point their fingers at everyone who breaks the rules, they have an appearance of having fellowship with God. Don't let them stand in the way.

I was in Thailand shooting some film footage for a movie about the Burma-Siam "Death Railway." The treatment of prisoners by the Japanese and the mortality rate were well beyond what the Nazi's were guilty of. Over 30% died. Men who were too weak to work or too sick were considered a waste of food and starved, shot or worse (to help "motivate"). The Japanese guards hated the conditions, and they were brutal beyond description, making it hell on earth for everyone. We were staying in a hotel on the Kwai river near the famous "Bridge over the River Kwai". One of our party spoke passable Japanese and in the lobby overheard a conversation with a group of older Japanese men at another table. It turned out that among them was the chief engineer of the railway for that area and of course, the bridge. The people I was working for talked them into an interview, and it was a little surreal. We went down on the river to a floating bar that was part of the hotel. After discussing how hard it was to build the bridge under the "conditions," and then how proud he was that after all the many times the bridge was bombed it stands to this day essentially as he designed it, I pressed the one doing the interview to ask if he (the engineer) would do anything different considering the cost in human life and suffering. Now understand we all knew that this guy's rank and meant he was certainly aware of, and probably very much personally responsible for decisions resulting in the atrocities. It would be like a member of the SS going back to Dachau with some buddies to show them the ovens he helped build. And it was interesting to note this man was currently a wealthy, powerful engineer and the head of a huge company that builds bridges and buildings in Japan and all over the world. But interestingly when pressed as to if he thought that what they did was "wrong," he pretended not to understand the question, and then finally said, "We were following orders. When you are a soldier you follow orders."

"Is there ever a time when you should not follow orders?" I asked our guy to ask.

"You could not, not follow orders. We would have been killed."

"Are there any orders that are so wrong that it would be better to die than to obey them?" I pressed.

"Soldiers follows orders. That is what a soldier does. A soldier does not question orders. I don't understand the question."

"Looking back do you think that the orders should have been followed if it meant starving and torturing people in order to build a railroad that ended up useless?"

At that point they were offended and ended the interview. In fact, at that point the one doing the interview that I had been feeding the questions to was mad at me for being so aggressive, for I knew where my questions were leading before he figured it out, and he hadn't wanted to be so confrontational. But during the interview I had come to the firm conclusion that they all spoke and understood English, and were only using their translator as a buffer and to pretend not to understand the questions if it suited them. And in light of the situation, I wasn't interested in sparing the feelings of proud wealthy men who had no remorse for actions that they should have been tried for just like the Nazis.

"Do you believe in God?" I asked as they were walking away. Everyone was mad at me at this point.

"I believe in many gods," one of them said in perfect English. The others chuckled, both at his quip and because he'd dropped the pretense.

"Which God has the authority to issue orders that cannot be questioned?" I replied. For one split second, his eyes met mine.

But direct revelations are really only valid for those who experience them, since there are contradictory direct revelations and no criteria for choosing between them (other than: "whom do you trust?")


I would argue that the question of "whom do you trust?" is a lot bigger than most people dream. When I read C.S. Lewis I sense an honesty and humility, as well as a brilliant and educated mind. And I have to tell you, I look at those "horror stories" in the bible and find them confusing, but at the same time a pretty good indication that the writers were not afraid to tell it like it was. So many things in the bible would have played better if only "doctored" a little, but the clearly the writers (and copiers) recorded the good, the bad, and the ugly. And there is the evidence of personal encounters with the people we come in contact with. I know a few people who have an obvious relationship with God that I almost envy (except a common thread is that they've suffered a great deal more than I). If the only Christians I'd ever met were Larry and Terre Owen's it would be hard for me to honestly dispute the powerful connection between their confession of love for Jesus and the proof of they way they live their lives. My sister Shari and her husband Kent with their seven children, (Kelsey, Nathan, Charis, Isaac, Suzanna, Titus, and Addy) -seven kids who are sincerely polite, sincerely obedient, yet a delight to be around. They couldn't care less about being a "testimony," but they are. I could go on, but instead I'll draw the distinction. I went to CBN University (founded by M.G "Pat" Robertson) and met plenty of those who use Christianity to serve their own interests. And I've spent years working in the entertainment industry among shallow "friends" who gauge every relationship on the basis of whether you can get them farther up the ladder or not. And because I'm pretty vocal about my faith, I've listened to plenty of those with an ax to grind rail about Christianity. By the way, as one in the entertainment industry I've had a pretty good look at how honest and trustworthy the producers of the films, TV shows, commercials, and songs that hold the greatest part of our cultures attention. You might want to turn off your TV.

Finally, another testimony. My own first prayer of sincerity was an admission that I was not able to follow through. I asked God in advance to help me because I knew when my buddies fired up a joint I was going to give up. I knew when my girlfriend came around I was going to give up. I knew it. So I pleaded, "You gotta help me!"

Well, I had told everyone I knew about God and nobody wanted me around. One night I was alone and crying in the basement of my parents house with all the lights out. I could hear the laughter of girls on the street and the zoom of cars filled with the people I knew partying and looking for fun and trouble. "Is this it?" I asked God. (more like complained) "The people who don't give you a thought get to have fun and I get to be alone?"

"But you have me, " God seemed to say.

I went into my bedroom and lay on my bed in the dark. Pretty soon there was a tap-tap-tap at the window. Understand this was a basement window. Not only were the window wells deep, they were covered with evergreen bushes and not even visible from outside the house. I got up and opened the window and there was Rod Siedel, a friend I'd been bugging like everyone else. The first words he spoke were, "God told me to tell you He loves you." I couldn't do anything but cry and poor Rod thought he'd done something wrong.

I mentioned that there were events in my life that even a hardened skeptic would have to admit that if random natural forces were all there is behind the cause and effect of the universe, I've been randomly selected to experience events that would cause any sane person to conclude God is real and involved in my life. Since I am so deluded (unless of course God has and does work in my life), I'm fool enough to think God isn't through with you. Not by a long shot.

R. - servant of Jesus


Hi R.,

You wrote:

He either is who he claims to be, or he is the biggest ego and/or greatest fraud ever. Period.

C. S Lewis points out that there is something very uncharacteristic about Jesus if he is a fraud with an oversized ego...Either Jesus is the Son of God who has been given all authority in heaven and earth, or the whole Christian thing is poo.
Obviously, I opt for the "poo." I would alter the either/or slightly to include some other options:
  1. Jesus is who he claimed to be.
  2. Jesus was a fraud with an oversized ego.
  3. Jesus never said the things that others attributed to him in the Bible.
  4. Jesus was a fraud invented by others.
In my opinion, the evidence points to option 4.

It's interesting that you feel that if Jesus were not the son of God, then he would've been displaying a giant ego. What then do you think of the current saying "What would Jesus do?" (WWJD) In which Christians are encouraged to picture Jesus in their own situation and act as they think he would act. Are we all to have giant egos? You might argue that: Jesus was the son of God: we're not, so we are not to follow his example. But then why does he say, "You are all sons of God" (John 1:12; Rom, 8:14) and "follow me" (Mark 8:34)?


What I do find a little confusing is the idea that if everybody dropped all their religious beliefs it would create a better world. Do you mean to claim that the people who drop the idea of final judgment and afterlife and all that religion stuff are therefore going to be less greedy, less selfish, less ambitious, and less power hungry?


Yes, I do. Unlike Christianity's negative view of people, I think they are basically good. Empathy lies deep in everyone's heart: put there by evolution to help ensure the survival of the species (rather than the individual). There are only a few things which can usurp the rightful place of empathy and cause people to act against the interests of humanity as a whole. Religion is on the top of that list.

You have given me many examples of Christians displaying all the bad traits you listed above. Of course you'll argue that they're not "real" Christians. But that doesn't put them over in my camp either! My point is that whether or not they are following Christianity "properly," they are ignoring empathy, and their religion provides a convenient excuse for that.

How could a Christian own slaves? The Bible says it is perfectly okay, and tells slaves to be "obedient" to their "masters" even if their masters are cruel! How can a Christian chain a calf inside a too-small stall so that it can't even stand up its entire life (in order to create "veal": a high-priced commodity). I have heard a Christian veal farmer state, "God gave me the animals to use." How can Christians support this practice by continuing to purchase veal? Simple: the Bible gives them the green-light, and they listen to the Bible instead of their own sense of empathy.

How could the Nazis (the vast majority of whom were church-going Christians) engage in the genocide of the Jews? Simple: the Bible relates that the Jews were instrumental in killing Jesus, and proclaimed: "Let his blood be upon us and our children." (Mt. 27:25) In other words, they were "Christ killers," just as the Nazi propaganda posters proclaimed. The Christians felt that they were carrying out just vengeance upon them.

Catholics can engage in any shady business practices they like, as long as they go to confession afterwards and get absolved. Though, how this helps bring restitution to their victims is unclear.

Born-again Christians can do whatever they like (as one of them has explained to me) because they are "saved".

So, where's the morality in religion? Your Japanese engineers had their religion, too. It didn't make them moral. In fact, it only bolstered the idea that what they were doing was unavoidable; they perceived a hierarchy to the universe with God (or Gods) at the top, their rulers next in line, and the soldiers underneath them. This is no different than Christianity (with God: angels: [the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests,] laymen, and laywomen at the bottom). The Bible tells us that all of those in power were put there by God, and it is our duty to obey them. So the Nazis were just being good Christians according to the Bible.


I'm thinking if more people who claim obedience to the will of God actually did obey the will of God, the world would benefit. In fact I'd like to see more doing and less claiming.


The problem with people "obeying the will of God" is: who decides what the "will of God" is? Most people don't claim to hear God's voice telling them what to do. So, they trust their priest, pastor, minister, pope, televangelist, "governing body", or whoever they think knows what God's will is. Since these prelates contradict each other, it follows that many people have surrendered their will to mere humans. Then they are at the mercy of the whims of those who claim to know God's will. That is how tragedies like Jamestown occur. On a less extreme scale, it is still slavery of the mind.

If everyone decided there was no such thing as the will of God, then it logically follows that it is our own will that is primary, and we each set our own standards for right and wrong. I think anyone who imagines everyone doing what is right in their own eyes would be an improvement is in a serious state of denial.


Well, whether you like it or not, everyone does set their own standards for right and wrong. It's just that some people decide to adopt a full ready-made set of standards (usually from a religion), while others decide right and wrong point by point. Either way, a personal decision is made. It's like the difference between ordering an entrée which comes with a preset list of additional items, and ordering a la carte. Either way, the choice is ultimately the customer's.

This does not mean that whatever anyone decides to do is "right". It means that, ultimately, what they decide is right is a personal choice. There's no getting away from that.

I have chosen the idea of empathy as my "personal view" of what makes actions right or wrong. That doesn't mean that any action anyone wants to do is "right". It means that I think any action can be weighed against the idea of empathy to determine if it is, in fact, right.


What if I say, "so what if your own personal philosophy is empathy. It might work for you, but I prefer the philosophy of looking out for myself, number one.


This question indicates to me that you've missed my point. I never said that all philosophies are equally valid. I think "ethics through empathy" is by far the best. But I'm not so egotistical that I would say all other philosophies are garbage. I'm somewhere between those two extremes. Someone else might say "love is the basis of all ethics". I would have no problem with that (it's basically just a rewording of my own philosophy). My point is that everyone, ultimately, makes up their own mind (either choosing to create their own philosophy of life, or choosing to adopt a ready-made one). But this fact in no way should be construed to mean that everyone's philosophy of life is equally valid!

But please tell me how a feeling evolved from maternal instincts has any real authority to make one choice right and another choice wrong. It can't. It doesn't.


I believe I've already explained this, though throwing the word "authority" into your request perplexes me. Religion uses authority as the basis for ethics. It is the idea of "authority" dictating right and wrong which causes the atrocities we have been discussing.

My system does not rely on authority. My system relies on a direct relationship (one-on-one) with the universe. Its feedback system is immediate: I feel happy when I make others happy, I feel hurt when I cause others pain. So I tend to act in ways that bring happiness to others, and alleviate their pain. No Latin, no Greek, no Hebrew, no pouring over ancient documents, no Papal Infallibility, no endless debates about whether God is a Trinity, or if the flames of hell are real, or how to get to heaven, or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin... None of that. It's so simple that people tend to dismiss it as inconsequential. But it's not inconsequential: it is the true basis of morality.

You worry about people "looking out for number one" and all that that might imply. A person who has experienced a strong feeling of empathy (and thus, connectedness to the universe) will seek this joy above all others. To take one example: he or she will not be greedy because he will know (first hand) that it is more blessed to give than to receive. He or she will seek to avoid the misery caused (to others, and hence to him/herself) by greed, and will seek instead the happiness he or she feels when the act of giving arouses happiness in another's heart.

I feel that religion is a poor and dangerous substitute for this. I disagree with the Roman idea that people are basically evil and stupid and must be controlled by fairy tales about an afterlife, meted out by some ultimate authority (so that the smart, rich rulers can live a life of ease without worrying about rebellion).

No, people are basically good. If you remove the authority over them (which has time and time again ordered them to commit atrocities), then, yes, the world would be a better place. You wouldn't have religious rulers telling people to go kill other people in wars ("holy" or otherwise), or to torture heretic's bodies to "save their souls" (Okay, that hasn't happened in a while, but that's only because secular power was taken away from Christianity). Strip away religion, and empathy would regain its rightful place in the world. There would be no more wars.


I got up and opened the window and there was xxx, a friend I'd been bugging like everyone else. The first words he spoke were, "God told me to tell you He loves you."


I am not going to dispute your personal experiences (that seems rude to me.) I would just say that it's possible that your friend was acting out of empathy for you and trying to be kind (rather than that God had spoken directly to him). If God had spoken directly to him, then why didn't God speak directly to you? Why use a second-hand messenger? So, anyway, that's just another possible way of looking at the incident.

© 2024 Steve McRoberts Contact me










This site is concerned with: ethics, compassion, empathy, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower, poetry, philosophy, atheism, and animal rights.